ML20207J732

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Resulting from March 28,1979 Accident,Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,Unit 2.Docket No. 50-320.(GPU Nuclear,Incorporated)

ML20207J732
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/31/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0683, NUREG-0683-S02, NUREG-0683-S02-DRFT, NUREG-683, NUREG-683-S2, NUREG-683-S2-DRFT, NUDOCS 8701080568
Download: ML20207J732 (149)

Text

• '

w NUREG-0683  !

Supplement No. 2 Draft Report Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28,1979 accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-320 Draft Supplement Dealing with Disposal of Accident-Generated Water GPU Nuclear, Inc.

l- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TMl Cleanup Project Directorate December 1986 7"% , %

N 9 l

l 000*$ocIk$Io$$$20 PDR l D

= . ,

r NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and cupying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.

Docta ients available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

l l

l l

l

I l

l l

NUREG-0683 1 Supplement No. 2 Draft Report Programmatic Envuonmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28,1979 accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-320 Draft Supplement Dealing with Disposal of Accident-Generated Water GPU Nuclear, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TMl Cleanup Project Directorate December 1986 p n.o,,,

I

COVER SHEET AND ABSTRACT

1. Proposed Action and Location:

DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES RESULTING FROM THE MARCH 28, 1979, ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, LOCATED IN LONDONDERRY TOWNSHIP, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

'l

2. Comments should be filed no later than 45 days after the date on which the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability of this draft supplement to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 is published in the Federal Register.

3. Further information may be obtained from Dr. Michael T. Masnik, the Project Manager for this draf t supplement. He may be contacted at the Three Mile Island Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 or at (301) 492-7743.

4. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Commission's implementing regulations and its April 27, 1981 Statement of Policy, the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decon tamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 NUREG-0683 (PEIS) is being supplemented. This draft supplement updates the environmental evaluation of accident-generated water disposal alternatives published in the PEIS, utilizing more complete and current information. Also, the draft supplement includes a specific environmental evaluation of the licensee's recently submitted proposal for water disposition.

1 I

SUMMARY

The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decon-tamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 was issued as NUREG-0683 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in March 1981. That document discussed a variety of alternatives for disposal of water contaminated as a result of the accident (accident-generated water), and concluded that a decision could "... be deferred until after the water has been processed.

Then, the concentration of radionuclides remaining in the water will be low enough for the water to be stored safely onsite until the disposal decision is made."

The initial water processing to remove radioactive contaminants, has now been completed and much of the water is currently being used for cleanup, primarily for decontamination and/or shielding applications. The licensee has indicated that final processing prior to disposition of approximately 2.1 mil-lion gallons (7.9 million liters) will result in the following levels of activity: 1020 curies of tritium, between 0.03 and 0.29 curies of cesium-137 and 0.08 to 0.9 curies of strontium-90. The water will also contain nonradioactive contaminants, boron, and sodium. Boron was introduced in the water as approximately 150 tons (136,000 kilograms) of boric acid. Sodium was introduced in the water as approximately 11 tons (10,000 kilograms) of sodium hydroxide.

The licensee has proposed to dispose of the accident-generated water by forced evaporation to the atmosphere, followed by onsite solidification of the remaining solids, and disposal in a commercially operated, NRC-licensed, low-level waste burial ground. The disposal volume is expected to be 40,000 to 80,000 ft 3 (11,000 to 13,000 m 3).

i In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Commission's Implementing Regulations, both the licensee's plan and several alternative approaches including the licensee's proposal were examined for their potential environmental impact.

Ten alternatives were evaluated:

1) Evaporation, solidification of bottoms, and disposal at a licensed burial site (the licensee's proposed alternative)

2) Evaporation, solidification of bottoms, and retention onsite

3) Offsite evaporation at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Nevada Test Site

4) Deep-well injection at the DOE's Nevada Test Site

5) Crib disposal at the DOE's site in llanford, Washington

6) Permanent onsite storage of solidified waste v

l l

i

7) Solidification and disposal at a commercial low-level waste site

8) Long-term (years) discharge to the Susquehanna River

9) Short-term (days) discharge to the Susquehanna River

10) Liquid storage in tanks on the Three Mile Island site Eleven additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from further evaluation as being less desirable from a technical standpoint, or clearly inferior to the other alternatives that received more detailed consideration.

Alternatives were evaluated relative to the system and operations required to implement the alternative, the estimated environmental impact (including the risk from radiation exposure both to the public and to workers), the prob-ability and consequences of accidents, the commitment of resources (including costs), and the regulatory constraints.

The potential environmental impacts for all the considered disposal alternatives ranged from 0 to 0.003 radiatisn-induced cancer fatalities in the worker population, O to 0.0004 radiation-induced cancer fatalities in the offsite population, and 0.03 to 0.8 transportation-related traffic fatalities in the offsite population. The most significant potential impact associated with any disposal alternative is the risk of physical injury associated with transportation accidents.

No alternative was found to be clearly preferable. The total quantified impact of any alternative is very small. Although extended liquid storage in tanks on the Three Mile Island site, an alternative considered in this evalua-tion would also involve a relatively small impact, the NRC staff views this alternative as inappropriate because it merely defers an ultimate decision on disposal of the water. Indefinite onsite storage is inconsistent with the Commission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radioactive wastes from the TMI site, be carried out safely and expeditiously.

This draft supplement is circulated to allow public input to the decision-making process. Following consideration of the comments received, a final supplement will be issued. After the final supplement is issued, the NRC staff will provide a recommendation to the Commission regardine the licensee's specific proposal for water disposition. Commission approval of any disposi-tion alternative is required.

vi

FOREWORD This draft supplement to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (PEIS) was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Three Mile Island (TMI) Cleanup Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (referred to as the staff), pursuant to the Commission's April 27, 1981, Statement of Policy related to the PEIS and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Assistance was provided by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory under the direction of the staff; the contri-butors to the draft supplement are listed in Appendix A. This draft supple-ment addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the disposal of water contaminated as a result of the accident (accident-generated water).

Information for the draft supplement was obtained from the licensee's Environmental Report and Final Safety Analysis Report (Metropolitan Edison Co.

and Jersey Central Power & Light Co. 1974), from the staff's Final Environ-mental Statement for the operating license (NRC 1976), from the staff's PEIS of March 1981 (NRC 1981) and Supplement 1 of October 1984 (NRC 1984), and from new information provided by the licensee or independently developed by the staff. The staff met with the licensee to discuss items of information pro-vided, to seek new information from the licensee that might be needed for an adequate assessment, and to ensure that the staff had a thorough understanding

- of the proposed disposition. In addition, the staff sought information from other sources that would assist in the evaluation, and visited and inspected the project site and vicinity.

On the basis of the foregoing, the staff made an independent evaluation of water disposal alternatives including the licensee's proposed alternative and prepared this draft supplement to the PEIS. This draft supplement is being circulated to federal, state, and local government agencies and to interested members of the public for comment. A summary notice of the availability of this draft supplement is being published concurrently in the Federal Register.

Theinformayjynonwhichthesupplementisbasedisbeingmadeavailableto the public. Interested persons are invited to comment on the draft supplement.

The following federal and state agencies are being asked to comment on this draft supplement to the PEIS:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (a) NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, Washington, DC 20555, and the State Library of Pennsylvania, Government Publications Section, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17126.

vil

U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Interior  !

