ML20155H475
| ML20155H475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1988 |
| From: | Piccioni R SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H443 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8810200232 | |
| Download: ML20155H475 (9) | |
Text
.
s October 10, 1988 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ATdMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD c
In toe Matter of
)
[
J GPU Nuclear Corporation
)
Docket No.50-320-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Disposal of accident Station, Unit 2)
)
generated water) l i
TESTIMONY Richard Piccioni, PhD 6
Senior Staff Scientist Accord Research and Ehucational Associates 1
314 West 91st Street, New York, NY 10024 4
Although I have previously expressed skepticism regarding the predictions in NUREG 0683, Supplement 2, on the environmental impacts of the forced evaporation of 2.3 million gallons of j
accident generated water (AGW), the disposal alternative favored by the licensee, General Public Utilities, it is not necessary 2
to challange those estimates to conclude that forced evapora-tion, as opposed to retreatment of all AGW followed by onsite i
monitored storage, is not in keeping with the principles of l
ALARA, and of the NRC's mandate regarding the TMI/2 cleanup
[
operation.
[
t i
k In NUREG 0683 Supplement 2, Table 5.1, it is clearly indicated that the only alternative with no offsite or occupational l
exposure is onsite tank storage.
In Table 5.2, however, which considers possible radiological accident impacts, onsite tank storage is shown to have the highest potential accidental offsite im pac t.
A reanalysis (see below) of the possible impacts of an accidental release of trt-ced AGW stored in 11,000 l
gal tanks, based entirely upon the assumptions and methods
[
]
described in NUREG 0683 Supplement 2 shows the possible impacts J
of such an accident to be substantially smaller than the actual impacts of forced evaporation predicted in the same document. If a temporary interdiction of shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay is i
included in the accident scenario, the calculated total body l
population dose due to forced evaporation is over 4000 (four j
thousand) times greater than the possible impact of an accident j
during onsite storage.
page 1 y
f I
1 l
i 8810200232 881011 PDR ADOCK 05000320 PDR l
c i
i l
i h
I pago 2 The reanalysis refered to above is as follows:
NUREG 0683, 3.31: Radiation exposure to the public due to release of retreated AGW (2.3 million gallons):
14 person-rem to bone (with shellfish comsumption) 11 person-rem to bone (due to shellfish alone) 1.0 person-rem to total body (with shellfish) 0.9 person-rem to total body (shellfish alone)
From this it follows that an accidental release of 11,000 gallons would have the following impac ts :
'.067 person-rem to bone (with shellfish)
. 053 person-rem to bone (shellfish alone) 0.0048 person-rem to ' total body (with shellfish) 0.0043 person-rem to total body (shellfish alone)
This should be compared with the predicted doses due to forced evaporation (NUREG 0683 Supplement 2, p3.7 ):
0.2 person-rem to bone 3
person-rom to total body up to 6 person-rem to thyroid Thus the ratio of possible accident-dose during storage to predicted dose due to evaporation ist i
3 for population bone-dose (with shellfish) 600 for population total-body dose (with shellfish)
Finally, if, in the event of an accidental relecso of 4
stored water, there is an organized or spontaneous avoidance of Chesapeake Bay shellfish, the doses due to the release would be l
reduced to l
0.014 person-rem to bone (no shellfish) 0.0007 person-rem to total body (no shellfish)
In this case, the ratio of possible accident dose during l
storage to predicted dose due to evaporation ist 14 for population bone-dose 4300 for population total body dose l
The use here of 11,000 gallons for the storage tank ctpacity follows the example set by the ALSB (Memorandum and Order of the ASLB issued 8/25/88, p 15).
1
(
I I
W page 3 In addition to substantially lower possible dose to the public and to GPU employees, retreatment and storage places the public and GPU employees at less risk if, as is likcly, there has been an underestimation of the radionuclidic inventory, tta rate of aerosol release during forced evaporation, and the effective population dose and its impact upon human health, especially with regard to tritium.
Storage should exter.d for at least the length of the rost defueling monitored storage period which will apply to the rest of the facility, understood to be at least 30 years. This storage period will have a significant im pac t upon the level of tritium, Sr-90 and Cs-137.
