ML20101T065

Raises Concerns Re Release of Tritium Into State of Co Rivers.Items of Immediate Concern Include,What Alternative Treatment Evaluated & Calculations Used to Determine Where in South Platte River Tritium Std Would Be Met

ML20101T065
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	07/16/1992
From:	Nelson P COLORADO, STATE OF
To:	Cohlmia P, Weiss S NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
References
NUDOCS 9207200240
Download: ML20101T065 (2)

Text

.

s i C~ ROY ROMER tw., u..wm f

5' O'. Govemor Qs,.lgnf ocu

%' PATFICIA A. NOLAN, htD, MPil ggflLI,",',,"",',"

Executive Director g, y, , g,,,

(M3) 3554559 421tf East lith Avenue crad J.ank,. om Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 maj asun NRADO Phone (303) 320-8333 r=No No DEPARTMENT

} O F A ll E A LTil -- _

July 16,1962 Mr. Pete J. Cohlmia Dr. Seymour H. Weiss, Director Unit Manager Non Power Reactor, Decommissioning and Environment Environmental Programs Project Directorate Public Service Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Colorado ATTN: Document Control Desk P.O. Box 84C Washington, D.C. 20555 Denver, Colorado 80701-0840 RE: Tritium Discharge PSC - Fort Salut Vrain Station Permit No.: C0-000ll2i ,

Weld County Q

Dear Mr. Cohlmia and Mr. Weiss:

A '. . er Quality Control Division has reviewed Public Service's letter of June 9,1992 and

v. - ir.cd the information we gathered on our tour of the Fort Saint Vrain site on June 17,1992.

ile ovision is very concerned with the release of tritium into state waters especially as it appears that a finite amount of highly contaminated waste is the source. We feel that additional review of the proposal is necessary. The Division is seeking legal council on what, if any, requirements the state can impose on such a discharge including the ability to require a permit modification before a discharge can occur. The Division will be forwarding a list of questions t concerning the discharge in the near future. Three of the items of immediate concern wre-1.) What treatment alternatives, other than dilution, : vere evaluated? Was the "no discharge" scenario evaluated? What are the costs associated with these alternatives? Why were the alternatives discredited?

2.) Please supply me with the calculations, including all assumptions, used to determ n where in the South Platte River the tritium standard would be met and a map wt.ich clearly shows this location.

9207200240 920716 PDR p

ADOCK 05000267 PDR g i l

i hD .

y e .-

4 Page No. 2 Mr. .Pete Cohlmia  ;

July 16,1992 3.) The Division is not supportive of the point of compliance being determined 5 ,

miles downstream of the property boundary. It is required in the sta'e's Water- l Quality Control Act that effluent limitations be met at the end of the pipe. Is it normally NRC procedure to set in stream compliance points? What is the current effluent limitation for tritium? What is the statutory / regulatory basis which i supports the proposed point of compliance?

We are sorry for the inconvenience, however we need assurance that adequate water quality protection is provided. We will be forwarding additional questions to you in the near future.

We would appreciate a remonse to the items above in the near future. Please contact me with any questions or if you fe i a meeting would be advantageous.

Sincerely, Patricia A. Nelson, P.E.

Industrial Unit Chief Permits and Enforcement Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION cc- M. II. Ilotmen, PSC - Fort Saint Vrain George Voned, PSC Ken Weaver, CDil Radiation Control Division Don llotmer. Permits and Enforcement, WQCD Bob Shukle, Permits and Enforcement, WQCD was.pa t.wvram2 v