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey l U.S. Department of Transportation l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Panel for the Decontami-nation of TMI Unit 2 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Maryland Department of State Planning New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Pennsylvania Department of Health Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare -

Pennsylvania State Clearing House After receipt and consideration of comments on the draft supplement, the staff will prepare a final supplement to the PEIS, which will include a discussion of comments on the draft supplement and the responses to them.

Single copies of this supplement may be obtained by writin$ the Director.

Division of Publication Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.

Comments on the supplement should be addressed to:

Dr. Michael T. Masnik TMI Project Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Masnik is the Project Manager for this project. He may be reached at the above address or at (301) 492-7743.

l l

l vili

CONTENTS COVER SHEET AND ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . iii

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . y FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

2.0 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION AFFECTING ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.1 ORIGIN, TREATMENT, AND USE OF THE ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER . 2.1 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTAMINANTS IN THE ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.2.1 Tritium . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.2.1.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Tritium . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.2.1.2 Interactions of Tritium with Biological Systems . . . . . . . . 2.6 2.2.1.3 Environmental Concentrations of Tritium . . . 2.6 2.2.2 Cesium-137 . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.2.2.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Cesium-137 . . . . . . . 2.7 2.2.2.2 Interactions of Cesium-137 with Biological Systems . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.2.2.3 Environmental Concentrations of Cesium-137 . 2.8 2.2.3 Strontium-90 . . . . . . . . . 2.8 2.2.3.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Strontium-90 . . . . . . . 2.8 2.2.3.2 Interactions of Strontium-90 with Biological Systems . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.2.3.3 Environmental Concentrations of Strontium-90 . 2.9 ix

4 l

2.2.4 Boron . . . . . . . . . . 2.9  !

j 2.2.4.1 Chemical Characteristics of Boron . . . 2.10 4

i 2.2.4.2 Interactions of Boron with Biological Systems . 2.10

{

2.2.4.3 Environmental Concentrations of Boron . . 2.11

• j 2.2.5 Sodium . . . . . . . . . . 2.12 2.2.5.1 Chemical Characteristics of Sodium . . . 2.12 i

2.2.5.2 Interactions of the Sodium with

j. Biological Systems . . . . . . 2,12 t

l 2.2.5.3 Environmental Concentration of Sodium . '. 2.12 s 4

2.3 REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . 2.13  !

2.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations . . 2.13

2.3.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations . . 2.13 i 1

l 2.3.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments

Act of 1985 . . . . . . . . . 2.15 2.3.4 Permits . . . . . . . . . . 2.16 l '

2.3.5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy . . . 2.17 1

• i i 3.0 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR ACCIDENT-GENERATED ,

l WATER DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.1 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING ONSITE EVAPORATION . . . . 3.2 1

3.1.1 Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and .

. Disposal at a Licensed Burial Ground . . . . 3.3 1

+

i '

1 3.1.1.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.3 3.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.6 i r 3.1.1.3

! Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.8

? .

3.1.1.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.9 l 3.1.2 Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and i, Retention Onsite . . . . . . . . 3.9 '

1 3.1.2.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.9

}

i 3.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.10 .

X

... . - . - . . ~ _- - - - . . -- . . __ ..

i i 3.1.2.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.14 r

1 3.1.2.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.14 3.2 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING BULK LIQUID SHIPMENT . . . . 3.14 3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation at the Nevada Test Site 3.15 i f . .

3.2.1.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.15 3.2.1.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.15  !

3.2.1.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.16 1 3.2.1.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.17

3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection at the Nevada Test Site . . 3.17 I

j 3.2.2.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.17 L i

3.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.17 l

3.2.2.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.18 3.2.2.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.19 3

3.2.3 Crib Disposal . . . . . . . . 3.19 1

3.2.3.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.19 l

! 3.2.3.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.19 3.2.3.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.20 i i

3.2.3.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.20 i

3.3 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING DIRECT SOLIDIFICATION . . . . 3.20

-1 I 3.3.1 Permanent Onsite Storage of Solidified Waste . . 3.21 (

! 3.3.1.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.21 1  !

4 3.3.1.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.21 j

f

! 3.3.1.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.23 3.3.1.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.24 3.3.2 Solidification and Disposal at a Commercial .

Low-Level Burial Site . . 3.24 l

1 '

3.3.2.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.24 l

) -

{ xi a

e<r.- --r-. . -. - - , - -., ..m-m,. my-,w.-,wy -y.- ,w m m we , -w r .. wm,,-,y=~yyw, m . ~

3.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.24 3.3.2.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.25  :

3.3.2.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.26 3.4 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING RIVER DISCHARGE . . . . . 3.26 3.4.1 Long-Term River Discharge . . . . . . 3.26 4

3.4.1.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.26 3.4.1.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.27 3.4.1.3 ' Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.28 3.4.1.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.28 3.4.2 Short-Term River Discharge . . . . . . 3.28 3.4.2.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.29 3.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.29 1

,3.4.2.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.30 3.4.2.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.30 3.5 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING ONSITE STORAGE . . . . . 3.31 3.5.1 Liquid Storage in Tanks . . . . . . 3.31

3.5.1.1 System Description and Operation . . . 3.31 1

3.5.1.2 Environmental Impacts . . . . . 3.31 3.5.1.3 Accident Analysis . . . . . . 3.32 3

j 3.5.1.4 Regulatory Considerations . . . . . 3.32 3.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED . . . . . 3.33 3.6.1 Ocean Disposal . . . . . . . . 3.33 i

3.6.2 Pond Evaporation Onsite . . . . . . 3.33 3.6.3 Onsite Cooling Tower Evaporation and Bottoms Disposal to the River . . . . . . . 3.33 r 3.6.4 Deep-Well Injection at Three Mile Island . . . 3.34 i

xii i

i

3.6.5 Disposal at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Hydrofracturing Facility . . . . . . 3.34 3.6.6 Reuse . . . . . . . . . . 3.34 3.6.7 Land Spraying at the Nevada Test Site . . . . 3.35 3.6.8 Combined Catalytic Exchange Treatment . . . . 3.35 3.6.9 Water Distillation Treatment . . . . . 3.35 3.6.10 High-Altitude Disposal . . . . . . . 3.35 3.6.11 Open Cycle Evaporation at Maxey Flats, Kentucky . . 3.36 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1 THE VICINITY OF THREE MILE ISLAND . . . . ,

. . 4.1 4.1.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1.2 Surface Water . . . . . . . . 4.6 4.1.3 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . 4.9 4.2 ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 4.2.1 Aquatic Ecology of the Site . . . . . . 4.10 4.2.2 Terrestrial Ecology of the Site . . . . . 4.10 4.3 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER / CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA . . . . . 4.11 4.4 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES . . . . . . . . 4.12 4.5 0FFSITE DISPOSAL LOCATIONS . . . . . . . 4.12 4.5.1 Commercial Low-Level Burial Site Facility, Richland, Washington . . . . . . . 4.12 4.5.2 U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site . . . 4.14 4.5.3 U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Test Site . . . 4.14 5.0 COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.1

SUMMARY

OF THE IMPACTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . 5.1 5.2 RANCE OF RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS . 5.4 xiii

