ML20055E491

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Draft Documents & Supporting Info Proposed for Plant Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties Re Release of Radioactive Liquid Effluents & Emergency Preparedness
ML20055E491
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre, Rancho Seco  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 05/01/1989
From: Andrea Johnson
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Axelrad J
NRC
Shared Package
ML20055C206 List:
References
NUDOCS 9007120037
Download: ML20055E491 (37)
v • d • e


Text

WM7

)

ey*g i

1 UNITED STAT 88 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS860N

]

naetow y q

m 1480 MARIA LANE, SulTE 210

)

\\e s

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 940s0 eee*

i I

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Jane Axelrad. Director 1

Enforcement Staff, IE t

FRON:

A. D. Johnson

. Enforcement Officer, RV

SUBJECT:

RANCHO SECO NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE LIQUID EFFLUENTS AND i

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS t

Enclosed are-draft documents and supporting information proposed for the i

subject matter.

After considering escalating and mitigating factors along with the safety aspects, we believe the grouping of the violations as two separate Severity i

Level III problems is appropriate without further escalation. Mitigation 4

seems to be unwarranted. The main message is that management had not in the past been successful in correcting problems.

We have also recognized in our consideration of this matter that mostly,-the managers responsible for these conditions have been replaced during the past year and that steps have been

.i taken-that should remedy the problem.

The Regional Administrator concurs with this action.

t i

l A. D. Johnson Enforcemect Officer i;

Enclosures As Stated l

I r

t 1

(

1-1 i

9007220037 900628

{DR ADOCK 0500 6

4

D~-

DRAFT APPENDIX A

/

l

/#

0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docket No. 50-312 P. O. Box 15830 License No. DpR-54 Sacramento, California 95813 f

i As a result of the inspection conducted during the period of April 1. throus May 15, 1986, and in accordance with NRC Enforcement Policy 10 CFR Part 2, I j

Appendix C, the following violations were identified.

j A.

Technical Specification 4.21., Liquid Effluents, requires in part that:

"The radioactivity content of each batch of radioactive. liquid waste to

{

be discharged shall be determined prior to release by sampling and i

analysis in accordance with Table 4.21-1..."

Table 4.21-1 requires in part

!?

.that each batch waste release tank be sampled prior to release and analyzed for Cs-134 and Cs-137.

Footnote (c) of Table 4.21-1 states in part:

"Other peaks which are measurable and identifiable, together with the listed nuclides, shall be identified and reported."

q Contrary to the.above requirement, on June 4, 1985, isotopic analysis of a batch of radioactive liquid waste (B RHUT 85-98) identif'ied measurable concentrations of Cs-137 (2.33 E-7 1 4.9 E-8 uCi/ml) which were not identified or reported on the Rancho Seco Radioactive Liquid Waste Release Permit 85-98 or in the Semiannual Effluent Release Report (RJR 85-491) for the period January 1 through June 30, 1985. Analyses a'

of releases on June 6, 1985 (85-99) and June 17, 1985 (85-110) also found measurable concentrations of Cs-137 which were identified but not s,

reported.

B.

10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section IV B. states:

s

-' I 14 e

,,m.,,

e

  • ~ ' "

t DRAFT

~

i "The licensee shall establish an appopriate surveillance and i

monitoring program tot i

1 1.

Provide data on quantities of radioactive material l

p releasei in liquid and gas.eous effluents to assure that the

'I provisions of paragraph A of this section are mets" (i

Contrarytotheaboverequirement,asofApril1,1986,a/appeepsent.a surveillance program was not established to provide data on quantities of

]

I radioactive material released in liquid effluents to assure that the i

provisions of paragraph A of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I are met l

C.

Technical Specification 3.17.2., Dose, states: "The dose or dose rj commitment to a member of the public from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released beyond the site boundary shall be limited:...

1 "b.

During any calendar year to 3 area to the total body and to 10 stem to any organ."

l Contrary to the above requirement, during calendar year 1985, f

radioactive materials in liquid effluents were released such that a i

member of the public could have received a total body dose in excess of e n cal pecif cations he do e c icul dfr 85 s ah i

licensee's offsite Dose Calculation Manual was 3.89 area'.

t i

D.

10 CFR part 50.59(a)(1) states:

"The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (1) make changes in the facility as

[

described in the safety analysis report. (ii) make changes in the j

> procedures as described in the safety analysis report. and (iii) i conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis

(

report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the teohnical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question."

r

51 DRAFT s

The updated FSAR submitted July 22, 1982 and subsequent amendments through July, 1985 provide information in section 11. Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protection that: "During normal plant operation, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Utation is designed l

not to release any liquid effluents containing radioactivity of I

plant origin to the environment. All potentially radioactive wastes are processed by degasification, filtration, domineralisation, and/or evaporation to remove radioactive and nonradioactive components. Radioactivity removed by these processes is retained within the filter cartridges and exchange resins and concentrated evaporated bottoms for offsite disposal in I

drums by an NRC-licensed disposal contractor."

q 4

r Contrary to the above requ ent f 1

procedures were [4 rom JanyaympYNen(ed U j, oug March 13, 1986, 3

radioactive water N pumped from the Dominera11:ed Reactor Coolant Storage Tank'(T-621) through a temporary conduit to ei herM i

Regeneration iloid up Tank (T-950 A or B) tuu. ultimate release o the environment,p evaluation was. performed to determine if a change I

in the Technical Specifications was required or if an unreviewed safety question seestTW87 (8 44 e P d df E

Technical.Spehification 6.8 " Procedures" states in part that, " Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintai*ned'. covering.the activities referenced belows

a. The applicable procedures recommend in Appendix 'Aof Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972." Regulatory Guide 1.33 November 1972, recommends in C. " Procedure.for control of p

s Radioactivity (Por Limiting Materials Released to Environment and

}

l.

Limiting Personnel Exposure)" that procedures for liquid radioactive l

waste system including discharging to effluents be developed.

[

1.

Contrary to the above requirement, from March 30,'1983 to January 6, 1986, and from March 6, 1986 through March 13, 1986, no l:

'(

+

.-m-

--.+,..+,..e-,.-r-.

-,.w-

--,,m.

2,m3,-

w-r

DRAFT procedure was maintained which controlled the transfer of radioactively contaminated water from the Domineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank (T-621) to the Regenerate Hold-Up Tanks (T-950 A and B) for ultimate release to the environment. During 1985, about-787.500 gallons were transferred from T-621 to T-950 A

.and B and released to the environment.

2.

Technical Specification 6.8.3 statest " Temporary changes to procedures 1

of 6.8.1 above may be made provided e

The intent of the original procedure is not altered...

a.

b.

The change is documented, reviewed by the PRC and approved'by.

the Plant Superintendent within seven (7) days of implementation."

I Contrary to the above requirement, on January 6 1986, a tem.worary j

change to Procedure A.10. " Demineralized Reactor Coolant Stotage System" was approved and implemented which allowed pumping water from T-621 to l

T-950 A and B for offsite release without review by the Plant Review l

Committee (PRC). From January 6, 1986 to March 6, 1986, the licensee estimates that about 350,000 gallons of water were transferred.

L The above violations have been categorized in the aggreg' ate as a l-Severity Level III problem (Supplement I) Civil Penalty $50,000.

3

\\

I l-i l.

l.

(_

i

(

1-L 1

o l

Y

mv%?

m ww m

a---

- - - - ----a

--a

-_.a-------.-r--,---+

i H.

10 CFR 50.71(e) Requires in part that each person license to operate a 1

nuclear power reactor shall annually update the final s ety analysis report (FSAR) to assure that the information include in the FSAR contains the latest material developed. The updat must be submitted to the NRC and shall contain all the changes neces ry to reflect information and analyses submitted '.o the Co.ssion by the, licensee or prepared by the licenses pursuant to Commi ion requirement since the submission of the original FSAR or, as a repriate, the last updated FSAR.

+

The updated FSAR submitted July 22, 19 and subsequent amendments through July,1985 provide informat n in Section 11. Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protection that:

ring normal plant operation, the i

Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating ation is designed not to release any -

liquid effluents containing r ioactivity of plant origin to the environment. All potential radioactive wastes are processed by degasification, filtratio., domineralization, and/or evaporation to remove radioactive and n-radioactive components. Radioactivity removed by these proce ses is retained within the filter cartridges and

[

exchange resins and oncentrated evaporated bottoms fcr offsite disposal

,1 in drums by an NRC iconsed disposal contractor."

Contrary to the bove, since 1983 the licensee has routinely released liquid efflue e containing radioactivity during normal ' plant operation and has not ubmitted an update to the FSAR to reflect this informatio.

i t

This is Severity Level IV Violation, Supplement I l

sr M

u'rg,,gAFT e aa.

1~

h 1.

Technical Specification 6.9.2.2, Annual Radiolonical Environments

.] !

Operatina Report, states in part that, " Routine radiological environmental operating reports covering the operation of t unit t

~

during the previous calendar year shall be suba1tted prio to May 1 of each year."

Contrary to the above requirement, the Annual Rad lotical Environmental Operatina Report for calendar year 198$ was not ubmitted prior to i

May 1, 1986. By letter dated April 30, 1986, he licensee informed NRC that the report will be submitted by May 30 1986.

o This is a Severity Level V Violation S pplement 1 c

J.

Technical Specification 6.9.2.3, Sytniannual Radioactive Effluent Release

[

Report states in part that:

3 "The radioactive efflue t release reports shall include a summary of the quantities of adioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste release from the unit as outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21, ' Measuring, valuating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid-t Wastes and Role ses of Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous:

Effluents fro Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,' with data summarized a quarterly basis, following the format of Appendix B thereof."