Retreatment and storage also takes advantage of inevitable improvements in waste-handling technology over the coming decades.
In summary, I strongly recommend that forced evaporation of over 2 million gallons of radioactive water at TMI Unit 2 not be permitted. Instead, retreatment of all AGW should be carried out, followed by long-term onsite storage of the treated water in monitored tanks.
A decision on the ultimate disposal of the water and its residual radioactvity chould be deferred to the end of the storage period in order to exploit the best technology which will be available at that time.
Pretreatment of the water now will substantially diminich the im pac t of any possible leak which may escape detection and secondary containment during the storage period.
This approach will avoid the human exposure to radioactivity which will inevitably accompany forced evapora tion, while lowering the im pac t of a possible accidental release of the stored water.
Signed:
A,
- ( t._
Attachment biographical sketch of R.
Piccioni.
(
a Biographical Sketch:
Dr. Richard Piccioni, PhD, is Senior Staff Scientist at Accord Research and Educational Associates, Inc., a not-for-profit public health research group based in New York City.
He holds a doctorate in biophysics from The Rockefeller University, New York, and conducted three years of postdoctoral research at The Rockefeller University, supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Dr. Piccioni was Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences in the City University of New York (CUNY) where his research was funded by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the MacArthur Foundation of Chicago.
Under the auspices of Accord Research, Dr. Piccioni submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on TMI radwaste disposal, and was an expert witness before the ASLB at their hearings on the safety of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.
l
e
~
i Appendix F List of Firures 3
i Number Title 1
F-1 Example Liquid Monitor Configuration...............
F-2 i
Example Noble Oas Monitor Configuration..........
F-3 Example Radiolodine Monitor Configura'.lon..........
1 F-4 Example Moving Filter Monitor i
Con figura tio n...............................
F-5 Example Combined Vent Monitor t
Configura t io n.....,.................
F-4 Example Analog System Block Diagram..............
F-7 Example Digital System Block Diagram.............
F-8 IDNS Caseous Etfluent Monitoring System at the i
4 LaSalle Nuclear Station.........
i F-9 R AGEMS System Flow Diagram...................
F-10 Example of Offsite Dose Projection from IDNS l
S ys t e m...................................
1 F 11 Swedish System for Gaseous Effluent Sampling i
F l o w Pa t hs.................................
i F-12 i
l Swedish Effluent fionatoring System Diagram Sampling and Counting Arrangements...........
4 F-13
'lletoreen RMS Log Ratemeter...................
q F-14 t
Liquid Effluent Release Block Diagram i
forTMI1..................................
F-li Liquid' Radwaste Block Diagram for TMI-1............
l F-16 Industrial Waste Treatment System E f f lue n ts................................. -
i F-17 Principal Atmospheric Radiation Monitors at l
)
TMl-1...................................,
t l
t' t
i j
t i
f l
i d
[
i I
i l
I i
1 4
i I
i l
i i
's APPENDIX D Appendix F Inplant Wfonitoring Systems for Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Table of Contents f
Section Title F.1 In t rod u c t i o n..............................
F.2 Basis for Routine Effluent Monitoring,...........
i F.2.1 G e ne ral Basis.... )........................
F.2.2 Regulatory Require ments....................
F.2.2.1 Basic R egulatic ns..........................
F.2.2.2 Operating License F.2.2.3 Other Regulatory Commitments...............
F.2.2.4 Sum me.cy F.3 Elements of RoutiniInplant Radioactive 1
Ef fluent Monitoring.....................
i F.3.1.
Technical Approach........................
F.3.1.1 De firi t to ns...............................
F.3.1.2 General Techn! cal Approach..................
F.3.2.
De tec tion Me thods.........................
l F.3.2.1 De fini t io ns...............................
F.3.2.2 Liquid Ef fluent Monitors.....................
F.3.2.3 Gaseous Effluent Monitors...................
Effluent Monitor System Designs.............,
F.3.3 A n alog S ys t e m s...........................,'
F.3.3.1 F.3.3.2 Digital Sys te ms...........................
3 i
c l
F.4 Commercial Availability of Routine Radiation I
Effluent Monitoring Systems...............
i F.5 Advancements in Effluent Measur'ement System Technology for Routine i
Releases.............................