5.3 RANGE OF NONRADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS . . . . . . 5.6 5.4 RANCE OF IMPACTS AND THEIR PROBABILITY . . . . . 5.8

6.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

7.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 8.0 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 4 APPENDIX A - CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT . . . . . A.1 APPENDIX B - CALCULATION OF RADIATION DOSES FROM WATERBORNE AND i AIRBORNE PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . B.1

• APPENDIX C - BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT AND TRANSPORTATION

COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . C.1

[ 4 j

i t

i e

i t

i xiv

FIGURES 3.1 Proposed Evaporator Location . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.2 Conceptual Landfill Cross Section . . . . . . . 3.11 4.1 Map of the Area Within a 100-Mile Radius of the Three Mile Island Site . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.2 Map of the Area Within a 20-Mile Radius of the Three Mile Island Site . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.3 Population Distribution Within a 12-Mile Radius of Three Mile Island . . . . . . . . . 4.4 4.4 Population Distribution Within a 50-Mile Radius of Three Mile Island . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4.5 Three Mile Island Annual Average Wind Direction at 100 ft . . 4.7 4.6 Principal Water Users Along the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of Three Mile Island . . . . . . . . 4.8 4.7 Routes to Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities from Three Mile Island . . . . . . . . . . 4.13 i

1 XV j

TABLES 2.1 Principal Sources of Accident-Generated Water . . . . 2.1 2.2 Base Case and Achievable Radionuclide Concentration in the Accident-Generated Water . . . . . . . 2.3 2.3 Fifty-Year Dose Commitment from Ingestion of 1 Liter of Accident-Generated Water . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 Summary of Characteristics of Contaminants in the Accident-Generated Water . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.5 Concentrations in Air and Water Above Background in Unrestricted Areas . . . . . . . . . . 2.14 3.1 Summary of the Alternatives Evaluated . . . . . . 3.2 3.2 Characteristics of Evaporator Bottoms . . . . . . 3.5 3.3 Cost Breakdown for Evaporation, Solidification of the Bottoms, and Disposal at a Licensed Burial Ground . . . . 3.8

, 3.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Concreted Evaporator Bottoms . . 3.12 3.5 Cost Breakdown for Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and Retention Onsite . . . . . . . . . 3.13 3.6 Cost Breakdown for Offsite Evaporation at the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . 3.16

! 3.7 Cost Breakdown for Deep-Well Injection at the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18 3.8 Cost Breakdown for Crib Disposal at Hanford . . . . . 3.20 3.9 Radionuclide Concentrations in the Concreted Waste . . . 3.23 3.10 Cost Breakdown for Permanent Onsite Storage of Solidified Waste . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 3.11 Cost Breakdown for Solidification and Disposal at a Commercial Low-Level Burial Site . . . . . . 3.25

3.12 Cost Breakdown for Long-Term River Discharge . . . . . 3.28 3.13 Cost Breakdown for Short-Term River Discharge . . . . 3.30 3.14 Cost Breakdown for Liquid Storage in Tanks . . . . . 3.32

[

xvi

I.

l 5.1 Environmental Impacts of Water Dispocal Alternatives . . . 5.2 5.2 Environmental Impacts of Radiological Accidents . . . . 5.9  ;

l 5.3 Estimated Nonradiological Accident Impacts from Offsite Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 l

6.1 Range of Impacts from the Alternatives Considered . . . . 6.2 l

I xvii l

NOMENCLATURE accident-generated water - refer to pages 2.1 to 2.2.

achievable concentration - a term used to define the composition of the accident-generated water following retreatment of all of the water in storage. (See Table 2.2, page 2.3.)

AEC - Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.

Agreement States - states which have agreed to accept the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of federal legislation for activity within their borders. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is an Agreement State with respect to the Clean Water Act, but not the Atomic Energy Act.

alpha radiation - an emission of particles (helium nuclei) from a material undergoing nuclear transformation; the particles have a nuclear mass number of four and a charge of plus two.

ambient radiation - radiation from multiple or distributed sources.

anadromous fish - fish that ascend freshwater streams from the sea to spawn.

anions - ions that are negatively charged.

aguifer - a subsurface geological formation containing sufficient saturated permeable material to transmit 8roundwater and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.

background radiation - the level of radiation in an area which is produced by sources (mostly natural) other than the one of specific interest.

Examples of such sources are cosmic radiation and radioactive elements in the atmosphere, building materials, the human body, and from the crust of the earth. In the Itarrisburg area, the background radiation level is about 87 mrem per year, not including any contribution from medical practice.

BEIR - biological effects of ionizing radiation, benthic - dwelling on the bottom of a body of water.

beta particles - an electron or a positron (a particle with the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge rather than a negative one).

Usually used to refer to a particle moving at a velocity high enough to produce ions. Beta particles are commonly emitted from the nuclei of atoms undergoing nuclear transformation. Also referred to as beta radiation, biological half-life - the time required for an organism to eliminate half of the atoms of a radioactive material taken in.

xix

biota - plant and animal life, boron - a neutron-absorbing element used in nuclear reactor systems to control criticality.

bremsstrahlung - secondary photon (gamma or x-ray) radiation produced by the deceleration of charged particles passing through matter.

BWR - boiling water reactor.

cation - an ion with a positive charge, cesium-137 - a radioactive isotope of cesium having a half-life of 30 years.

Also see Section 2.2.2.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs - cubic feet per second.

C1 - see curie.

crib - an in-ground structure for the dispossi of liquid radioactive waste.

cumulative occupational dose - the total radiation dose to workers; determined by multiplying the dose rate times the number of workers exposed times the length of exposure. This is expressed in terms of person-rem.

curie (C1) - the special unit of radioactivity. Activity is defined as the number of nuclear transformations occurring in a given quantity of material per unit time. One curie of radioactivity is 37 billion trans-formations per second.

daughter products - the nuclides formed by the radioactive disintegration of a first nuclide (parent).

demineralizer systems - processing systems in which synthetic ion-exchange materials are used to remove impurities from water.

de minimis - a level of radiation so low as to be insignificant to either individual or population dose.

DOE - U.S. Department of Energy.

done - a general term indicating the amount of energy absorbed from incident radiation by a unit mass of any material.

done cammitment - the integrated dose that results unavoidably from the intake of radionceive material starting at the time of intake and continuing (at a decreasing dose rate) to a later time (usually specified to be 50 years from intake).

l DOT - U.S. Department of Transportation.

l l

t l

l

emersency allocation - allocation of waste disposal volume by the DOE in commercial LLW buriel sites because of unusual circumstances.

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency.

EPICOR II - a filtration and domineralizer system designed to process some of the liquid radioactive waste resulting from the TMI accident. The system can be used on liquid waste containing between 1 and 100 micro-curies of radioactivity per milliliter of water.

ERDA - U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, precursor to the DOE.

etiology - the cause of disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis, evaporator bottoms - the concentrate that would remain after evaporation of all of the accident-generated water. See also page 3.3.

exposure - the condition of being made subject to the action of radiation; also, frequently, the quantity of radiation received.

fission - the spontaneous or induced disintegration of a heavy atom into two or more lighter atoms with an accompanying loss of mass which is con-verted into nuclear energy.

fission products - the nuclides formed by the division of a heavier nucleus, typically in a nuclear reactor. Isotopes of essentially all elements are produced by fission of fissile materials. Fission products are the main radioactive components of high-level radioactive wastes.