(

l-Contrary to the above requirement, the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release R ort submitted on March 3, 1986 did not accurately summarize h

the qua ities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste eleased from the unit during the period of July through December i

1985 as outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21.

w 11s is a Severity Level V Violation, Supplement I

~

i 5

l" L

\\-

m.

4.,

..s.._.._

n

]

L j

I "The licenses shall establish an appopriate surveillance and j

monitoring program tot j

1.

Provide data on quantities of radioactive material

)

released in liquid and gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions of paragraph A of this section are mett" J

Contrary to the above requirement, as of April 1, 1986, a surveillance program was not established to provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid effluents to assure that the provisions of paragraph A of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1 are met.

C.

Technical Specification 3.'27.2., Dose, states: "The dose or dose commitment to a member of the public from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released beyond the site boundary shall be limited:...

"b.

During any calendar year to 3 arem to the total body and to 10 mrom to any organ."

Contrary to the above requirement, during calendar year 1935, radioactive materials in liquid effluents were released such that a member of the pubite could have received a total body dose in excess ~of 3 mrom when calculated in accordance with the methods described in the

. Technical Specifications. The dose calculated for 1985 using the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual was 3.89 mrom.

II i

L D.

10 CFR Part 50.59(a)(1) states:

"The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (11) make changes.in the l.

procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change'in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unroviewed safety i

question."

I i

i I

The updated FSAR submitted July 22, 1982 and subsequent amendments through July, 1985 provide information in Section 11. Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protection that: "During normal plant operation, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is designed i

not to release any liquid effluents containing radioactivity of 5

plant origin to the environment. All potentially radioactive wastes are processed by degasification, filtration, I

dominera11sation, and/or evaporation to remove radioactive and nonradioactive components. Radioactivity removed by these processes is retained within the filter cartridges and exchange resins and concentrated evaporated bottoms for offsite disposal in drums by an NRC-licensed disposal contractor."

I i

o l

Contrary to the above requirement, from January 1983 through J

March 13, 1986, procedures and temporary system modifications were implemented and radioactive water was pumped from the Demineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank (T-621) through a temporary conduit to either Regeneration Hold-up Tank (T-950 A or B) and ultimately released to the environment, No evaluation was performed to

- I determine if a change in the Technical Specifications was required or if an unreviewed safety question was involved.

f E

Technical Specification 6.8 " Procedures" states in part that, " Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering the.

activities referenced belows

a. The applicable procedures recommend in 1l.

Appendix ?A' of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972." Regulatory Guide 1.33; November 1972, recommends in G. " Procedure for Control of l

l-Radioactivity (For Limiting Materials Released to Environment and j

Limiting Personnel F.xposure)" that procedures for liquid radioactive waste. system including discharging o effluents be developed.

1' E

1.

Contrary to the above requirement, from March 30, 1983 to T

January 6, 1986, and from March 6, 1986 through March 13, 1986, no p

s i

k 5

m y

0 i

procedure was maintained thich controlled the transfer of radioactively contaminated water from the Domineralised Reactor j

Coolant Storage Tank (T-621) to the Regenerate Hold-Up Tanks (T-950 A and B) for ultimate release to the environment. During I

1985, about 787.500 gallons were transferred from T-621 to T-950 A and B and released to the environment.

l 2.

Technical Specification 6.8.3 states: " Temporary changes to procedures of 6.8.1 above may be made provided:

i

.a.

The intent of the original procedure is not altered...

I b.

Th'e change is documented, reviewed by the PRC and approved by.

the Plant Superintendent within seven (7) days of implementation."

Contrary:to the above requirement, on January 6, 1986, a temporary l

change to Procedure A.10. "Demineralired Reactor Coolant Storage System"

]

was approved and implemented which allowed pumping water from T-621 to-T-950 A and B'for offsite release without review by the Plant Review a rt Committee (PRC). From January 6, 1986 to March 6, 1986, the licensee e

estimates that about 350,000 gallons of water were transferred.

lt The above violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a

' Severity. Level III problem (Supplement I) Civil Penalty $50,000.

e i

e h

a i

96?ip)N Q%, $

'IW 1

W JQ, _ :. v

.g y&~d ny,,

hu $

RANCHO SECO LIQUID EFFLUENT ISSUE.

w

m.

hM Prior 1975 Rancho Seco designed as a dry site.

W

-1975,- 1980 Operations resulted in the need to dispose of liquid 1

[f,

j radioactive waste. Wastes-were shipped by truck to

&[F
t' processors.

1 j

W 1980 - 1984 No longer able~to ship waste offsite.

Steam generator-O tube leaks resulted in liquid radioactive releases to Clay Creek.

U' Early 1984 Factor of 25 error found in offsite dose )rojection 1

computer code. Studies by the licensee (.LNL) and i

g$ N NRC(ORNL)findthewastewaterhasbeenusedfor

  • g irrigation, cattle and recreation. Dose calculations 0X,

-indicate hypothetical whole body exposure up to 185 W

mrem per year; however, no_real person is found to i

have received a dose in excess of the 25 mrem per year i

EPA-limit (40CFR190),

i July 21, 1984-10 CFR~ 50- Appendix I effluent Technical Specifications became. effective.

,: September 27, 1984 SMUD Special Report 84-07 acknowledges exposure in excess of Appendix I and describes action to limit future releases to within Appendix ! values. NRC finds no need to issue variance based on-licensee presentations.

8 I

March, 1985 1.5billiondollarclassactionclaimfiled(about250' claimants)..~ Class action was denied and a subsequent n

suit is, scheduled to enter the discovery phase shortly.

l 49 An additional suit by four individuals -was also filed and.is in the discovery phase.-

M July, 1985 Adjoining landowner files 10 million dollar claim. The i

p claim was subsequently settled out of court.

7[,

December 26, 1985 10vercooling shutdown.

June.6, 1986 NRC issues Special Ir.spection Report 50-312/86-15 which describes failure.of SMUD to properly measure and report

'L radioactive material in liquid effluents, failure to properly analyze and report design changes that pennitted 4

the discharge of liquid contain radioactive material from h

the demineralized reactor coolant storage tank to the Q,i '

environment which resulted in exceeding the Appendix !

O dose values for 1985, 39;<

mg Based on the inspection findings, the Office of hyM Investigations was asked to conduct a review of the matter.

hO

?

June'20, 1986 NRC held Enforcement Conference with SMUD.

m is y

o t

4 h

[h.6",.

g wa g

.1 a

,. y<.

t 4

, ;-' y-l,

, y,,. o l

.. };;,;j'^,

June 30, 1987 SMUD submitted proposed Technical Specification Amendment 155 to: rewrite-effluent Technical Specifications.

October 16, 1987' 01 Investigative Report sent to the, Department of Justice'.-

I SIW y+00Jdeclinestotake' action'inthiscase.

Jemeb 22'11988 October, 1988 NRC inspection identifies need for continued improvements in this area.

January 13,1989(

NRC issued NOV and proposed imposition of civil penalty for $100,000.

' January 17, 1989' An unplanned transfer of radioactively contamined resin reveals:several failures on the-part of operations to.

understand and execute the. level of formality necessary for the licensee to successfully control liquid effluents.

February 13, 1989L SMUD responded favorably to_ enforcement action.:

Mays 1989 SMUD continues to make improvements in the water management i

l area. The AppendixsI dose calculations forJ11guid effluents-t were approximately 50% of the. Technical' Specification limits for calendar year 1988.

i h

at L

a o

l 1

4 i

i

.5 t

9.

i 4

1

e

..x q

y, s){

Mf4y gg

^

y:

pll j

&Q.

b

?

1

.s RANCHO SECO LIQUID EFFLUENT ISSUE Prior 1975:

Rancho Seco designed as a dry site.

4 1975 - l'9801 Operations resulted in the need to dispose of liquid radioactive waste. Wastes were shipped by truck to processors.

YyM+ 1o44 No longer able to ship waste offsite.

Steam generator tub'e leaks resulted in liquid radioactive releases to-xy Clay Creek.

N/I Early.1984 f utor of 25 error found in offsite dose projection computer code. Studiesbythelicensee(LLNL)and NRC (ORNL) find the waste water has been used for irrigation, cattle and recreation. -Dose calculations indicate hypothetical whole body exposure up to 185 mrom per year; however, no_real person is found to

' have received a dose in excess of the 25. mrem per: year EPA'11mit(40CFR190).

July 21, 1984

'10 CFR 50 Appendix I effluent Technical Specifications' l

'became effective.

o September 27, 1984, SMUD Special Report 84-07 acknowledges exposure in excess q

of. Appendix ! and describes action to limit future 1'

releases to within Appendix I values. NRC finds no need-

,i to issue variance based on licensee presentations.

3.

4 March, 1985 1.5 billion dollar class action claim filed (about 250-d claimants). Class action was denied and a subsequent

.i suit is scheduled to enter the-discovery phase shortly.

a An-additional suit by four individuals was also filed-1 and.is in the discovery phase.

l July, 1985 Adjoining landowner files:10 million dollar claim. The claim was subsequently settled out of court.

5 December 26, 1985 Overcooling shutdown.

d June 6, 1986 NRC issues =Special Inspection Report 50-312/86-15 which describes-failure of SMUD to properly measure and report radioactive material in liquid effluents, failure to properlyianalyze and report. design changes that pemitted -

the discharge of liquid contain radioactive material from i

the demineralized reactor coolant storage, tank to'the environment which resulted in exceeding the Appendix I dose values for 1985.

Based on the inspection findings, the Office of Investigations was asked to conduct a review of the matter.

