ML20062G359
| ML20062G359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Horsey E MARYLAND, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062G357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208120356 | |
| Download: ML20062G359 (10) | |
Text
,
s 4
j,t June 7,1982 Mr. Elmer E. Horsey, President Kent County Council of Governments Court House Chestertown, MD
~
Dear Mr. Horsey:
I am answering your May 17, 1982, letter to John Martin about the future disposition of radioactive wastes from Three Mile Island.
I appreciate and share your concern over the possible disposal of TMI-2 processed accident-generated water into the Susquehanna River, whic It is important to note that
' subsequently flow into the Chesapeake Bay.all water that beca Even accident, is currently being stored on the island.
March 28, 1979, after processing, the water is still stored and disposition is specifically prohibited by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a No proposal is license.
any proposal to the NRC for discharge of this water.Moreover, a detailed review expected before early 1983, if then. proposal, and specific app any of the accident-generated water can be disposed of.
In preparation for this detailed technical review, two studies under the direction of the NRC staff are now underway to evaluate the potential technical, regulatory and socio-economic impacts of twenty-seven possib This is an expansion of those alternatives disposition alternatives.
already considered in the Programmatic Environmental Impact S l
the Cleanup of TMI-2 (PEIS).
water to the Susquehanna River is but one of these many alternatives.
In addition, the State of Maryland is also conducting a study to ascertain any socio-economic impacts on the Chesapeake which would result from Ultimately, these disposal of the TMI-2 water in the Susquehanna R decision-making process on this matter.
a list of the twenty-seven disposition alternatives currently under study, accompanied by a brief description of each.
l
[
+
8208120356 820804 DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR 3
V
. June 7,1982 Mf. Horsey
.e I would like to point ou't, as we indicated in the PEIS, none of the water disposal methods, including release to the river, would constitute a health hazard.
In both my official capacity, and.as a personal point of fiew as a long tir.ie resident of Maryland and a frequent user of the Chesapeake Bay, I share I would be happy to discuss your interest in the water disposal issue.this matter further with you and You may reach me by telephone on (301) 492-7761.
of Governments.
Sincerely, Bernard J. Snyder, Program Director TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated n
e
AT1 ALhhh
- TMI-2 PROCESSED WATER
~
DISP 0SITION ALTERNATIVES CURRENTLY UNDER STUDY A. Reuse / Recycle Alternatives 1 and 2:
Reuse at TMI-1 or TMI-2 These alternatives would involve retaining the processed accident water storage tanks, and using it, in lieu of fresh water as make-up for water When added to the cooling removed from either unit's primary cooling system.
system, the accident water would become mixed with, and indistinguis Eventually this mixed from, the non-accident water in the cooling system.
water might be lost to the environment via nonnal leakage, processing and discharge pathways.
These alternatives could not be implemented until one of the TMI units has In been restarted, and necessary regulatgry recui.rements have been met.
addition, disposing of the processed accident water in this manner would be a slow and indirect process, amountingo a deferred discharge option.
Alternative 3:
Reuse at Other PWRs Assuming other utilities with PWRs willing to accept the processed wate be identified, bulk liquid would be transported to otner sites for use as make This would amount to defacto disposal to the environ.
up for reactor operation.
ment from nonnal plant releases.
Alternative A:
Reuse at 00E Facilities Reuse at production reactor or defense reactor facilities would be contem B. Long Tenn On-Site Storage Alternative 5:
Sulk Liouid Storage Processed water would continue to be stored in currently availaole holding :an The presence of this water is not an issue receiving mucn puolic atter on T 11.
However, this may cnange if a decision is mace to use :nis tion at this time.
Ul*imately, anc
~ ~ ~ N MEELiterace of the water (20-25 years).
~
perhaps wekl brNore 20-25 years have passed, the water woul Prior to that time, there is the possibility disposed of in some manner.
of accidental releases to the river, i.e., leaks or tank rupture.
Alternative 6:
Cement Block Storage This alternative would require the construction of cement mixing fa Large cement blocks would be made (6' X 6' X 10'), coatad with on TMI.
weather resistant material, and placed above ground, in a storage a Eventu' ally these would have to be pennanently disposed ing about four acres.
'of, most likely by offsite burial.