Ral/ min - gallons per minute.

samma radiation - electromagnetic radiation of high energy (and short wave-length), emitted by nuclei undergoing internal changes. Gamma radiation han the highest energy and shortest wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum and is capable of penetrating several inches of a solid such as concrete.

senetic effects of radiation - effects of radiation that alter the hereditary material and nay therefore affect subsequent unexposed generations.

CPU Nuclear Corporation - the licenree at THI-2, a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation.

aroundwater - water that exists or flows below the ground's surface (within the zone of saturation).

h - hour.

xxi

l

, hsif-life - the time required for half of a given radioactive substance to

decay.

l Hanford, Washinaton - a nuclear facility near Richland, Washington that is operated by the DOE.

I I

helium a rare, nonradioactive isotope of helium formed by the decay of l tritium.

HTO - tritiated water in which one of the two hydrogen atoms has been replaced l l by a tritais atom (ree tritiated water).

hydrofractgre - the fracture of deep rocks by hydraulic pressure. i f Hypalon - a plastic membrane material, manufactured by E. I.tduPont de l Nemours and Company, coumonly used to line earthen ponds for the containment of liquid wastes.

] IMO - International Maritime Organization.

in situ - in place.  !

i in situ vitrification - a method of immobilizing buried waste in glass by melting the host soil into a glass-like compound.

l '

r ion - an atom or molecule from which an electron has been removed (a posi-tively charged lon) or to which an electron has become attached (a nega-

} tively charged ion).

i

,' ion exchanae - in this document, a process for selectively removing a con-l stituent from a waste stream by reversibly transferring ions between an insoluble solid and the waste stream.

)  !

I fon exchanae media - resins or zeolite materials used in ion exchange

! processes. ]

I I

ionization - the process by which a neutral atom or molecule acquires a i pesitive or a negative charge by removal or attachment of an electron. l i

ionizins radiation - any form of radiation that generates ions. ,

(  !

isotopes - nuclides with the same atomic number but with different atomic >

1 masses, therefote having the same chemical properties but different i physical properties.

I kev - kiloelectron volt. i l kg - kilogram.

1

}

I j xxii I

L - liter.

L/ min - liters per minute.

licensee - the holder of a license issued by the NRC to possess or use radioactive materials. In the case of THI-2, the license is held by GPU Nuclear Corporation.

LLW - low-level waste. All radioactive waste materials that are not high-level or transuranic waste. Most TMI-2 wastes will be of this type.

pCi - microcurie (1 x 10-6 curies), a unit for measuring radioactivity.

-6 g,,,,),

gg - microgram (1 x 10 <

mci - megacurie (million curies), a unit for measuring radioactivity.

Memorandum of Understandina - an agreement betwean the DOE and the licensee, GPU Nuclear Corporation, whereby the DOE will accept certain categories of waste from the cleanup of TMI-2, for permanent disposal, either with-out cost or on a cost-reimbursement basis.

MeV - megselectron volt (million electron volts).

mgfL-milligramsperliter(seeppm).

l l mL - milliliter.

r l

MPC - Maximum Permissible Concentration. The NRC-prescribed intake limit for radioactive materials. MPCs are expressed as average radionuclide con-centrations in air or water. Different MPC values apply to the public and to radiation workers.

i mrem - millirem (1 x 10~3 rem), see rem. ,

l HSL - mean sea level.

NAS - National Academy of Sciences.

i NCRP - National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement.

l NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  ;

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

_NTS - Nevada Test Site. ,

nuclide - a species of atom having a specific mass, atomic number, and nuclear energy state.

xxiii i

occupational radiation exposure - the radiation exposure to which workers at a nuclear facility are subjected during the course of their work.

ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

PaDER - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources.

pCi - picoeurie (1 x 10-12 curies), a unit for measuring radioactivity.

PEIS - Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontami-nation and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Station, Unit 2, NUREG-0683, 1981.

person-rem - the sum of the individual radiation doses (collective dose) received by members of a certain group or population. It may be calcu-lated by multiplying the average dose per person by the number of persons. For example, a thousand people each exposed to one millirem (1/1000 rem) would have a collective dose of 1 person-rem.

pH - a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water solution. Neutral solutions have .a pli equal to 7. Acidic solutions have a pit less than 7.

Alkaline (basic) solutions have a pil between 7 and 14. In any solution the pil equals the negative logarithm of the hydrogen-ion concenttation.

population dose - the summation of individual radiation doses received by all those exposed to the source or event being considered, and expressed as person-rem. The same as collective dose, ppm - parts per million = milligrams per liter = mg/L.

primary system - see reactor cooling system.

PWR - pressurized water reactor: THI-2 is this type of reactor.

rad - a unit of beorbed dose of ionizing radiation. A dose of one rad renuits fro: the absorption of 100 ergs of energy per gram of absorbing material.

radiation - energy in the form of electromagnetic rays (radiowaves, light, X-rays, gamma rays) or particles (electrons, neutrons, helium nuclei) sent out through space from .Itoms, molecules, or atomic nuclei as they undergo internal change or resulting from particles and electromagnetic radiation interactions with matter.

radioactive decay - the spontaneous naturni process by which an unstable radioactive nucleus releason energy or particles.

radioactivity - product of radioactive decay of an unstable atom.

radioinotopes - radioactivo isotope (see also radionuclido and isotopes).

radionucifde - an unstable nuclide that undergoes radioactive decay.

xxiv

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCS - reactor coolant system rem - a unit of dose equivalent which is proportional to the risk of biolog-ical injury.

residue - see evaporator bottoms, resin liners - cylindrical metal vessels used to contain the resins and/or zeolites during purification of contaminated water by ion-exchange processes, resins - solid or semisolid products of synthetic origin used in ion-exchange processes for purification of liquids.

Roentgen (R) - unit of gamma or x-ray exposure in air. Energetic gamma rays which produced an exposure of 1 R would deliver a dose equivalent of approximately 1 rem to a person.

SDS - submerged demineralizer system, a water-treatment system that uses a synthetic zeolite mineral to remove radioactive cesium from the accident-generated water.

shielding - a barrier of solid or liquid material (e.g., lead, concrete, or water) which reduces the intensity of radiation as it pasees through and which can be used to protect personnel from the damaging effects of ionizing radiation.

somatic effects of radiation - effects of radiation limited to the exposed individual, as distinguished from genetic effects which may also affect subsequent unexposed generations. Somatic effects at low to moderate doses are cancers of various types.

strontium a radioactive isotope of strontium with an atomic mass 90. See also Section 2.2.3.

technical specifications - limits of operation which an NRC licensee imposes upon itself as part of the licensing process. Technical specifications can only be modified with concurrence of the NRC.

TMI - Three Mile Island.

THi Three Mile Island Unit 1. The NRC-licensed reactor operating on the THI site.

THI Three Mile Island Unit 2. The accident-damaged reactor undergoing cleanup on the THI site.

total body dann - the radiation dose to the total body, including the bone and all organs, from both external and internal radionuclides.

XxV

tritiated water - water in which one or both hydrogen atoms have been replaced by a tritium atom.