1 June 20, 1986 NRC held Enforcement Conference with SMUD.

L

t w:

(

's P

(

'e - -

hs t

2 June 30i 1987 SMUD submitted proposed Technical Specification Amendment 155 to rewrite effluent Technical Specifications, t

October.16, 1987

01 Investigative Report sent to the Department of Justice.-

u Sl% Y

_1"- :5 22 1988; L.Q-DOJdeclinestotakeaction'inthiscase October. 1988:

NRC inspection identifies need for~ continued improvements

- {

in'this area.-

1

- January 13,L1989" LNRC issued NOV and proposed imposition of civil _ penalty i

for $100,000.

9

- January 17, 1989'.

. An unplanned transfer of radioactively contamined resin -

reveals several failures on the part of operations to.

i understand and execute the level of formality necessary for the licensee to successfully control liquid effluents.

-February 13,.1989' SMUD responded favorably to enforcement-action.

May. 1989 LSMUD continues to make improvements in the water management area. The Appendix I dose calculations for liquid effluents were approximately 50% of the. Technical Specification limits

.for calendar year 1988.

y t

t 9

'i 1

5

.I s

P f

r-i f

t.

,ji.

/

o 4

'\\

ke, a',a i s f.

4 F.

.m g

' f

. :l '

,, T _

N, 100cument Name':--

s T%

i WF +..sN I.

LIQ EFFLUENT. ISSUE.

ww

- M c^ pj ww 2

2

',.-l Requestor'$110:.

p

%:p,

OPER19

{

s.

m W'

. Author'.s Name:.

yuhas.

4 g

F t-Document Comments:-

P i m.'

t-1 m-m.

.c',

I.

-1

(?

i ~ a L

- i m

i a

i-'

4..

a n'm g

't

)

.a,

., I.- f

[{.i.

j c.-r l

4 i b

5

'l '

y i' p

. a..,

ih

. k d )' ' l.*i :

t.

_ Q. ; ;

?

b 4

I r

,,,.?

.j 3

. t_ i5

'f

,,5

.s \\ c),'

?

,j i c.

g--

,hf s

I 1 ni

'{..

i 5,

i

~ l.D

l,

- i (,";

..I i

t

(.

g 3 p

l

, 'p 1 '&!igh.

, 4 ys -- a ;s

.t I

,,s'

\\ ,)

I.,'

, G. ;%, '

, ' n#.b/o t

II 4

l :.4

\\

.T l {z f

\\ j,-

,'U.-

1

> ). ',, --

l ' 'y' ! f..

1 1;.

1 r

i

}

c>i,

[;j3 i

n t

i u. q.

1.; ;,' i

l l /..f ly s

g ls.. k i !

v

! 3.; f.1 i

d m' },

.- y y4 1~

i, 3

s lt :

~t s

w f

g.

s Y /

r_.f.'

i nk,, -'

l.4

,,' j r,'-

3' T

1

,14 d, f

1 t.'

'i s o,. <. uj-s b

h ))

t j 't,l i

.a t;>

i

/ p

'Ir'..'

j

',V.

^

' U /,),

k

}i-3 l-}--

', t ! 'P

+

>! $ "J i

n,

. (;..

..u o-

ij i-> ' 'l 4

.i..

li )! <,

(

l L ! /* { n '

! [e!'

4.

4 i 4 /.

., - rn

w:w,:,,c

.,_n 7- -

\\ ;c

~

' 'l, ~' '$

NRC GMO-))ff,yjg_

3

^,

Companh IMUM...,___

Date5 I

N Docket /R:::M ^':.

f 4 - 3 /'2-'

' Inspector

d. #-p@$oM

}

NAME(Please Print)

~ TITLE (Plea _se Print)

ORGANIZATION (Please Print)

$.AY YOo$'er

/+t/o +77on SAaraa/s sr f./S A 4C 6., A r,T7-'

6. A y u r1 k hns yr; bdw l.,uw%

SMb l

s h,

W

&fV~&l WSh W

-Y&

\\

a

~

Yn Nf Y

g<

i i

i r

Chi ChY b t,

[

,1 b 4 6

1

~

f /7 tCtrds At M S Ou'r6 /;*R P S AhPC, Ae pia V R.G. k)ol(-e sm k O 'i Peopdr % +- p tse L s

i

'J b

i

)

?

'~

L

(

f 0

8 m-um

=a=c m

x =..

- - -.. = ~ ~..

- w~

, n} l :

=xx--- --

=c w[...Z=.-

n maw.

p f-[t.:f ~', -

-- ~

~ =:

" ~ ' ;

.[}

~::~~

,. }pM-

)-.

[

5 ::

f 31,

~

',z...

7

^ lL --

'.._L

< - l L,3,

J-' '..::T

,_;.~

'i

--. _j ~. _

7.;

, 7 -

, ' ~, ',

e

~

~,

.., - ~ - '-

(M d g. :-

LIQUID EFFLUENT SYSTEM

'- ?,

PLANT -

q U.

E l

R os E

I f 60' MESH i p

". STRAINER -

J Lj HOLDUP HOLDUP

' TANK

-TANK A

.g n

r 0

- p i

i BYPASS

.... l 0*

EFTLUENT

,y. -

0:::: i y
0:
0:0:

,.... STRAINER 50 hnCRON

....i FR.TER

!E_ _ _ _ _ _ _

~

i 4

accu B000000cci.lgggggggg 60 MESH 60 MESH DEMBGERAUZER -

i

.g MSTRAINER STRAINER i

H j r EB B B E2s I,

p l

o m

- STRAINER -

t i

s i

RE1ENDON N

DILUDON BASN BA536

i t

l i

E STRAINER U

h p

me.

gjj OFFSTE

=

1

. k l

?

'"'I 4-

'mn

..m4.

.p uwp.,.

,sc-..e,ne.p g,r p

w-w gs-e m.

.-w s

y a%,

'4

..mme'_.--

e

'q.'^=p+v, ees' g

y g g

9d*,p m A*

.,,9my

, g pgrg-N-+y-

-q-p, er"J

,qg,p're y

g*%ph8'

  • 4< n u.a. re-mu wn x *w m m m4 P.81 ww un y[sc

!.if; [f e e

95.WUMBAR Rt5'," AfDRY WUneMI5589W

~~

\\

Ie_gy

.(,)yneset 94.t. :. -,

a.3 pg REGUEBTER B "'YM A59MM

~l g-sias.Y 1

f

-l 14410 Twin Cities M.

FAC81 MILE TRAN8MiffAL REOUIST l" *

/

Y'J Herald,-

cA

. 1,.,&,,_.o y M4

/

'"1

  • a n a.

t we e: ve

/

y sq

-1

.....,6

......v....

.........,......,,I Y

h6

$f r,,

e e

p,.,.

y,g.,g
,.,yy,;,i., 7 q ve.

n n.

mse*e! m a Ru 7s yes6 semens me, p.eenwetsenonsavutie

'v.airee.,sen te6s,w.as avm.se -

! M' s 740-2791 (209) a " " "" ' '" ' ' ' * 8 6'''"*"'

J209)748-2294

_ (209) 748-2791

...s....

USNRC i a 6 1., -

io,...

v 4

__ Rancho'sec 202 se ao

-.a L!-

Patetotocle

_ _1 o ve a a ** *,

I I **va "*wa' I l '** m'Wa' i

l seeei.6 ime,a vctione l

l'a'"

1 l '""'"

i..

p

.C C 8. h..d.

W W

MA, A

N t

t b-

",-1 i

l 1

~

tim 8/ DAYS t O' aeea yae T m.ssiusttse 1

L

)

y

,l i

\\

1

=

gp

_ _.,,,,3,, 3,,7,,g*- g g; g a _._.. _ _ _._ _. m - - --,er m., x aw m7 p

%g.

i,fs, e$g49.

i.g===.

us.wmian nie.uenv y,uusseiou

=

nuovisy, i.. g svassy FAC8IMILE TRAN8MITTAL 14410 Twin tities M.

i R40UtST I"* !

Herald, cal L

J W.1.

/

. 1v.,m.a...

/

' /U 1 "*

I"l *.

I Te< = ^e s,e

/

Y sq

=

k he r9 4.

..,,_,\\

y' i.....

L n-MEE^^" f 3Gi=1

u. y/

pn.....

v.....,.. m e.

(209)

"a''"a' 6'"""'*'

I M

' A 48-2191

_1209)?48-2294

__(2 09) 748-2791

-i m.v.,

.v,..._,

.v,....

USNRC 2,,,,.

Rancho sec 202' m.

m.

s I~

entesw =ce

~

_ _ j.va n ni.=,

1 1~,evam.v.e I 1 v.. m.vae l

_1= 1..ismova I laumesa.ve -

l_

ei.6ineeavo..e L-

.Ct.o.d..d.

p.Y

(

.,T M o'.

W^

U i

~

Takt/DAff t ;'

I neessvep in.NIueTTO.

1 I

e I-;

Il l-1 l'

24 3;

ii

l F i :. * ~ r SACRAMENTO MUNJCIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT l

t M,.

- ona usMoRANDUM

]

t

)(... -

U h

' m: David A.=.Boggs

+

i DME:

May 2, 19 pp

'l

. o_

CEO 89-23 P

- pnog, ' Joseph. F. Firli susJact l

COMMENTS BY. BOARD MEMBER REGARDING DISCHARGE OF RAD[0 ACTIVITY 1

IN WASTENATER AT RANCHO SECO I

It has come to my attention that a Board Member did not have

. factual information regarding the discharge of-radioactivity 1

in wastewater.at Rancho:Seco.

Since the public is directly-affected by:this issue,- I feel it is-appropriate to provide' j

you accurate information and request that you share this information with the-Board, q

o n

In: a - letter ' dated April 18, 1989 (attached), Director Smelotf said,."from'1980 to 1985 Rancho seco released.more radioactivity in-wastewater discharge than has ever been

-released at:any other-nuclear: plant in the country."

NUREG/CR-2907, Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear' Power Plant Annual-Report-1985,a'is prepared for.and

. distributed-by the U. S.:-Nuclear Regulatory Commiss;,on.