F.5.1 Radiation De t ectors........................
F.5.2 Data Collection, Processing, and
[
j Reporting F.5.2.1 Analog Circ uitry..........................
F.5.2.2 Digital Circuitry / Microcomputer l
Te c hno log y.....,......................
F.5.3 In-line Spectroscopy for Radionuclide A na lys i s................................
\\
(
l f
I i
i
+. ' :
F.5.3.1 Routine Effhent Release 9
Mo ni t oring...........................
F. 5.3.'l a
Post-Accident Rolease Monitoring.............
F.5.4 Piactical Problems with Effluent t
F.5.4.1 Llquid Effluent Monitoring..................
Monitoring Systems...........
F.5.4.2 Gaseous Effluent - Particulate 3
Moni t oring............................
F.5.4.3 Gaseous Effluent -lodine Mo nitoring............................
F.5.4.4 Gaseous Effluent - Noble Gas Monitoring..................
F.5.4.5 Quallfleations of Perspnnel....................
F.6 Inplant Emergency Effluent Monitoring..........
F.6.1 Problems Observed during the TMI-2 A c c id e n t.............................
F-6.2 Required Upgrades following the TMI-2 A c c id e n t.............................
F.6.3 Current Status of Installed Systems.............
F.7 CurreM Status of TMI-1 Monitoring i
Sys t e m s..............................
F.7.1 Routine Effluent Monitoring System............
F.7.1.1 General System Design and imple menta tlon..................
F.7.1.2 Liquid Effluent Monitoring..................
F.7.1.3 Gaseous Effluent Monitoring..................
F.7.1.4 Solid Radioactive Waste Monitoring.............
F.7.1.4.1 High Level Spe nt Fuel.......................
F.7.1.4.2 Low Level Waste Monitoring..................
F.7.1.4.3 Qualifications and Training o f Pe rso nn e l...........................
F.7.2
~
Post-accident Monitoring Systerr...............
F.8 Personnel -- Qualificttlons - Training The National Academy for Nuclear -
Tr a l ni ng..............................
R e fe r e nc e s.........................................
Attachment:
"Lessons Learned from tha NUREGJ0373 Review Range Effluent Monitors and Samplers"(Hull 85b)
O e
~ d. '
~
UNITED STATES OF #4 ERICA NUCIIAR PSGULATORY CatilSS10tl
'88 OCT 13 P 3 10-11-88
.rt-bocht g,,g_
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1his is to certify that thi etelosed testinonies of Drs K.Z.tbrgan, Richard Piccioni,and C.W.lbver have bpen served upon those parties with an asterisk by Federal Express ard all others by first class prepaid postage on Otober 11th.1988, C
dw f[gpf[t3 Frances Skolnick
SERVICE LIST
\\
\\
t Peter B.Bloch,Chainmn Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Board Panel U.S. Nucl ear Regul a tory Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 4 01enn O.
Seight 4 Themas A.
Ba.:ter, Esq.
Aenini stra t ive Judge Shaw, P 6 t tmari, Potts &
Atomic Safety and Licensing Tecubridge Board Panel 2300 N Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuc I e ar RegJ14 tory Commission Washangton. DC 20037 Washington, D.C. 20!!!
s
.y De. Oscar H.
Paris i Stephen H.
Lewas. Esq.
Aem6nesteat6ve Judge Office of the General Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear ReQulaterr U.S. Nuc l ear Regul a tory Commissisn Commission Washington, D.C.
20355 Washingten. DC 20555 Dr. W.lliam D. Travers Ms. Vera Stuchinski Dir. Three Male Island Three Mile Island alert Cleanup Project Directore 315 Feffer Street P.O. Box 311 Harriseurg, Pa. 17102 Middletown, Pa. !7057 Docketing & Services Branch Richard P.K1ther Secretary of the Ccnmissien Dept.of Environmntal Rescurces i
505 Executive House U.S.N.R.C.
Rtrrisburg,Pa 17120 Washingtcn,DC 20555.
R. Rogan, Director Licensira and tbclear hfety i
. dd eto n, PA 17057 67 MLM w
Fran:es h inick i
s