This alternative would involve release of tritium vapor to the atmosph 1,
Additionally, about half of the remaining tritium during the mixing phase.
Even after coating, tritium would be given off as the cement blocks cured.
lized.
would continue to escape, although the other radionuclides woul b
C. Treatment Combined Catalytic. Exchange Process (CECE)
Alternative 7:
The Combined Catalytic Exchange ProcesY (CECE) removes tritium l
cessed accident water via an equilibrium exchange reaction betw Detri tiated tritium and tritium oxide which favors formation of the latter.
d oxygen.
water would then be released to the atmosphere as gaseous hydrogen an The tritium and other radionuclides are concentrated in about This water would water which would remain after the CECE process is completed.
be solidified for offsite burial, resulting in the same kind of tritium r as described for Alternative 6.
Implementing this alternative would take approximately ten yea l
1 The for construction of the facility, and six years to process the water.
CECE process has not previously been used on the scale tha for treatment of the processed ac::ident water.
-g_
Direct Electrolysis _
Alternative 8:
i of a Similar to the CECE process, electrolysis would require the tritiated facility on TMI to separate the processed accident water into ga Gaseous tritiated hydrogen and oxygen which would be released to the atmosphe How-hydrogen has 1/1,000 of the health effect rate of tritiated w ith water to ever, the gaseous tritiated hydrogen would readily recomoine w benefit form tritiated water vapor so that only the adjacent populac s
from the temporary conversion of the processed accident w tritiated hydrogen.
Distillation Process Alternative 9:
l Distillation is based on deuterium production processes inv deuterium used in conjunction with processes for catalytic exchange betwee Most of the tritium in the processed accident water and heavy water vapor.
This water would would be concentrated in about 95,005 gallonsr of the water.
d of tritium then be solidified for offsite hrial, resulting in the same kin releases as described in Alternative T.
d be The detritiated water would remain in liquid form after process It would take about two years of processing to con-released to the river. In addition, facilities for the distillation process centrate the tritium.
would have to be constructed on TMI.
D. Controlled Discharce to the Susouehanna River _
Controlled Hich Volume Release Alternative 10:
f In this option, the processed accident water woulo be dilut and released to the river at the highest permissaole flow rat at least 120 dilution factor would reduce concentration levels enougn t All the processed ac ics to the river within existing regulatory requirements.
i ti on.
water could be released in less than a week with th s op
Alternativa 11:
Controlled Annual Releases This is similar to Alternative 10 except that the amount of processed wat to be released each year would be equivalent to the amount which wou been released if TMI-2 had not been damaged and had continued to This would extend the period necessary to release all the a normal fashion.
processed accident water to abo st five years.
E. Ocean Disposal Alternative 12:
Bulk Liouid Release Processed water would be shipped as bulk liquid to a remote locatio Atlantic Ocean for permanent disposal.
High dilution and dispersion would likely occur.
Alternative 13:
Packaged Solid Discosal Processed water would be solidified.and shipped to port handlin U.S.
Acceptable packaging would have to meet various current Packaged processed water would be trans-and/or international regulations.
ferred to a barge and subsequently tr5nsported t6 an EPA-designa disposal site.
F. Forced Evaooration Open Cycle Evacoration at TMI-2 Alternative 14:
Processed water would be released to the atmosphere via a d Offsite doses would likely exceed those of other on-site process.
alternatives.
Ooen Cycle Evacoration at Off-Site Facility Alternative 15:
Assuming facility willing to accept accident water could be ide described water would be transported in bulk and same process as tnat essed Entire tritiated water inventory would ::e for Alternative 14 would oc::ur.
removed from TMI-area.
e
Alternative 16:
TMI Cooling Tower Evaooration The TMI mechanical draft cooling towers would be used to evaporate t About 95% of the water and the tritium would be releas accident water.
The remaining 5% of the water, temed " blowdown",
atmosphere as water vapor.
would fall to the bottom of the cooling tower, be diluted and discharged to The blowdown would contain about 95% of the radionuclides ot the river.
than tritium (and 5% of the tritium) that are in the processed accident water.
I The entire process would be a controlled method of disposal whien would take about one year or less to complete.