Attached are graphs based on-data from that report.

As you L

1 can see,. eventin+1984, the: maximum discharge year for Ranchot Seco,u the: radioactivity released-by Rancho =Seco was oniv at of' the industry maximun'for~pressurizedEwater reactors,

Your, cooperation-in disseminating:this information :,s appreciated.

[.

i Attachments

(

I

4 T

i

)

[.

+f h

w r

e

~m-

7. :..::,.._

3%

s 1\\

3: -...

3

,1

't{,,'. '

..$ '^

. - 3..

y

.,f bo t ' : R.-; Bowser -

f '!

1

3. Croley

,..lj

-8..Nolanoon.

P4 Nurphy.

J. Shetler.

X. Squibbs-

.' P. Turner 1

RIC 1A.500 T

I I'

l 4i 4 -h

- l1

. j t

.og a'*g z

5 l,'

\\

-i f e

f l

Ll.

l l'

i I

F Il:

I

(

I' t-i r,a i

i-l.-

y

)

., 3 :.

4 I

--.,.w w-P

9 M. >

6r jg,,

i

.. g...

c.

w;..-

jN,"

c>

h

T

  • hi

)

._1-

'?

-. e I

A; RADIO' ACTIVITY IN LIOUID EFFLUENTS

l

. Us PRsssURIZBD WATER REACOR$.

1980 TRITIUM & MIXED PISSION AND ACTIVATION PRO >UCTS -

i w

s a

t

~

f."

m....

+

n,y i

i n q'-

t i

i l

I f

p j.

m jij '

4000 - -

3M Total Activity Le (cmies)

. 3000 - =

q 2000 - -

f.>

-1 t

x 3000 ii li

7 is 0.0185-U T,

Rancho Seco IndustryAverage Industry Maxhnam '-

[..

SOURCE: NRC NUR80/CR.2907 0,

i

..,i l;

r i

i f

-i

'l r

ihe i.

-[.

h..

I

w.

c ~

't' l I'.

,' l ;.

. (D = 4 t i

m;

.m

.r 9

- 93 i

{l. '

f g RADIOACTIVITY IN LIOUID EFFLUENTB-

. 1 US PRB88URIZED WAT8k RBActOR8

' "p <

19611RmUM & M1XED FISSION AND ACTIVA 110N PRol>UCTS

--R,,,

,4, 1

l

.4..e 6000 =

=

e i

5290 m.;y[

py.

y

$000 s wm c-d1 4000...

4 o,'

Total' Activity

_(curies)-

3000'- -'

100n'..

g j f?

s r'

..1000 -

e 386 e

c-g4 l

N 0

l f

I-W Rancho Seco

~ Industry Average industry Mr.xim an-SOURCE: NRC NURB0/CR 3901

~ ~ '

Q ifl i 1.-

5 jl. ;4,1l[i i

2b 4

.\\ ] w 2

i r

i q

'I

.e e.!

{

_f' I:'r b,

Q- '.' 0,

4

~ - -. -. -... - -

m...

m

-i e

RADIOACTIVITY IN LIOUID EFFLUENT S t

' US PRBSSURIZBD WATRR REACf0R8 1982 TRITIUM & MIXED FISSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCTS 6000 = :.

I 5000 - -

l l

4050 L,

M J,

p' Tomi Activity

.L (Curies) -

~

.3000l- -

L.

o

.2000 - -

1000 -

~

1' L

345

[-

65,

[__... j o

g

. Rancho Seco -

Indusuy Average:

Industry Maxirum -

$0URCB: NRC NURBORR4907 p-

+

1;

.,o-4

-un

- - - - -. -,,e

-v--*

=

g m m._ _

i. %k 9, hp 4,.%Q'y; '

}

.i 4 w ' w' i

g,.;e

. u.

3.,

m g

v::lq; ' <

-l

% n..

'\\

I g.' s g

m i

,m,
  1. ,::+,

l t p : :\\

?

5 5

l ;'

f,

.,,g, BT. +

RADIOACTIVITY LIN LIOUID EFFLUENTS O a) /

Us PRassuRIzsp wAnt REACMR8

-l vh

.1983 TRITIUM & MIXED FISSION AND ACTIVATION PRO >UCTS j

fg vp

< i UX:<L W

.'h<

t m,

o-Ve:

6000 -

,, %.$ i 4

1-W((* E_ '. L y

p 1:n, 3

e 5000 -

I ilt u

i

\\'3 4000 3900 m i,

@hi

- Tomi Aedvity -

M (Cwies).-

3000 m.

Q } tl, 5

r n [..

i :[ ' 3 'l m.; +

3 i

i&', i :.1 y/

2000 -

s c

, o> (..

n r

u:j y r

a +, i +

~

m.,a,&, '

e y

1000 - -

J,gy:m o

.p y;:

343

T L
:,s 74 WS-O' 0

l t--

J M,W.1

= Rancho Seco Industry Average Industry Maximant

- yp g

- s, p) s;;" ' g' '

SOURCE:NRC NURB0/CR4907 d!4,

.f

' U(a j -i i

ei I

1

.,4

\\

f

%g{ !lj,):)[,

m.u.v q-

' ! l p.;U, -

i i

.I

-e>

I ai

h.1 '

i

4,S ( [

, i. a

] y.1,'

/f 'i, i f f.,.' 3i' e -

k,;s

ply, f R,.

.o4 6;J!,',

s' ( lc
t ).

,ei jt, _b.'f(;,

'{ i!'

',{

i f --

'-.,

  • i. m. s e

iY'N.f.If-

... i

}

n.)'j_J[Q N '

+

-....-~.....-._......----.-..---.._.-~.7...

- ese-..

s o.

9 q

.g b.,

3 L;s t

1 ja t

y

. RADIOACTIVITY IN LIOUID EFFLUENTS-l

. ' US PkRISUREBD WATBR REACIORS

'i 1984 'IRITIUM & MIXED FISSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCTS n

.t t.

l

'\\

i.

-6000 - i o ;

L b

l 3000 t

o r

t-<

4000 - -

g p

' Tomi Activity i.

(curies)-

3000 -

L.

i 1

.g.

.,r u

.g

[

f298 407

_o.

l l

y-

. Rancho Seco-

Indusuy Average Industry Maximam '

4 SOURCE: NRC NURBORR 2907

.)

\\

E

-t

'1

+

1 1

l

?***=mme.

T

.s a c

1

. l

-}

(;

e J

I

. l 1

RADIOACylIATUMMWLUENT S l

1985 TRITIUM & MIXED FISSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCr8.

- 6000 - -

5760 4

I I

.' i 5000 - -

1 i

L l

m.

t l'

1

Total Aedvity_

1 (Cwier) 1 g.

i 2000 -

1

^

1000 1450 90 '-

i l(

0-l Industry Maximan-l H

-Rancho Seco '

Industry Average :

SOURCE: HRC NUREG/CR.29M i

?

r.1 h.l n,

f T

9 m-g

-wme.

, ey.-

  1. -_w,.,-

w..,,

- - ~ - - - -- - "'" ^ '" ~

r

c p~-..

gtoyy 1

1 1

mmemmma

-Aprili 18,l1949 i

7

Dear community 1,

eader:

l

' y' issue-einee:the'last time I wrote.2_ thought trohould bring yo r'

^

.w critical' letter free the Institute of Nuclear poweron Apri a

P Operations (INpC), the utility-funded watehdog;for auplear 1

reacter. operations.-

The lette

- a history of-poor. performance,r-stated L that Rancho Sete had n'high turnover in senter annaa pattern of recurring _.

troublesese events diificulty.Aa-yecru,iting and retmining personnel. genpat and j

..s As a4 result of this letter.the Nuclear Regulatory Cea$1esion' requested that. SHOD voluntarily not restart Ranche:Sete:and

' invited the Board of Directors to meet with the Comei eien to discuss INPC's concerns.

sioners did not ask usia single question about the.1To my surprise the letter.

Instead'.each neard member 0's laportance _ of safety et Rancho Sees.gave a speech abe$t; the

-l 4

on_' April 13th; U.S.. Senator John Breaum (D-1.A), Chaira$n ef the subcommittee:on-Nuclear Regulation.:wroto:toJthe

. chairman of tho' Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon exprese4ng:hieL v

enclosing.his letter for your informationconcern about-- the NRC's J

L

-:the SMUD-Board was quoted in the papers as.

One seabet;of senator"Breaux should mind'his own business.,ggestingi su this; attitude'towards legislative oversight 1is wrong a.I belieVe that natLthe concerns raised-by senator Breaux are valid. pd 1

Rancho.5ece has been one of-the nuclear industry's wegst; performers, both in terne ofysafety and'econeale perfop-with no improvement.noted in 1984:or 1949.' Thel 11fetime efficiency mance.-

i.

l?

  • 084 Rancho seco released more radioactivity in wasteFrea-19401ts 4

discharge than has ever been' released'at.any other nu $ ter l

i plant"in tho' country.

o, lent i

public accountability and oversight - -not leesThese deficiencies cal 1~for inc L

l 1-L Ccmmittee ?b Elect Ed SmeioN1b SMUD M0 22ne Street. Sa.cramento. CA 95616

-I

.---..----.-...-------....~

~

r~

y

. Aprill 14 1849 Pete M

! as' dietressed that the current direction. of the. Leadership-

\\

of.the 4 MUD?seard a probleme at. Rancho'ppears to be to restrict discue61en of-media and the pelAttoal environment-for Ranche see6's i

performance.1:It's my belief that this approach toterde -

w public accountability for the piant le largely reopenelble-for the plant's current condition.

pineerely, q

k

' \\\\

Ed samleti.

