ML20062H209
| ML20062H209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Horsey E KENT COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CHESTERTOWN, MD |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208130365 | |
| Download: ML20062H209 (9) | |
Text
^
r
, s.
June 7, 1932 9
S C
l cv a g@h?1 \\h 7
o V,
b
- s c 3 g)/77
.R
- i. h g a
\\f3 g fir. Elmer E. Horsey, President Sg q 4,
Kent County Council of Governments
'diT a> V Court flouse Chestertown,itD
Dear ffr. !!orsey:
I an answering your flay 17, 1982, letter to John fiartin about the future disposition of radioactive wastes from Three Mile Island.
I appreciate and share your concern over the possible disposal of THI-2 processed accident-generated water into the Susquehanna River, which would subsequently flow into the Chesapeake Bay.
It is important to note that all water that became contaminated with radioactive materials due to the
!! arch 28,1979, accident, is currently being stored on the island. Even after processing, the water is still stored and disposition is specifically prcUtbited by the fluclear Regulatory Commission as a conditlon of the plant license. The licensee, General Public Utilities fiuclear, has not submitted any proposal to the flRC for discharge of this water. ?!o proposal is expected before carly 1983, if then. Moreover, a detailed review of any proposal, and specific.tpproval by the itRC Commissioners is required before any of the accident-generated water can be disposed of.
In preparation for this detailed technical review, two studies under the direction of the !!RC staff are now underway to evaluate the potential technicci, regulatory and socio-economic inpacts of twenty-seven possible disposition alternatives. This is an expansion of those alternatives already considered in the Programmatic Environmental Inpact Statement on the Cleanup of T!!I-2 (PEIS). Release of Ti1I-2 processed accident-generated water to the Susquehanna River is but one of these many altcrnatives.
In addition, the State of fiaryland is also conducting a study to ascertain any socio-economic impacts on the Chesapeake which would result from disposal of the T711-2 ' ester in the Susquehanna River. Ultimately, these studies are intended to serve as inportant input to the Commission's decision-making process on this matter.
For your interest, I am enclosing a list of the twentpseven dispositipn alternatives currently under study, accompanied by a brief description of each.
8208130365 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000320 H
PDR l
.=
V i
fir, llorsey June 7,1982 I would like to point out, as we indicated in the PEIS, none of the water i
disposal methods, including release to the river, would constitute a health hazard.
In both my official capacity, and as a personal point of view as a long time resident of Maryland and a frequent user of the Chesapeake Bay, I share your interest in the water disposal issue.
I would be happy to discuss j
this matter further with you and any other member of the Kent County Council of Governments. You may reach ne by telephone on (301) 492-7761.
Sincerely, i
i I
Bernard J. Snyder, Program Director TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
l As stated Distribution:
TMIP0 R/F l
Tf! IPOS R/F i
BJSnyder LBarrett PDR j
LPDR TPoindexter l
Afasano i
RConte l
Olynch Rueller RBellamy BAHeiss SBWatkins, MD DNR l
l 4
1 orrice >..311.M f;
J.f.l.8.8...I.
.8.8....
- - - ~ ~ - - -.
cd?a.6s.. cap.....ot%...........o Snyda c.....
.u -,>
om> una............u.hu........u..giax.......
Ec ronu as om sncu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us= im-mwo
~. -
ATTACHMENT I TMI-2 PROCESSED WATER DISPOSITION 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 in storage tanks, and using it, in lieu of fresh water as make-up tor water removed from either unit's primary cooling system. When added to the cooling system, the accident water would become mixed with, and indistinguishable from, the non-accident water in the cooling system.
Eventually this mixed 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 been restarted, and necessary regulatgry requirements have been met.
In addition, disposing of the processed accident water in this manner would be a slow and indirect process, amounting _to a deferred discharge option.
Alternative 3:
Reuse at Other PWRs Assuming other utilities with PWRs willing to accept the processed water could be identified, bulk liquid would be transported to other sites for use as make-up for reactor operation.