I

! tritium (hydrogen-3) - a rare radioactive isotope of hydrogen, containing three neutrons instead of the one neutron that the " normal" (most abundant) form of hydrogen contains. The half-life is 12.5 years. See Section 2.2.1.

unrestricted use - use of any area or facility that is not controlled by an NRC licensee for the purpose of protection of individuals from exposure i from radiation and radioactive materials. l j unretreated water - accident-generated water prior to retreatment.

i UNSCEAR - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

! Radiation.

U.S. Ecology - the operator of a commercial LLW burial site on a leased i portion of the Hanford Site near Richlend, Washington.

i vitrified wasten - radioactive wastes immobilized, or solidified, in glass.

volume reduction factor - remaining volume / initial volume.

i gr - year.

soo11tes - any of various natural or synthesized silicates used to purify 1 water.

i i 50-year dose commitment - the total radiation received from initial exposure  !

through the succeeding 50 years.

i i

l f

1 I

l I

i

(

i

( xxvi l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section presents information on the purpose and scope of this draft supplement to the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NRC 1981); this publication will be referred to as the PEIS in this document.

The PEIS was intended to provide an overall evaluation of the environ-mental impacts that could result from cleanup activities at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2), from the stabilization of plant conditions after the accident through the completion of cleanup, based on the information then available.

Following the publication of the PEIS, the Commission issued a Policy State-ment on April 28, 1981, indicating that the NRC staff would evaluate and act on major cleanup proposals as long as the impacts associated with the proposed activities fell within the scope of the impacts already assessed in the PEIS.

The policy statement also indicated that any future proposal for disposition of water contaminated as a result of the accident (accident-generated water) would be referred to the Commission for approval.

The PEIS was supplemented in 1984 to present new information that led the NRC staff to conclude that cleanup would result in a greater occupational radiation dose than had been estimated in the PEIS in 1981. This document is the second supplement to the PEIS; its purpose is to update the information presented in the PEIS regarding options for disposing of the accident-generated water and the environmental impacts that could result. In keeping with Commission policy, the supplement is being initially published in draft form.

Although disposal of the accident-generated water was addressed in the PEIS, several factors led the staff to conclude that a supplement to the PEIS covering this issue should be prepared. Since the PEIS was issued, much more specific information regarding the volume and the radiological and nonradio-logical characteristics of this water has become available. Because of this new information, the impacts associated with the various niternatives for dis-position can now be estimated more accurately. The licensee, CPU Nuclear Corporation (CPU Nuclear), a division of General {uglic Utilities Corporation, i has also recently submitted its specific proposal for water disposition.

In addition to providing an updated evaluation of a number of NRC staff-identified alternatives, this supplement evaluates the licensee's specific proposal. Finally, this draft supplement has been prepared in recognition of the continuing public and Commission interest in this issue. It is designed to inform the public and to provide a comprehensive basis for a Commission decision on the licensee's proposal.

(a) In this document, the submission, two lettern plus attachments from F. R. Standerfer (CPU Nuclear) to W. D. Travers (NRC) dated July 31, 1986, and October 21, 1986, will be referred to as the licensee's proposal.

1.1

. - . . - - . =. _ . _ .. .-. -. _

i 1

1 4

f Section 2 of this draft supplement presents background information on the the accident-generated water and regulations potentially affecting its dis-position. In Section 3, the environmental impact of a number of alternative I

disposal methods, including those from the licensee's proposal, are discussed.

For each viable alternative, the systems and operations that would be required to implement the alternative, the estimated environmental impacts, an analysis i

of potential accidents, and regulatory constraints are described. The affected environment is described in Section 4. Section 5 defines the environmental impact and summarizes the alternatives that were evaluated. The conclusions are contained within Section 6.

i i

1 4

m 4

l 1

1 t

a 1

1.2

.i I

- . _ . - - - - . - - . _ - , . . . - . - - . - . _ _ . - . - - - . - . , , - , . , ~ . - - . - - . . - - _ . - - . . , - - . - -

2.0 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION AFFECTING ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER DISPOSAL This section discusses the origin of the accident-generated water, describes the water, and addresses the environmental considerations associated with the constituents of the water. Information on the regulatory constraints that may affect the selection of the disposal alternative is also provided.

2.1 ORIGIN, TREATMENT, AND USE OF THE ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER The accident left the reactor building basement covered with about 260,000 gallons (approximately 1,000,000 liters) of water to a depth of 3-1/2 feet (1.1 meters). In the two years following the accident, before water removal and treatment, water was added through primary coolant leakage and in-leakage of river water through the reactor building air coolers. In addition to the reactor building basement, the auxiliary building and the primary coolant system of the reactor contained water that was contaminated by the accident. The amount of water is shown in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1_. Principle Sources of Accident-Generated Water Sources Amount, gallons Initial Accident (") 260,000 Primary Coolant Leakage (*} 178,000 In-LeakageThgghReactorBuilding Air Coolers 180,000 Auxiliary Building 370,000 Primary Coolant System 96,000 (a) From Munson and darty (1985). Additional accident-generated water has accumulated as a result of cleanup activities.

j On February 27, 1980 an agreement executed with the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Edison Company, and the NFC defined " accident-generated water" as:

f e Water that existed in the TMI-2 auxiliary, funi handling, and contain-ment buildings including the primary system as of October 16, 1979, with the exception of water which as a result of decontamination operations becomes commingled with nonaccident-generated water such that the commingled water has a tritium content of 0.025 uCi/mL or less before processing.

2.1 i

i e Water that has a total activity of greater than 1 pCi/mL prior to pro-cessing except where such water is originally nonaccident water and becomes contaminated by use in cleanup, e Water that contains greater than 0.025 pCi/mL of tritium before processing.  !

! .Following the accident, two separate treatment systems were used at TMI to remove radionuclides from this water. In one system, the submerged domineralizer system (SDS), water flows over a cesium-specific ion exchange medium, a synthetic zeolite mineral, where most of radioactive cesium is removed and replaced with nonradioactive sodium. A second treatment.

EPICOR II, employs an organic ion-exchange medium similar to that used in industrial demineralizers. Both radioactive and nonradioactive cations and anions are exchanged with stable hydrogen cations, and hydroxide or borate anions. The EPICOR II removes strontium-90 and most of the remaining radio-active material except tritium, which is incorporated into water molecules.

! Very slight traces of cesium-137, strontium-90, and other radionuclides remain.

Table 2.2 identifies two cases for the accident-generated water. The i

" base" case assumes that the water currently in storage receives no additional

, treatment and that-the water currently in use for cleanup activities, primar-I ily in the reactor coolant system (RCS), fuel pool, and building sumps (approxi-mately 40% of the total accident-generated water) is treated. The " achievable" i

case, also defined in Table 2.2, assumes that, in addition to the treatment of the water in use, all of the accident-generated water in storage in a number of tanks onsite, would be re-treated by the SDS and EPICOR II system.

In addition to the radiological and chemical characteristics discussed j in Section 2.2, the accident-generated water being used for defueling contains suspended solids and has supported a nuisance bloom of microorganisms. These microorganisms and suspended solids, and any treatment to remove them are not expected to change the predictions of environmental impact associated with the various disposal options.

L 4

2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER 1

l This section presents background information on the principal contamin-ants that are expected to be of concern in the accident-generated water:

tritium, cesium-137,~ strontium-90, boron, and sodium. Where possible, informa-tion on the normal environmental levels of these contaminants is included.

l Information on the toxic effects of the contaminants is also included.