SMUD Direeter '

. Third Ward l,

pis. The asia reason than commualty should vote "nega

[

Nessure E en: June 6th to the same as alwave. -past; p

en apring,$NUD General Manager Richard Byrne and the QUEST team:(an independent-body of engineere and seenonio.

-esperto)'oeaciuded that SMUD wed d be la bettop finan-cial;conditica without'Ranche Sece.

Ranche'seco eventually has to be replaced -- tbat's a feet. -

We cam nove in-that direction in 1989 et continue-'to,opend hundreds of millions of dollpre to repair a 14-year-old plant -that continues te. hiwe 1i i problene'. -

1 O,

i since:last June, Rancho.Seco hae had eight ehu<

L tdoome.

!teacutput 4t'best in 1989 will.be'in the high

?!

3 4045

'I range;

'It-hae.to run at 834 year.in and. year m t

ut-to be profitable.

o r

I o

-,e

~

h,p h_ k *[s g

IV I;

O --

@f i

NUREG/CR4907

.I

@ e# 5 @ 4.

-BN L NURE0:61081 1

pd k Vo.6<:

1

@w w i:.

n

.i '

g y% <

Q;;

~.

r.

?!{? Radioactive Materials Release Mfrom: Nuclear Power Plants m

m. <,

i w

p,.

o y^

1 w i.

j (f,

Mik, Annual Report 1986:

m u i t.n ?.

,ft i

M

.; L

%l

' ? t\\'

jhy.,.'

tumummmmmmmmmmma Np (h"iT1 Manuscript Completed: November 1987 ~

Date Published: January 1900 q.. Fjl

. s

.t Y>,

Prepared by.

T J. Tichler, K. Norden, J. Congemi v

n f:.

Rjp.p ' J Contreetor'.

g 7 Stockhoven National Laboratory-

$ h.

Upton, NY 11973

&n&.

{\\ &:

%f t

6@b Propared for 1

?WOffloe of Administration and Resources Management J U.S. Nuc%er Regulatory Commission i

M, ' Washir gton, DC 30585

@h@W 3 NRC FIN 82234 r,m.,

, i d

li lii :

4 t:. <:

c.

$s W<,-

L.'o 2

c.c

/ig;m4 f

'{'[ 3 4 j..

mlm.,

s

. jp

\\'u t

i s

i g,

1 l$0 I

4 (y

7:

i1 -

%},

lll ;-in

=4 liV i

l j. Qi

~F w D, ;r i n ;)i.

e

3

. _... ~ _ -- __

4

  • sele O -

LICLO EFMUEGIS 00pemI5Ce er 3Em4 (CURIES)

I.

TEITIum snESEURI2ED nm8Ea AEaC5ets 1-FACELITY 1980 19et 1982

-1985

'19e6 -

1955 c'

=*"M esE 1 2.12E*e2 4.42E*e2 2.SeE*02 1.80E+02 3.eM+02 3.27E+02 1

4 ascussas GuE 2.

2.aIE*e2 2.44E+S2 1.39E*02 2.3eE*02 3.09E+et 2.4M*e2 C

eEAWe waL4EV 1

3. M *el 1.40E*e2 1.SEE+G2 4.40E+02 4.12E+02 7.5eE+S2 1

- Brest 1 2.6MMi2

]-

Catuest7 1 2.9eE+el 5.esE42 C

CattEef Ctaffs 182 4.9 Meet 1.esE*e5 4.EE+et 7.5eE+S2 7.0FE+et 4.EMMIZ CATe en 1

.1.75E+G2

]

arvsamt asem 3 1.95E42 2.71E*e2 f.82E+et 1.99E*42 4.2eE+02 1.7eE+e2 eawas.asear 1 1.en*e2 1.5 M+02 5.4eE*61 1.14E*Q 1.22E+er 6.74E+01 i

I DI4eLO Cesses 142 1.2 M+05 5.35E*02 1.3M+05 1.14E*e5 1.eM+es 4.2E*e2 4

couhLS C. CEelE 142 T. M +G2 9.15E*e2 Faar caLsess 1 5.44E*0s 2.42E*e2.3.eeE+02 1.5 M*02 2.3M e62 1.67E*e2 L

a. s. aostason 2 1.8BE+02 1.esE+A2 9.51E+01 2.4N*02 1.34E41 3.89E*42

-C ansons mEct 3.29E Se 5.29E+0S 4.e5E+e5 3.90E+e5 3.64E*45 5.74E+45 letaarforst 1-2 2.NE+02 2.41E+et 1.72E+02. 3.4X*e2 2.22EMI2 3,5M+42 3astas reset 3 4.27E*e2 6.42E*e2 1.96E+S2 3.19E+0s 5.SFE412 3.4eE*02 Jostro m. saatEY 1 5.7eE+et '1.e M*G2.3.37E*e2 4.12E*e2 4.2M+02 4.eX+02 -

E JeeEpu es. FaaLEY Z 6.34E*e2 3.59E*e2 3.1FE*e2 3.5eE+02 5.02E*02 geswE 2.35E+et 2.5fE*e2 3.1m*e2 : 2.92E+ez 4.4eE+ee. 3.79E+02 i

sensaE VAsalEE 2.1E+62 2.14E*42 1.SM*42 ' 2.87E42 1.72E+et -- 1.86E+02 E.

utsuleE 1 6.25E+es 1.4eE*42 1.4eE+02 3.23E+02 4.02E+el

(

ateusaf 2 f.49E+02 3.25E412 4.82E*02 i

'5 ast458eusi 2 2.4GE*e2 3.71E*G2 2.91E*e2 1.2M+02 3.97E42 f.deE+42 acRTs Juman 142 4.05E*G2 1.EE+05 5.71E*e2 1.63E+05 6.2eE42 1.4W+05 y

.a eteIEE 1,2.8 3 7.12E+e2 5.89E*e2 3.54E+G2 1.2eE+e5 1.2eEMI5 1.26E+e5 j

g PaLIsets 7.47E41 2.7eE*02 1.79E*G2 2.35E*e2 6.9M-01 4.29E+02 f

,ata==E 1 e.Goe+0e p

poser mam 142 7.61E.a2 6.52E+02 5.GM*02 5.39E*e2

2. lee-05 8.05E+02 reale9E IsLAes 1 2 5.43E*e2 5.42E*02 - 6.esE*e2 5.2eEdh2 6.4 M-e2 6.9eE*e2 4

- E. E. GIssun 1.4eE*e2 2.4eE+et. 3.eE+02. 3.5GE*e2 4.59E42 5.eTE+et '

[

aamsme SEED 1 1.47E-82 S.35E*e1 em.4eE*01. 7.43E*e1. 2.97E*02 9.seE+0 snLes 1 0.eeE*ep 4.95E*e2 7.22E*e2 2.8E*e2 3.3eE*e2 9.23E*e2 o

4 l'

satse 2 ude S.42E+02 5.25E*e2 2.2M*e2 3.esE+02 5.TMMIC ses cuermE 1 1.eM+e5 2.9 M+et-5.45E*e2 1.5M*01 3.39E*41 2.3eE+e5 l'

saa eno m 2-3 8.92E*e8 2.3E*02 4.55E+42 4.75EM12 Weesas 1e2 3.25E-91 7.45E*e8 9.34E+02 7.35E*02 1.32E+45 6.33E+02 j.

J.

sr. LastIE 1 2.72E*e2 3.25E*42 1.21E*e2 3.4eE+et 2.2M+42 2.est+02 s-st. lac 3E 2 3.TM+01 2.21E+42 ' 3.44E+02 aselEs 1 3.19E-61 2.2M*02 2.25E+02 3.11E*02 mass 142 -

3.85E+42. 5.31E*42 9.1eE*G2 7.17E+e2 S.12E+et 7.5GE*02 venEE se 4E stuus 1 3.2eE+et. 7.11E*es 3.91E+0D 3.esE*ee 1.72E+8e 9.esE+ee IME st3LE 8 Mass 2 4.SSE-04

5. tee-82 T.2W-02 3.75E-04 1.5eE-e4 2.22E-83 s..i ;,a __.

0.C ^^ G.C C

^^C

^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^^- ^^

1eeJess 1.24E42 1.eM*02 2.eK+02 2.34E+G2 1.87E*G2 2.45E+42 IlmEET Pelet 384 F.49E+e2 1.9 M*02 6.2N+02 T.12E*e2 S.91E42 EstEET peast 3 4.33E*02 susa v poses 4 4.3x+02 1Alees e 3 2.54E+01 '

SmLF CeEEE 1 1.85E+02 -

~

sasmsEE ass 1 5.86E*et

1. emet 2 1.eeE+e2 1.4M+e2 1.e4E+02 2.2eE*e2 Item 1 T.45E*02 6.e&E42 6.76E*42 1.74E42 1.74E+82 1.35E+62 2.4eE*82 3.77E*42 2.5eE*82 5.11E+S2 5.2M*e2 21em 2

~

~ satumes nattu laseE seeLE 15 Lase 21esat van Ne5 es#W = St BEs m 8ep i

e o

m..-

- - 7

- = -- g. 7 5 - _- r -

=

~

,. - }

n 2' B.

~

l~

~m_.

~

~ '

W

-; 5, G

- a

  • - l p- -

i 7 g gggg g 31.3

~' '

~

~

5 -

7

~

w

~'

i-

.n

(3ggg gryggggg'gggygggggE Of TES4 (CRRIES)

J

~

_ ftITILM.

e

~pnEssuR12 9 MRfER EEAC1sts: -

j g

facsLITY'

- 11900 J 1981..

1982 - -1985 198L 1905 -

~

sc

-- SIE 1 2.12E*G2. 4.42E*02 -2.GIE*02 E1.GE*G2 T 3.05E*G2 - 3.27E*02

~

~A mREANS45 SIE 2.