G. Pond Evaporation Alternative 17:
On-Site Ponds With minor modifications, they Large man-made ponds already exist on TMI.
The tritium could be used to store the processed accident water.
However, the would be released to the atmosphere as water vapor.
volume of water in the pond would remain constant because precipitation is approximately equal to evaporation in the TMI area. Radionuclides other tha tritium would remain in pond residues, eventually requiring drainage The pond lining would be disposed of by offsita disposal.
into the river.
The initial rate of release of tritium would depend upon the time of the
_ year the water is put into the pond--initial release rates would be higher After three to five years the tritium con-in the summer than the winter.
Prior to centration of the pond water would be equal to that of the river.
that time accidental releases of the water to the river are unlikely but cossible.
Alternative 18:
Off-Site Ponds Site Bulk liquid would be transported to remote COE site, e.g., Nevaca Tes:
wnere hign evacoration rates are typical.
H, tiear Surface Land Disposal Alternative 19:
Land Burial at Comercial Sites Solidified accident water would be transported in numerous shipments to Land disposal operations comerical sites in Nevada or Washington State.
would provide a high degree of waste isolation and environmental contro Site specific surface water, groundwater and erosion based radionuclide i
migration pathways must be considered.
Alternative 20:
Land Burial at DOE Site Same as Alternative 19 except burial would occur at a 00E site such as H Liouid Dispersal in Cribs (Hanford)
Alternative 21:
This is a controlled disposal practice, similar to leacning ponds, for intermediate activity radioactive liquid. Local groundwater is principal migration pathway.
Land Soraying (Nevada Test Site) e Alternative 22:
This is a process which results in fast evaporation and dispersion of tritium at a remote site already cantaminated.
This has been done in the past (pre-1974) with contaminated water for dust control.
I. Deep Land Disposal Alternative 23:
Deep Well Injection at TMI Site i
This option would require construction of a deep well injection facility on TMI, and acquisition of a pemit to dispose of low-level wastes at that Satisfying these two criteria may require a long lead time; how-location.
ever, once these steps were accomolished the processed accident wate l
The water would be injected, under hign be disposed of relatively quickly.
wnich are a source of drinking pressure, to a depth well below aquifers
- water, i
s
Alternative 2[:
Comercial Dero Well ' Injection Same process as Alternative 23, assuming commercially operated deep we Federal and system willing to accept accident water can be identified.
State Underground Injection Control regulations apply.
Alternative 25:
DOE Facility Deep Well Injection Same process as Alternative 23, using deep well systems at either Nevada Test Site or INE1. in Idaho.
Alternative 26:
Hydrofracturing at ORNL Processed water would be mixed with cement and pumped deep into the ground thereby hydraulically fracturing the strata.
I J. Alternative 27:
High Altitude Release to Atmosphere This option would be perforced over remote low population areas whereby processed water would be evaporated and discharged into the upper atmo l
l r
l o A u M.
FROM: -
ACTION CONTROL DATES lCONTROT., NO.
COMPL DEADLINE 8h[82 Rep.-Aoy Dyson ACKNOWLEDGMENT T
DATE OF DOCUMENT INTERIM REPLY M f[$2' PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO:
OF:
FINAL REPLY jgf hf.Ag* -
CHAIR M AN.
M M MF($$
FILE LOCATION -
g /}
g) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (MS OTHER:
DESCRIPTIO5
[gLETTER C MEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Concerns over possiblitty that weste water fran THE may be discharged into the susphanna River & Chesapeste Say-CLASSIFf E D DAT A ~
DOCUMENT / COPY NO.
CLASSIFICATION l NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY-POST AL REGISTRY NO.
C NSI C RO ~ O fro ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW O FINAL 0 COPY IARient_NAR 7/21/82 Dircks ASSIGNED TO:
DATE.
NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS -
- M A
-- EDO ADMIN & CORRES NR C=-
- r 7/hL NN -
Cunnin3 ast.- ELD -
h L-PPAR t
w-Ex T.
- GOMMENTS, NOTIF Y:
($ M 9
r47t7 4
g l
ext.
AE Nu 6 4HLATION RECOMMENDED:
O YES C NO b NRC FORM 232 -
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS l
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL.
-DO NOT RE4fogg COPY -
2 L
I l
l i