!~

Since the accident-generated water contains a mixture of radioactive materials, its radioactive properties are described by its external radiation dose and by the internal dose equivalent that would be received following ingestion and/or inhalation. External radiation from the water includes gamma rays from the decay of the cesium-137 daughter product and bremsstrahlung radiation from the beta-emitting radionuclides. The external dose rate to 2.2 l

, , . , . , - . - n-- ..s,. , , , , - , -, , , , ,-w. ,.c-,-.-e,, , - - - - - - - - - _ - -

i TABLE 2.2. BaseCaseandAchievableRadiongideConcentration-

. in the Accident-Generated Water p

k- Base Case Achievable Quantity, Concentration, Quantity, Concentration, Constituent Ci pCi/mL Ci pCi/mL Total volume 2,100,000 gal 2,100,000 gal Tritium -I (Hydrogen-3) 1.02 x 10 3

1.3 x 10

-1 1.02 x 10 3 1.3 x 10

-I -5 3 x 10

-2 -6 Cesium-137 2.9 x 10 3.7 x 10 4.0 x 10 Cesium-134 <2.44 x 10- <3.07 x 10" nd <3.07 x 10

-1 - -2 -5 Strontium-90 9 x 10 1.1 x 10 ' 8 x 10 1.0 x 10

-0 -3 -0 Ruthenium-106 <2.4 x 10- <3.1 x 10 <2.4 x 10 <3.1 x 10

-3 -

Antimony-125 <5.6 x 10" <7.0 x 10- <5.6 x 10 <7.0 x 10

-6 -0 Cerium-144 <1.4 x 10- <1.8 x 10 <1.4 x 10- <1.8 x 10 Boron 150 tons H 3B03 3000 ppm B 150 tons H 3B03 3000 ppm B Sodium 11 tons NaOH 700 ppm Na+ nd nd (a) Letters and attachments from F. R. Standerfer (GPU Nuclear) to W. D. Travers (hTC) July 31, 1986 and October 21, 1986.

(b) Achievable with SDS/EPICOR II retreatment of all water.

nd = not detectable.

< means less than.

an individual standing 3 feet from a 3,800-gallon (14,000-liter) tank of accident-gengted water (base case) has been calculated to be approximately 0.3. mrem /yr. This is a very low dose rate relative to natural background in the Harrisburg area (approximately 87 mrem /yr).

As a means of characterizing the radiological hazard, the NRC staff has calculated the radiation dose from the consumption of 1 liter (1.06 quart) of accident-generated water (base case) by an adult and by an infant. No alter-native would expose the public to the accident-generated water in this manner.

The 50-year dose commitment to an adult from consuming 1 liter (1.06 quart) of accident-generated water is 30 mrem. The dose drops to 9.8 mrem if the water is re-treated as discussed previously. For an infanc, the 50-year dose com-mitment is 88 and 29 mrem, respectively. The doses to the bone are somewhat (a) Calculated using the computer code ISOSHLD II neglecting the shielding of the tank (Engel, Greenborg and Hendrickson 1966; Simmons et al. 1967).

2.3

A higher, 960 and 87, respectively, for the adult, and 3100 and 280 mrem for the  ;

infant. This information is summarized in Table 2.3. These doses may be ccm-pared to an annual dose of approximately 87 mrem /yr from natural background ,

radiation for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The bone is generally considered to be less sensitive to radiation effects than are other organs on which total I

body dose limits are based (ICRP 1959).

TABLE 2.3. Fifty-YearDoseCommitment{gymIngestionofILiter of Accident-Generated Water Initic1 Accident-Generated Achievable Water (100% Treated Water)

Total Body Dose, Bone Dose, Total Body Dose, Bone Dose, mrem mrem mrem mrem Adult l Tritium (Hydrogen-3) 7.8 0 7.8 0 Strontium-90 19 960 1.8 87 Cesium-137 2.6 3.0 0.29 0.32 Total 30 960 9.8 87 Infant Tritium 23 0 23 0 Strontium-90 63 3100 5.7 280 Cesium-137 1.6 19 0.2 2.1 1

Total 88 3100 29 280 j T

(a) All figures rounded to two significant digits.

l For each contaminant, additional information is presented in three general categories: chemical and radiological characteristics, interactions with biological systems, and environmental concentrations. Some of the l important environmental characteristics of the contaminants are summarized in l Table 2.4.

, 2.4 I

- _ . ~ . - - -

L A

a

.i TABLE 2.4. Summary of Characteristics of Contaminants

(.} in the Accident-Generated Water Y' Half-Life, Decay Background Exposure l Contaminant years Radiation Concentration Sources f Tritium 12.3 Beta 150 pCi/L in Water and (Hydrogen-3) Susquehanna plant and River animal tissues Cesium-137 30 Beta, gamma 0.2 pCi/L in Fish, meat, (daughter decay) surface water and milk Strontium-90 28 Beta (radio- 5 pCi/L Milk and active daughter in milk other food-also beta) stuffs Boron (pre- Nonradioactive Normal human Fruits and sent as the intake is 10 vegetables borate anion) to 20 mg/ day Sodium ion Nonradioactive 6 to 85 mg/L Ubiquitous in fresh water supporting fish 1

2.2.1 Tritium "The characteristics, interactions, and environmental concentrations of tritium are discussed in this section.

2.2.1.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Tritium ~

Tritium (T) is an isotope of hydrogen with an atomic mass of 3. Tritium differs from hydrogen (atomic mass of I) because it contains two addition neu-trons in the nucleus. This isotope has a radiological half-life of 12.3 years and decays by beta emission to form stable helium (8He). The tritium in the accident-generated water is in the chemical form of water with one of the stable hydrogen atoms replaced by a tritium atom; for this reason it cannot be removed by ion exchange. This compound is usually abbreviated HTO (hydrogen-tritium-oxygen or tritiated water) to differentiate it from ordinary water, H2 0.

The beta particle that is released by the decay of a tritium atom has a maximum energy of 18 kev and an average energy of 5.7 kev (NCRP 1979). Such particles have a range of 3 inches (7.6 centimeters) or less in air and a much shorter range in a denser medium such as water.

2.5

i 2.2.1.2 Interactions of Tritium with Biological Systems l

The interaction of tritium with biological systems is, in part, a func-tion of the chemical form of the compound. Tritium is generally assumed to be least hazardous as a gas (T 2), because hydrogen gas and T2 usually do not interact with biological systems, and most hazardous as a tritiated organic compound. Organic molecules containing hydrogen or tritium may be incorpo-rated into body tissue and reside for a longer time. Triciated water is most likely intermediate in effect (ANSI 1983). Water and HTO interact but exchange rapidly, so residence time in the biological organism is short.

Tritium oxide (T 0) 2 and HTO behave in organisms much like ordinary water.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has con-cluded that "There is no evidence for a significant concentration process for tritium in either plants or animals" (NCRP 1979). The NCRP also states, "No apparent enrichment or concentration effect for tritium has been found in aquatic or terrestrial food chains. In fact, dilution in larger hydrogen or organic pools is the general rule....." (NCRP 1979). Thus, while other radio-nuclides, including cesium and strontium, discussed in later sections, may concentrate in certain organisms in the food chain or certain portions of an organism, tritium does not.