2.GBE*GE: 2.44E*G2 1.35E*G2 : 2.3E*GE - 3.09E*02 J 2.41E*02 -

-C eEmWER 1NILLET 1 3.9E*St "1.4 GEM ' 1.SEE*GE # 4.40E*GE 4.12E*G2 I. f.5GE*G2 l

- A tretur 1.

.~ 2.61E*G2 - _

W*

ik

. 2.9EE 41.5. M *G2 u

tattment 1:..

- 4. m *G2 1.00E*G5 4.35E*Ge 7.5 e*G2 c 7.GrE*St 4.ssE*S2; catwer cures M2 A

CATmen 1

-1.75E*G2

'tmTstmL tasta 3 1.95E*G2 2.71E*G2 T.SIE* W :1.99E 6 : 4.2EE*G2 f 1.7EE*G2 '

OfasLS Castes 182;

.~ '

E1.22E*GE~4.74E*01 of Gavas.aner i

- 1.EgE*St 1.57E*02~5.4GE*01 1.14E*GE 3

~. 2WeG2 J

1.OfE*GS 4

Gonnte c. Coot 182 ' T.aIE*G2 9.15002 1.2M*G5 ? 8.05E*G2 ~ 1.3*E*GB 1.14E G5

.h rant tatucta 1 5.44E*01 2.42E*St : 3. gee +0E 1.5M*02 i 2.35E*GE i 1.6M*G2.

s. G. nostseau 2 1.GIE*St 1.06E+0E:9.51E*01: 2.40E*GE D 1.3&E41 - 3.9EE*G2 C-

'~

ansoan uECK 3.29E*G5 5.2?E*G5 4.05E*05 : 3.90E*G5 : 3.edE*G5. 5.70E*G5 setas potut 1-2.

2.70E*02 2.41E*02 1.72E*Gt 3.45E*GE 2.22E*GZ:3,51E*G2-i L

3etas potet 3 "4.27E*G2 6.42E*G2.1.9E902 3.19E*01 c 5.GFE*G2. 3.4m*G2 d

f JcWre so. FantET 1 5.7E *W ~1.e5E*G2-3.3FE* M 4.12E*G2 4.2M*G2. 6.GM*G2.-

JosEPm ss. PastEY 2 6.34E*G2 ' 3.5GE*02 > 3.17E*G2 ' 3.3dE*GE 5.02E*02~

s 4

l ItteeltmEE 2.3M+02 2.5fE*G2 3.1E*GE L 2.92E*G2 : 4.4K+E f 3.79E*GE.

[

j seklE Vestee 2.1E*02 2.16E*E2 1.M*G212.87E*G2 1.TJE*02.1.9&E*St

.C b

utsuleE 1

~ L6.25E*GS 1.4GE*0211.4GE*G2. 3.25E*Et 4.0EE*02 I

t.49E*02 3.23E42

4. GEE *GE utepfat 2 1

I atLLS1tulE 2 2.88E*GE 3.71E*G2 2.91E*12 ' 1.2M*G2 ~ 3.9FE42 - f.esE*G2 norte mean tat 4.03E*G2 1.2EE*GS 5.71E*GE "1.61E*G5 ' 6.2EE42 1.40E*G5 r

-4 GCOMEE 1,2,8 3 7.12E*G2 5.GE*G2 3.5E*02 :1.2E*G5 1.2K4I5 L 1.2seG5 i

g PAttssGES

' 7.47E*01 ' 2.7E*02 1.79E*02 2.35E*Gt 6.95E-01 4.29E*02 h

G.GOE+40 0

PALO vee E 1 P0tet Gents 182.

7.61E*02' 6.52E*02 5.05E*GE 5.39E*02 2.10E-05 8.GE+02 -

Pentt1E Isuus 182 5.43E*Gt:5.42E*St 3 6.00E42 " 5.20E*St. 6.41E-GE 6.9WE*02 E. E. Stemt

1.eGE*GE 2.4GE*GE $ 3. GEE *GE ; 3.5GE*G2 r 4.35E-42 5.GTE*Et

.;h aamcmo sEco 1 1.4M-02 8.3M*01. 6.44E*01 ; 7.43E*01 2.9FE*02 9.OBE*01 ShLEn 1 8.GOE*GD E 6.95E*G2 " 7.22E*GE,2.GE*Et 3.3E=e2 : 9.25E*Gt

~C i

snLEW 2

. m/R S.42E*02 5.25E*GE l 2.2M*G2 3.WE*G2 5.7M*GZ see GuerGE 1 1.G E*G5 2.97E*02 25.45E*02 1.5M*01 3.35E*@t 2.3E*G5 Q'

san GuopnE 2 3 S.92E*GO :PME5*02 : 4.35E*G2.4.75E*GZ

..[

steuerme 182

- 3.25E-81 T.65E*Gs 9.3490E 17.35E*GE - 1.82E*S5 6.3M*G2 sr. stIE 1 2.72E*0E 3.25E*G2 ~ 3.2fE*et : 3.4eE*02 2.21E*G2 2.GsE*G2 o

ST. t.uCIE 2 c 3.F3E*01 2.21E*GE 3.44002-suseEEt 1

~ 3.19E41 ? 2.27E*0212.25E*GE 3.11E*Et

.I sunst 142 3.85E*et i 5.31E*G2 9.1GE*G2 i 7.1M*GE S.12E*02' F.5GE*GE l

VisIEE n!tE se aan 1 3.2dE*St 7.11E*G8 l 3.91E*GO 3.09E*001 1.72E*GO

9. GEE *GO Testee nite Istm e Z 6.10E-GL 5.Ost-W f T.2GE-42.~3.75E-GE 11.5E-84 = 2.22E-G5 -

i

6.-

0.-

^^

0. C C O.^^ C 0.-- C. 0. ^Z.

^^

_l TaoJan 1.2EE*G2 11.03E*GE 2. GEE +42 2 2.34E*G2 ' 1.SFE*G2 2.45E*S2 TumEET P0847 384

-T.49E*G2 1.95E*02 6.2M*02 ' T.12E*S2 S.91E*SE -..

L-i itsutET P005T 3 4.35E*G2

'E TWEEY P0lut 4 4.3M*02 :

~ 8 1

SantEneGas 3 ~

2.54E*01-

~'

wasetEE ADE 1 1 5.GGE*01 1.03E*02 T1.GAE*G2

- 1.85E*02 -

tote enEEic 1

.. -1.4 E*82.1.es& 92 2.20E*Gt :

4

~

Itcut 1 7.45E+0E. 6.GaeG2. 6.7eE*02 " 7.7tE*02 1.74E+02 11.35E*G21 -

Ztou 2 12.deE42 3.77E*G2 ~ 2.5eE42 5.11E*G2 5.21062

    • 3mctueeG wttee fume sestE 1sume 2 setas. von 1985.

uft = 301 RE9tNSED'

~

~

4

[

-..~ a :

a=:,i L w

n a-a-

g g ;,,z

.w u;

1

.. 2 n +..-r

~

p-

~'

~

~

~ - -

e*e -em.z

'.i

~

~;

p _.

~

m-

n 4
o DestE 8

[. _ l

L!te t. EssLtW cW8*metM Of TEAR (ORMS)

]

PREESLRIND mfEt REaCtens

[ nut e r155t.* trD ACTItal808 feWutti -

~

~

.FactL377

. 1980 C _ 7901

. L19924

1983J 19e4 1985 i '

.-~

~

AREANSAS OBE 1-

3.42E+00 c F.5eE*eo 5.seE*e6-4.3eE+e0 4.1eE*00 3.53E+eD -

..~ - -

~

T mREu 545 enE 2

' 4.13E+0D l 2.95E+ep. 5.90E*es J 3.7eE*e9. 2.40E+ee { 4.3eE+03 EEAWS WALLEY 1

.1.9EE St i 1.4W-01.1.47E-61..~ 6.e9E-82 2.93E-013-1.13E 01.

~~

~

87005 1' 1.63E*01'

. Cattsuda? 1:1.

1.37E-e5. 4.9FE-812

'CaLWRT CLIFFS 142 4.53E*e9 - 2.eE+ee 5.2eE*ee 2.2W+es I f.46E*00 2.3eE*00 CATa e n 1

..31.2eE+ee:

~

CtfsfAL RIVER 3

?1.4 M-91 1.29E-91r1.94-01. 1.5eE-ST2 2.34E-91 1.5 M+es s w.5 NSSE 1-

' 2.e M-98 7.9EE-91 2.19001 - 5.35E-9111.89E-M -11.85E-Of.