This would amount to defacto disposal to the environ-ment from nonnal plant releases.
Alternative 4:
Reuse at DOE Facilities Reuse at production reactor or defense reactor facilities would be contemplated.
B. Long Term On-Site Storage Alternative 5:
Bulk Liouid Storage Processed water would continue to be stored in currently available holding tanks on TMI.
The presence of this water is not an issue receiving much public atten-tion at this time.
However, this may change if a decision is made to use this as a means for long tenn storage of the water (20-25 years).
Ultimately, and
perhaps well before 20-25 years have passed, the water would have to be disposed of in some manner.
Prior to that time, there is the possibility of accidental releases to the river, i.e., leaks or tank rupture.
i Alternative 6:
Cement Block Storage This alternative would mquire the construction of cement mixing facilities on TMI.
Large cement blocks would be made (6' X 6' X 10'), coated with a weather resistant material, and placed above ground, in a storage area occupy-ing about four acres.
Eventtially these would have to be permanently disposed
'of, most likely by offsite burial.
This alternative would involve miease of tritium vapor to the atmosphere during the mixing phase. Additionally, about half of thc remaining tritium would be given off as the cement blocks cured.
Even after coating, tritium would continue to escape, although the other radionuclides would be immobilized.
C. Treatment Alternative 7:
Combined Catalytic. Exchange Process (CECE)
The Combined Catalytic Exchange ProcesY(CECE) removes tritium from the pro-cessed accident water via an equilibrium exchange reaction between molecular tritium and tritium oxide which favors formation of the latter.
Detritiated water would then be released to the atmosphere as gaseous hydrogen and oxygen.
The tritium and other radionuclides are concentrated in about 1,000 gallons of water which would remain after the CECE process is completed.
This water would be solidified for offsite burial, resulting in the same kind of tritium releases as described for Alternative 6.
Implementing this alternative would take approximately ten years, four years for construction of the facility, and six years to process the water.
The CECE process has not previously been used on the scale that would be required for treatment of the processed accident water.
Alternative 8:
Direct Electrolysis _
Similar to the CECE process, electrolysis would require the construction of a facility on TMI to separate the processed accident water into gaseous tritiated Gaseous tritiated hydrogen and oxygen which would be released to the atmosphere.
How-hydrogen has 1/1,000 of the health effect rate of tritiated water vapor.
ever, the gaseous tritiated hydrogen would readily recombine with water to c
I form tritiated water vapor so that only the adjacent populace would benefit from the temporary conversion of the processed accident water into gaseous tritiated hydrogen.
Alternative 9:
Distillation Process Distillation is based on deuterium production processes involving columns used in conjunction with processes for catalytic exchange between deuterium Most of the tritium in the processed accident water and heavy water vapor.
would be concentrated in about 95,005 gallonsr of the water.
This water would then be solidified for offsite burial, resulting in the same kind of tritium releases as described in Alternative T.
The detrit:ated water would remain in liquid form after processing, and be released to the river.
It would take about two years of processing to con-centrate the tritium.
In addition, facilities for the distillation process would have to be constructed on TMI.
f D. Controlled Discharge to the Susquehanna River Alternative 10:
Controlled High Volume Release In this option, the processed accident water would be diluted by a factor of at least 120 and released to the river at the highest pennissable flow rate.
The dilution factor would reduce concentration levels enough to allow release to the river within existing regulatory requirements.
All the processed accident water could be released in less than a week with this option.
1 Alternative 11:
Controlled Annual Releases This is similar to Alternative 10 except that the amount of processed water to be released each year would be equivalent to the amount which would have been released if TMI-2 had not been damaged and had centinued to operate in a nonnal fashion.
This would extend the period necessary to release all the processed accident water to about five years.
E. Ocean Disposal Alternative 12:
Bulk Liquid Release Processed water would be shipped as bulk liquid to a remote location in the Atlantic Ocean for permanent disposal.