When humans are exposed to tritium as tritiated water by inhalation, ingestion, or skin adsorption, the majority of the isotope is eliminated from the body with about a 10-day biological half-life. A small fraction of the intake, usually less than a few percent, is eliminated with a biological half-life of about 30 days, and even a smaller fraction with a biological half-life of about 450 days (NCRP 1979).

2.2.1.3 Environmental Concentrations of Tritium Although tritium occurs naturally, its presence was only identified after the discovery of fission. Naturally occurring tritium is produced by cosmic-ray interactions with hydrogen, primarily in the upper atmosphere. The world inventory of tritium from processes other than manmade is estimated to be 70 million curies (mci), which corresponds to a production rate of 4 mci /yr (NCRP 19791 Tritium is produced from fission and fusion; therefore, it occurs in all reactor fuel and in nuclear weapons tests. The world inventory of tritium resulting from weapons testing reached a maximum of about 3100 Mci in 1963, and has been declining since (Combs and Doda 1979).

Tritiated water from the atmosphere is transferred to the surface of the earth mainly by precipitation, but also by vapor exchange (NCRP 1979). Trit-ium is formed in all water-cooled reactors, both in the primary coolant and in the fuel. The Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of TMI-2 (NRC 1976) predicted that operation of the plant would release 550 C1/yr of tritium in liquid effluents and 560 Ci/yr in gaseous effluents. The total production rate in the U.S. in 1979 was estim-ated at 700,000 curies from reactors (Combs and Doda 1979).

2.6

Tritium is used in some consumer products, primarily luminous dial watches, instruments, and exit signs. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1979, approximately 4,000,000 curies of tritiur.were distributed in digital watches and about 300,000 curies were distributed in other consumer products in the United States (Combs and Doda 1979). Although these are primarily sealed sources, the accidental destruction and ultimate disposal of these products contribute to the environmental tritium level.

The mean concentration of tritium in surface waters of the United States peaked at approximately 4000 pCi/L in 1963 as a result of atmospheric weapons tests. By 1983 this concentration was less by about an order of magnitude.

The background of naturally occurring tritium in surface waters is on the order of 100 pCi/L (Kathren 1984). The tritium concentration of the Susquehanna River was measured during 1977 and found to be fairly constant at 178 pCi/L (NRC 1981).

2.2.2 Cesium-137 The characteristics, interactions, and environmental concentrations of cesium-137 are discussed in this section.

2.2.2.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Cesium-137 Cesium-137 is one of 25 known isotopes of the element and is a product of the fission process. The naturally occurring isotope of the element is cesium-133. Chemically, all isotopes of cesium behave the same. Cesium, like sodium and potassium, is in the alkali metal group of the periodic table. It is very soluble in water and has a highly ionic nature in most chemical systems. The most notable exception to its water-soluble and ionic character-istics is its behavior relative to natural and synthetic zeolite compounds where it is strongly held in preference to all other elements. The cesium-zeolite affinity has facilitated the removal of cesium from the accident-generated water by the SDS. Cesium can also be removed by ordinary cation exchange resins.

Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years and decays to barium-137m, a radio-nuclide with a half-life of approximately 2.6 minutes. Barium-137m decaya to barium-137, which is stable. The cesium decays by emission of two specific beta groups, one with a maximum beta energy of 1.176 MeV (7%) and the other with a maximum energy of 0.514 MeV (93%). The resulting barium-137m decays with the emission of a 0.66-MeV gaena ray. Cesium is usually spoken of as being a gamma emitter because the gamma emission from barium is always associ-ated with it.

2.2.2.2 Interactions of Cesium-137 with Biological Systems Five pathways of exposure from environmentally distributed cesium-137 exist: 1) direct external radiation from freshwater sediments; 2) internal exposur. from drinking contaminated water; 3) exposure from consumption of fish that live in contaminated water, especially bottom-feeding fish such as 2.7

i carp; 4) internal exposure from the consumptian of milk from animals grazing on contaminated pasture, and 5) internal exposure from the meat of animals that grazed on contaminated pasture. Pasture may become contaminated by fallout or washout (from rain) from the air (Kathren 1984).

Cesium, in most commonly occurring compounds, is rapidly and almost completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract (ICRP 1979). The chemical behavior of cesium in the body is similar to potassium. The available evi-dence indicates that cesium is distributed uniformly in the body and therefore contributes to the total body dose. In no case is the concentration of cesium in an organ or tissue greater than the concentration in muscle (ICRP 1979).

The typical daily intake of all isotopes of cesium is about 10 micrograms (pg) and the total body content of cesium is about 1.5 milligrams (ICRP 1979). The residence time in the body is relatively short with a biological half-life of about 140 days. Because of the type, and energy of radiations emitted and its uniform distribution, cesium and its decay products are considered to irradi-ate the total body.

2.2.2.3 Environmental Concentrations of Cesium-137 Stable cesium (cesium-133) makes up about 1 ppm of the earth's crust.

Cesium-137, however, does not occur naturally but was released to the environ-ment by past weapons tests. Because of its 30-year radiological half-life, cesium-137 is relatively persistent in the environment. The concentrations of cesium-137 in the environment varies with location and with the frequency and occurrence of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Concentrations in ocean surface waters are on the order of 0.2 pCi/L; concentrations are lower in deep waters by a factor of 30. On land most cesium-137 is contained in the top few centimeters of soil, with relatively little leaching (Kathren 1984).

Cesium-137 concentration in fruits and vegetables range from 1 to 2 pCi/kg and approximately 10 times this amount in grain and dairy products.

2.2.3 Strontium-90 The characteristics, interactions, and environmental concentrations of strontium-90 are discussed in this section.

2.2.3.1 Chemical and Radiological Characteristics of Strontium-90 Strontium-90 is one of 18 known isotopes of the element strontium and is a product of the fission process. Natural strontium is a mixture of four stable isotopes, strontium-84, -86, -87, and -88. The earth's crust averages about 300 ppm of natural strontium. Strontium, like calcium, barium, and magnesium, is in the alkaline earth group of the periodic table and is metabo-lized by the body very much like calcium. It is readily soluble in water and can be removed by ordinary cation-exchange resins.

Strontium-90 is a pure beta-emitting radionuclide. It has a radiological half-life of approximately 28 years and decays to yttrium-90, which has a half-life of 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br />. Yttrium-90 also decays by beta emission to stable 2.8

zirconium-90. The maximum beta energy of strontium-90 decay is 540 kev, and the average is 195.8 kev. Decay of yttrium-90 has a maximum beta energy of 2.27 MeV and an average of 935 kev (Kathren 1984).