'O!4GLO CatttBI 132 11.1M-82 3.2'JE*ee 00enLD C. C0 cut 142 1.3FE*ee 1.seE+0D 1.9eE+001 6.SSE-91 :~ 2.9eE+ee 2.SeE-et 2

1.19E+ee 2.2eE+es F0er E:stutame 1 5.0EE-01 1.45E-01 1.79E-91.' 1.42E-91 N.' O. R0stmMBr 2

- 3.5M-et 1.36E+00 't.2W +00. 8.23E-81.3.9 K-01 9.4tE-W a m mEOC 2.7eE-01 7.12E-91 6.95E-82 4.SeE e1 2.43E-01 5.440W setas potet 1-2 f.2eE+ee 5.67E+es 2.4tE*ee 4.02E*ee 2.6M+Se 1.59E*ee Iselas potst 3 2.9eE*00 2.62E*ee 5.44E-et 5.44e et 1.2eE+0e 6.18E-01 JoiEPet m. FastEY t 6.18E-02 1.310 01 5.9EE-82 5.iSE*e2 6.34E-W 6.72 EASE JetEPet st. FaeLEY 2 '

2.40E-e2 2.90ES2. 2.9EE-et 8.63E-82J 3.77E-et rDaanEE

- 6.1M-91 ~ S.15E-et 1.52E*ee 5.43E-91 1.91E*e6 '1.35E*ee sulinE TAMEE

. 2.9N-91 4.3eE-Of 7.e R-91' 1.99E S.6 M -02 3.11E-82 McGLW 1 3.9EE-91 1.75E+es.1.SFE*e8 T.51E*00 6.210 01 t

NF 2 1.SE*e9 1.M+ee 6.2M-M MILLSteuE 2 2.81E+49

4. tee *e9 1.30E*01 7.81E*ee 3.55E+es 4.80E+es U

ucath asum 142 1.95E*et A.1eE-81 1.32E*e9 -5.aeE+0e 4.51E*Ge 5.e7E*Ge Oc0bH 1.2,5 3 f.54E J# 1.75E+ee 1.eGe *9 't.4 X+es.1.5N+es 4.1 eece 8

PattSmeES 8.73E-05 3.3 M-82 1.27E 01 7.4R-82 3.dE-82 5.am-02 Pato vEnet 1 e.esE+00 PO:sf maarm 132 ~-

'. 29E-01 1.81E*00 2.95E*00 1.27E+e0 1.22E*01 1.90E*ee Paate!E tsta s 182 1.32E-et 9.12E-03 ' 2.25E-45 ' 3.14E-82 '1.91E-82 2.75E-at

a. E. sessin 1.900 e2 3.850 02 6.17E-91 1.9 N-91 1.eUE-91 5.22E-41~

Ramtuo SECD 1 3.7W-05 5.92E-91 2.18E-et' 2.810 91 6.33E-61 7.NE-45 SaLEn 1 2.e5E+e0 2.SeE+ee 3.22E*00 2.97E*et 3.31E*ep 2.M SALEn 2 3.**-81.1.5tE*ee : 3.21E+ep 2.85E*er1 2.75E*e9 2.8eE*ee saw cuornE 1 1.1N*01 *$.53E*e8 2.15E+et; 1.22E*0E ' 2.7EE*80 7.79E*89 sam cu0faf 2-3 6.32E-91 '2.79E+eo 1.3eE+91 1.12E*01 SEaucrast 182 m,4 2.7eE+00 1 9.02E+ee 4.6te es-3.Z3E*ee 1.45E*ee ST. LeCIE 1

'2.3eE*ee 2.4dE+00 3.07E*e8 2.99E*00.1.93E+es 2.72E*e8 ST. LUC 3E 2

. 1.93E*ee 2.75E+e0 StseER 1 1.24E-OL 11.47E+es1 4.54t*00 7.89E01

-4 sumet 1st 3.s5E+es 6.11E+es 6.6SE*ee 1.45E*017 9.TX*09. 8.55E*03 Cl TerEE MLE tapan 1 1.83E-91 ' ' 8.49E-e2 ~ 5.2M-02 ~ 8.12E-02 3.41E-02i6.30E.p-rii w i R t 7 sta m 2 - 1 4W~eT~2.Wo$~4.25e -e5

~

~

7.03E-05 O.4eE-e6 - 1.77E-9G '

9 0.0ft+es 'O.00E+ce '6.OE*ec Tne 2/EP crit e.e0E+ee.e.CeE+06

.T TanJam

-T 87E-91 ~9.9&E-01 8.5eF-81 3.1eE-St 3.49E-01. MOet '

TUPnEY POter 384 6.7W -01'.3.35E-01 1.48E+e0 ~T.1 X+ep 2.2N-01--

A fututt *01st 31 C +5E-91 TtJtEET POINT 4

'4.68c-41 um!TWfonD 3 q

2.86E-81 W0t F CREEK 1 -

4.3SE-01:

~'

YasmEE st>E 1

!1.7W 02 1.43E 92L 9.53E-83 : 1.30E-02 3.ert-02 21.68E-82

~

7-ZMus 1

- 4.7&E-01 : 1.31E*Se i. 7.22E-et D 1.58E*ee. 6.8JE +es ~ 3.7CE-91 :

- ~

2 Has 2 71.05E+00 1.65E+eo 1.15E+ee 7.eeE*eo;2.c5E+eo

~ isuttocED wifu T>eEE setti ~5tase 2 Tofat.' for '1985 '4 -

- ~

m W/R.= uGT StreerES.

~

_m.

,f e.L:

~,:-~.~n~'

,. - c.

4--A U,

5 ; ~' '

'*'A~

~ ' ' '

" " ~ "

^

~

~

" " ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ -

~ ~ ~

{,

,r

.e.4,,,,

y, SACAAMENTo MUNICemL UTILITY DISTRICT C e201 S Street. P.o. Boa 15430. Secremen AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVtNG TH 0, 1916) 452 3211

'j

+

+

F CALIFORNIA 00 IN l[ AlQ ; g$

.AGM/NTS89-122

~

May 12,:-1989 Environmental Protection Agency 1

Central Docket Section-(A-130)

Attn Docket No. A-79-11 401 M Street, SW Nashington,-DC 20460 s

00004ENTS ON THE 40 CFR 61 PROPOSED RULEE KING r

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Rancho Seco Nuclear

~

- Generating _ Station (RSNGS) has completed a review of the Proposed Rulemakirc' L

for'40 CFR Part 61,; National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Polluwds;

.s Regulation of Radionuclides, published in-the Federal Register on March 7, 1

1989.

He have filed-a' request with the Environmental Protection Agency.(EPA)-

to: provide the proposed rulemaking background information and: computer codes I

listed as available in;theLFederal: Register. Howeverc due to time constraints.

of the required response dates we-have limited this review to the Federal

. Registar. Proposed: Rules exclusive of the background and' supporting

.i

- information.

Based on a review of<thisLProposed'Rulemaking,_we are_

submitting.. pursuant to.the provisions of the Federal Register Notice, othe following comments, suggestions and concerns:

A.. The proposed l EPA' regulation on radioactive emissions 'in air from-

' commercial nuclear power plant facilities'(as opposed'to the current f

40 CFR Part' 190 regulation)' will apparently. result.in dual (NRC and EPA)_

active federal regulation of these emissions.. ; A review of the a

40 CFR Part 61-Proposed Rulemaking against NRC regulations (10 CFR)'and the RSNGS: Technical Specifications has raised several concerns:

il) The'40 CFR Paiti61' Proposed Rulemaking, bases gaseous effluent limitsL

-and compliance monitoring on an " Effective Dose Equivalent" (EDE) concept will not be incorporated into:10 CFR=Part 20 until January 1, 1991. 'Our current Radiological: Effluents Program (with its implementing software:and procedures).is' based.on the present L

'10 CFR Part 20 criteria:and 10 CFR-Part 50, Appendix I guidelines.

Any-implementation of the 40 CFR Part-61 Proposed Rulemaking-prior to implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20:would require many Uranium Fuel Cycle (UFC) facilities to develop a secondary (and-redundant in purpose) air emissions dose calculation methodology in order to show compliance with EPA EDE criteria.

DO10

' RANCHO SEco NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION c) 1444o Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799;(2o9) 333 2935

~~

~

- ~ ~

^ f T';

e>

w g4 y,.

XMl} {

-EPA, Docket No. A-79-11 ~

- *'{

- AGM/NTS'89-122-s-

4 2)

The.40CFRPart61ProposedRulemakingstatesthatthe' annua 1Ldose standard applies to any 12 consecutive month period. Current NRC

. regulations concerning gaseous radioactive emission dose accounting.

N are based on a calendar year and a calendar quarter. Again, this j

t inconsistency in. federal regulations will-force UFC faculities to develop redundant air emiss'ons programs.to show EPA anf NRC

-compliance.

3) R$NGS currently implements, as required by the plant Technical W

' Specifications, a Quality Assurance Program for Effluent Control, and.

l 0

Environmental Monitoring using the guidance of NRC Regulatory Guide I

4.15.

The Quality Assurance Program required by 40 CFR Part 61,.

c m j

Appendix 8.4 appears redundant to our current effluents Quality 1

Assurance Program.

Most nuclear power plant facilities have similar-H <~

Regulatory Guide 4.15 Quality Assurance programs implemented as an; integral part of each site's-radiological effluent control program.

4). The air emission limits proposed by 40 CFR Part 61 rulemaking are 'not' consistent with current l limits and guidelines of 10 CFR Part 20'and..

s 1

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

a These differences in limits vary by up go -

1 n' factor.of 10,000.

Enforcement of Title 40 re revision of the Title 10 criterion would-again= gulation'without:

i a-create.a dual e

regulation scenario which would make enforcement unnecessarily.

' t

, difficult.

5) t The proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 (to'become effective 1/1/91).

I p

establishes dose limits to individual members of the public of 100 1

1 b

arem/yr EDE and.2 mrom EDE in.any one hour. These limits are not:

. consistent with the' EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air L

. Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR Part 61 Proposed Rulemaking.

s

6) '. Our current effluent sampling and analysis methodologies and, a

g' ~

procedures satisfy NRC. requirements., Several proposed EPA.

V'4 methodologies may conflict with current practices,' making compliance' and enforcement unnecessarily difficult.

3 i

0The possible dual regulation aspects noted above are of great concern to o

SMUD. He recommend that every effort be made by EPA to coordinate final

-implementation-of this proposed rulemaking with the NRC (as required by1

'o' L

the current EPA /NRC Memorandum of'Understandin

-at;1 east minimize areas.of. regulatory overlap.g) in order to eliminate or If-areas:of regulation remain as a result of'this proposed rulemaking,' wdual i,

e recommend A ge every effort be made by the EPA and NRC to ensure consistency of these If regulations, such that UFC facilities can concisely and clearly implement

effective. air emission compliance programs.

i, L

4 l,

t L.