High dilution and dispersion would likely occur.
Alternative 13:
Packaged Solid Disposal Processed water would be solidified and shipped to port handling facility.
Acceptable packaging would have to m et vario'us current U.S.
and/or international regulations.
Packaged processed water would be trans-ferred to a barge and subsequently tr5nsported t6 an EPA-designated ocean disposal site.
F. Forced Evaporation Alternative 14:
Open Cycle Evaporation at TMI-2 Processed water would be released to the atmosphere via a direct distillation Offsite doses would likely exceed those of other on-site process.
al ternatives.
Alternative 15:
Open Cycle Evaporation at Off-Site Facility Assuming facility willing to accept accident water could be identified, proc-essed water would be transported in bulk and same process as that described for Alternative 14 would occur.
Entire tritiated water inventory would be removed from TMI-area.
M
~
Alternative 16:
TMI Cooling Tower Evaporation The TMI mechanical draft cooling towers would be used to evaporate the processed accident water. About 95% of the water and, the tritium would be released to the atmosphere as water vapor.
The remaining 5% of the water, temed " blowdown",
would fall to the bottom of the cooling tower, be diluted and discharged to the river.
The blowdown would contain about 95% of the radionuclides other than tritium (and 5% of the tritium) that are in the processed accident water.
The entire process would be a controlled method of disposal which would take about one year or less to complete.
G. Pond Evaporation Alternative 17:
On-Site Ponds Large man-mcde ponds already exist on TMI.
With minor modifications, they could be used to store the processed accident water.
The tritium would be released to the atmosphere as water vapor.
However, the volume of water in the pond would remain constant because precipitation is approximately equal to evaporation in-the TMI area. Radionuclides other than tritium would remain in pond residues, eventually requiring drainage q
into the river.
The pond lining would be disposed of by offsite disposal.
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 in the summer than the winter.
After three to five years the tritium con-centration of the pond water would be equal to that of the river.
Prior to that time accidental releases of the water to the river are unlikely but possible.
Alternative 18:
Off-Site Ponds Bulk liquid would be transported to remote DOE site, e.g., Nevada Test Site where high evaporation rates are typical.
~
--,-m,
H. Near Surface Land Disposal Alternative 19:
Land Burial at'Comercial Sites Solidified accident water would be tranrported in numerous shipments to comerical sites in Nevada or Washington State.
Land disposal operations would provide a high degree of waste isolation and environmental control.
Site specific surface water, groundwater and erosion based radionuclide migration pathways must be considered.
Alternative 20:
Land Burial at D0E Site Same as Alternative 19 except burial would occur at a DOE site such as Hanford.
I Alternative 21:
Liquid Dispersal in Cribs (Hanford)
This is a controlled disposal practice, similar to leaching ponds, for intennediate activity radioactive liquid. Local groundwater is principal migration pathway.
Alternative 22:
Land Spraying (Nevad TestSite)
This is a process which results in fast evaporation and dispersion of tritium at a remote site already contaminated.
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 This option would require construction of a deep well injection facility on TMI, and acquisition of a permit to dispose of low-level wastes at that location.
Satisfying these two criteria may require a long lead time; how-ever, once these steps were accomplished the processed accident water could be disposed of relatively quickly.
The water would be injected, under high pressure, to a depth well below aquifers which are a source of drinking water.
-7 Alternative 24: ' Commercial Deep W ll ' Injection e
Same process as Alternative 23, assuming commercially operated deep well system willing to accept accident water can be identified.
Federal and 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 INEL in Idaho.
Alternative 26:
Hydrofracturing at ORNL Processed water would be mixed with cement and pumped deep into the ground, thereby hydraulically fracturing t'he strata.
J. Alternative 27:
High Altitude Release to Atmosphere This optian would be performed over remote low population areas whereby processed water would be evaporated and discharged into the upper atmosphere.
5~
_