ET h

_--------__----_----,_------_-_e----w

,y

+

n K '"

EPA.' Docket No. A-79-11 -

AGM/NTS.89-122' 4

s e,

B.

The. proposed 40;CFR Part 61 UFC NESHAP implementation approach D (1. E-6.

A.

Maximum Individual. Risk-(MIR) with no Ample Margin of Safety Decision i

consideration) would establish a dose limit of 0.03 mrom/yr EDE. Current i

RSNGS' air emission pathwa and charcoal filtration. ys have state-of-the-art full flow particulate Historically, small amounts of noble gas 1

isotopes and tritium comprise the majority of the radioactivity in-our air emissions While'RSNGS has never exceeded current EPA or NRC dose ~1imits 7

and guidelines on air emissions, a. review of historical releases shows e

j that even with state-of-the-art filtration equipment installed, we would be unable. to achieve the extremely low proposed dos's limits of approach D.

.The: limit proposed by approach C may also be difficult to achieve.

Table 9, " Alternatives For. Ample Margin of-Safety.for Uranium Fuel Cycle

' Facilities," Alternative _4 footnote, recognizes the degree of difficulty J

in achieving a.1 E-6 MIR. He recommend that if a UFC NdSHAP is found '

l necessary, any approach taken to establish radionuclide emission dose'.

limits'must' recognize and fully evaluate all aspects of the Ample Margin-L of Safety Decision.

Further, we recommend that detailed and complete, cost / benefit studies of technologically feasible controls versus.riskt reduction benefits be performed within the Ainple. Margin of Safety Decisign 3

process.'

l

+

Ne also strongly disagree with the approach A through D Ample Marqin of.

I n

J,,

Safety Decisions which state.that risks associated with UFC facil' ties are P

. high.enough, and have:the potential to go significantly higher," and thus u

require NESHAP action. ~ Regulations which require implementation 'of-

-(

-10 CFR'50, Appendix I assure that all current and, future UFC facilitte~s "1

meet the' Appendix I ALARA guidelines prior to licensing and operation.

i The conclusions of the Ample. Margin'of Safety Decisions. are unwarranted U

and without basis. He recommend:that the Ample Margin of Safety-Decision 1

sections be revised-to reflect current 10 CFR'50, Appendix:I guidelines,

' and:that the ' EPA' conclude a NESHAP for; UFC facilitiesLis: not warranted q.

a C.

The methodology used by the. EPA to develop approaches for regulating-

~

radioactive emissions in air (as described in the, Federal; Register, p

b" a

Section A, " Safe or Acceptable Risk' Policy Approaches") is of concernito

'SMUD.- Apparently, the~ four acceptable risk approaches (A, 8, C, and D) being proposed for radioactive air emissions are 'the same-as.these used to establish limits for chemical hazards in air emissions (Vinyl Chloride j

1decisionmaking; process). As.such thisLmethodology seemingly falls to-'

. adequately recognize and incorpora,te the component of known background 4

. radiation risk-that is not inherent in setting chemical hazard acceptable risk-levels.

p, As stated in the Federal Register, natural background radiation poses an h

unavoidable,' inherent risk -of approximately 1-E-2' to the population.

This inherent " background" risk does-not exist for individual chemical n

hazards. While we' recognize and support the concepts for " additional risk" reduction as demonstrated by our aggressive As low As' Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) dose reduction programs, we strongly feel that risk reductions such as proposed by the EPA do not reflect the existing risk inherent with. background radiation.

m.3 ;f r

l0 4,fu m.c 1

.U

- M, 1

h !lf

' EPA, Dockit No.' A-79-11 AGM/NTS89-122 GM, t4J ia

1 l'

Additionally, National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) Report #93 Sc.

" Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States" W

states that current natural background radiation' 1r a;rre<imately 300 L:

mrem /yr.

Geographical. location will also cause backg*W Muld li it M c.adiation to K<

vary by several hundred arem/yr.

The proposed UFC Ni3 m

facility air emissions to factors of 0.033 (3.3%) h M OD "., ^1%) of i

.[-

average natural background radiation. He do not feel thes* spinches represent. realistic means of setting ~ acceptable rist t

.[

. D.- The adverse economic effects determination (Executt o 05 & 12291 Section.X, subsection D) by the EPA for the proposed rulemaking for all bq four approaches (with the exception of radon categories of approach D) is i

of concern to'SR)D. ' Ne' feel that adoption of. approach D within the proposed UFC NESHAP will have an extreme adverse economic impact on the nuclear utility industry, 2

y

'i b( F

,1 )-

Regulation under approach 0 would require development of: technology _

l that.in many cases is currently not available. Ma treatment system installation and/or modification jor air emission' i

(assuming said..

k>

treatment technology.is successfully developed) would be required fog i

.many' nuclear utility sites (reference paragraph 81above). Nhile L

detailed potential cost: studies have not been performed to date by E

SMUD.> a cursory evaluation estimates = that technology development, equipment design and subsequent equipment. installation would easily 3

amount to tens of millions of dollars for each nuclear. utility.

~

j

-He. feel these costs summed over the nuclear utility industry would far L$'

exceed the stated $100 million threshold, as well as.significantly increase production costs.. He also feel that the. EPA should,not W

require standards that are " technology; forcing".-. as would be the case under approach D. - The ALARA concept is; an integral. part of_-

10. CFR. Part 50,- Appendix I guidelines 'and the nuclear utility; industry :

Lhas' aggressively pursued dose reduction methodologies for manyLyearsi a

The current ALARA philosophy is already " technology forcing"..

2)i We'believe the development of any UFC NESHAP, regardless of the risk approach'taken, will-have measurable economic impacts.. Nhile.the-economic impacts of implementing risk' approaches. A through C may not~

t'

. involve major technology development or equipment expend < ture, and may M

not reach the stated threshold level'of $100 million,~ ~many years of experience in the implementation of radiological emission monitoring-7 programs under federal (NRC) regulation assures us that UFC NESHAP W

implementation under these risk approaches may require major L*

expenditures. Possible expenditures would include compliance program

[

development costs, emergency planning program revision costs...rampling J

and analysis equipment expenditures, computer hardware and software K

and support expenditures, training and additional staffing resources.

'i u

f i

t a

'w cig '...

b E T Ph' EPA Docket,No. Ak79-11 AGM/NTS89-122 l

d; E.1 Currently, UFC facilities 'are regulated by the: EPA under 40 CFR Part 190, i

which is enforced by the NRC.

The limits of 40.CFR Part 190-(25 aremlyr

whole' body or, organ except 75 arem/yr thyroid).are much higher than the-

,r NRC: established ALARA odideline of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1.

As stated b

in Table 9 " Alternatives for Ample" Margin of Safety for: Uranium Fuel Cycle.

Facilities", the NRC guidilines are equal to a : risk of 1.4 E-4 ~MIR.- (1.5 E-4,11fetime risk from Table 3 of the Proposed Rulemaking) which are below-or near-the risk levels of proposed. approaches A'through C.

~

Me believe that on the basis of these regulationse the EPA should conclude ~

that the public is currently protected with an. Ample Margin of Safety, and that a NESHAP need not be promulgated.

F.

Although not specifically stated in the Federal Register; we assume that.

40 CFR Part 190 will be superseded by.the proposed EPA NESHAP.-

40 CFR Part 190 is one of several federal regulations ;and: utdelines.

employed as a basis for Emergency Action Level classificat on in the R$NGS

. Emergency Plan; The 40 CFR Part 61 Proposed Rulemaking does not include any discussion of accidental release or associated limits /< utdelines.15 emissions ~during accident conditions are.subjectito this UI C NESHAP-(as e

-indicated in the request for comments.section.of the Federal Register) we

. recommend l concise guidance be provided by the EPA as an integra' part of any rulemaking., Associated EPA Protective Action Guidelines should be o

revised:as necossary.-

Intsummary, we feel that-sufficient regulation exists within 40 CFR 190, 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix ! to adequately protect the public.with an.

Ample Margin,2* Safety. He do not. feel any, additional regulation of UFC facilitiestis wa canted. Considering the vast potential; for-additional' implementation and: regulation problems discussed herein.,we strongly believe the addition'of an EPA NESHAP for UFC facilitiesLwould be counterproductive.

'He hope these comments will assist youtin your finalization of the Proposed Rulemaking. As stated in our opening paragraph, these comments are made as a result of review of-the Federal Register only.';$ome of our questions and concernsimay be partiall have requested; however,y answered upon receipt of the supporting material we we feel the comments and recommendations contained' herein.should be addressed by the EPA as part of your. rulemaking process.

Copies of thisiletter.re being provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),' Nuclear. Utility Management and Resources Counci1= tNUMARC) and American m

Nuclear Insurers / Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters (ANI/MAELU).

p 3.

i i

_.___._m_

.---- - - - - - - - ' - - - - - ~

^-~~--'---

n.

o.

t

...l' 6)'

b y,

n.

h3

  • 1'-

. EPA.' Docket No. A-79-11 AGM/NTS 49-122-(>,

F i

Membersofyohrstaffwithquestionsrequiringadditionalinformationor

[

clarification may contact Mr. Rick Orthen at (209) 333-2935, extension 4826.

I s

Sincerely, 3

,u-y y,,

t

- l /j f; #%

s Bob G. Croley AssistantGeneralManaher Nucl. ear Technical Serv'ces cc:

J. B. Martin, NRC, Halnut Creek 4

A. D'Angelo. NRC, Rancho Seco G. Yuhas. NRC, Halnut Creek C. Hillis, NRR, nashington DC G. Kalman, NRR, Washin Document Control Desk,gton DC 1

Washington DC 4

m, 41

'\\

t 4

3 i i v..

\\' ;

' 'l 6..

'i i

ko j;

L l6:

1 l'

1

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20055E491&oldid=5511342"