2.2.3.2 Interactions of Strontium-90 with Biological Systems Strontium-90, as an analog of calcium, behaves in a similar manner in biological systems, concentrating in the bone of vertebrates and the shells of invertebrates. Strontium-90 also tends to concentrate in some marine biota, 4

particularly algae (Kathren 1984). When it is deposited on land, strontium-90 is taken up by plants, and finds its way into the human food chain with the

! consumption of plants, grazing animals, milk, and drinking water (Kathren 1984). In humans, strontium-90 concentrates in bone and is secreted by 4

lactating women.

i' The typical dietary intake of all isotopes of streatium in foods and

> fluids is about 1.9 milligrams and the total body content is about 0.32 grams (ICRP 1979). The residence time in the body is relatively long with a biolog-l ical half-life of about 6000 days. It is generally assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the volume of mineral bone. ,

i- 2.2.3.3 Environmental Concentrations of Strontium-90 i

I Like tritium and cesium-137, strontium-90 is found in the environment primarily as a result of past weapons tests, but background levels of strontium-90 are rarely measured. However, accurate data are available on strontium-90 concentrations in milk. The consumption of milk is the principal

source of human exposure to this radioisotope. The U.S. Public Health Service j collected data for the years 1958 to 1972, the time period during which most of the atmospheric weapons tests were conducted. Measured concentrations of '

I- strontium-90 ranged from a low of 1 pCi/L to a high of 31 pCi/L. By 1972, the .

average concentration in the milk in 9 cities was 4.9 pCi/L (NCRP 1975a).

This approximate level was maintained on the east coast of the United States (New York) through the 1970s, but decreased by 1980. Levels of average strontium-90 intake on the west coast (San Francisco) were about one fourth of the levels found on the east coast. Typical dietary intake for New Tork adults was approximately 5 pCi/L in 1980 (Klusek 1981).

For 1970 and beyond, the average annual intake was estimated at 0.0018 pCi/yr for an infant, 0.0046 pCi/yr for people aged 2 to 20 years and '

0.00357 pCi/yr for people over 20 years old (Klement et al. 1972). Annual I bone dose from these intakes are estimated to vary from a low of 2.2 mrem /yr for the infant to a high of 41.9 mrem /yr for the adult (Klement et al. 1972).

The total body dose from strontium-90 is approximately one-tenth of the bone dose (Klement et al. 1972). The bone dose is higher because more of the strontium-90 concentrates in the bone than in the rest of the body.

2.2.4 Baron The characteristics, interactions, and environmental concentration of boron are discussed in this section.

I 2.9

i n

2.2.4.1 , Chemical Characteristics of Boron i

_. The element boron is not found free in nature but occurs as orthoboric acid and as borates. Natural boron is a mixture of two isotopes, boron-10 and boron-11, neither of which is radioactive. Boron readily combines with other elements to form compounds. Boron compounds are generally readily soluble in i

water. Boron, in the form of boric acid, is a weak acid with the chemical formula H3B03 (orthoboric acid). Some of the boric acid.in the accident-

generated water has been converted to sodium borate by the addition of sodium l hydroxide to adjust the pH in the reactor coolant. Sodium salts of boron tend j to adsorb and hold water from air and are therefore difficult to dry com-pletely. Boric acid and sodium borate are not radioactive but are used in J nuclear processes for their neutron-absorption properties. Retreatment of the accident-generated water to obtain the achievable quantity and concentration shown in Table 2.2 would remove the sodium ion and reconvert the borate to boric acid. The borate anion in.the accident-generated water is difficult to i

remove by ion exchange because it is loosely held by anion exchange resins and is present in such high concentrations.

! Neither boric acid nor its salts are considered to be a hazardous

, chemical under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) hazardous waste 4

rules (40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII). Boron discharges into receiving water are regulated by the state which issues the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

2.2.4.2 Interactions of Boron with Biological Systems '

i Boron is essential to the nutrition of higher plants. However, there is I no evidence that it performs any vital function in human or animal nutrition

, (McKee and Wolf 1963). Plant roots take up small quantities of dissolved borates from the soil solution; the absorbed boron is moved to the leaves j where it tends to accumulate in the tip and margin of leaves (McKee and Wolf

1963).

/

l Boron concentrations of 1 to 4 ppa in irrigation water impair plant i growth. The degree of impairment from boron depends upon the plant species.

! None of the alternatives considered would involve direct application of the

accident water to plants except incidentally, in a highly diluted form at

levels below that which would affect plant growth. For example, boron dis-l charged to the river would be taken up by downstream water users who may use it to irrigate yards and plants. However, accidental application by spills or tank ruptures is a possibility and is discussed in Section 3. Plant growth

- would be inhibited in the immediate vicinity of the spill until the boron is

( removed either by cleanup or dispersion by wind and/or water. Once boron i

levels in soil water are below 1 ppa, normal vegetative growth would be expected.

People consume 10 to 20 mg of boron per day primarily by eating fruits and vegetables, which contribute the most boron to the human diet, and by

) 2.10 i

L

drinking water. Boron in food or water is rapidly and completely absorbed by the human system but it is also promptly excreted in the urine (McKee and Wolf 1963).

The ingestion of excessive amounts of boron may cause nausea, cramps, convulsions, coma, and other symptoms of distress. The fatal dose for adults has been reported from 5 to 45 grams. Reportedly, normal adults have been fed 3 grams of boric acid per day for 11 to 16 days without apparent toxic effects (McKee and Wolf 1963).

Small amounts of boron in drinking water are not generally regarded as a hazard to humans. Boron concentrations up to 30 mg/L are reportedly not harm-i ful in drinking water. Above this concentration, boron may interfere with digestion because of its preservative action on foods. " Quantities up to

~

0.5 grams per day of either borax or boric acid have no immediate effect of any kind on healthy individuals" (McKee and Wolf 1963).

The lethal dose of boric acid for animals varies from 1.2 to 3.45 grams of boric acid per kilogram of body weight, depending on the species. Con-centrations of 2500 mg/L of boric acid in drinking water have been detrimental to animals, inhibiting growth. Synthetic borates have been found to be far more toxic to animals than natural boron compounds such as boric acid and sodium borate.

Boric acid in high concentrations is mildly toxic to fish. Wallen, Greer and Lasater (1957) found that a concentration of 5,600 mg/L of boric acid was necessary to kill 50% of mosquito-fish exposed to this solution for 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />.

2.2.4.3 Environmental Concentrations of Boron The average amount of boron in the earth's crust is 3 ppm (CRC Handbook, 63rd edition, p. F-160). Deposits of boron compounds such as borax, colema-nite, and rasorite, are mined to supply industrial needs. Boron occurs naturally in the minerals sassolite (boric acid), borax (sodium borate), and colemanite (calcium borate) (Windholz et al. 1976; McKee and Wolf 1963).

Boric acid and boron salts are used extensively in in consumer products as a mild antiseptic (boric acid) and as a water sof tener in washing powders i (borates) as well as in industry for weatherproofing wood, fireproofing fabrics, manufacturing glass and porcelain, and producing such products as leather, carpets, cosmetics, photographs, and artificial gems. Boron hydrides or borates are used in high-energy petrochemical fuels. Boron is also used in metallurgy to harden metals (McKee and Wolf 1963).

At TMI, boron has been used as a neutron absorber to prevent inadvertent criticalities in the RCS and fuel storage pools and in areas where precise estimates of the quantity of fuel debris are unavailable.

2.11

2.2.5 Sodium Sodium is a principal element in the compound sodium hydroxide (NaOH).

Sodium hydroxide, a highly basic (caustic) compound, is present in dissolved

{

form in the accident-generated water because it was used to adjust the pH of the water when boric acid was added. The chemical characteristics, interac-tions, and environmental concentration of the sodium ion are discussed in this section.

2.2.5.1 Chemical Characteristics of Sodium Sodium, an element of the alkali metal group of the periodic table, is not found free in nature. Sodium-23 is the naturally occurring isotope of the element and it is not radioactive.

Most chemical and biological properties of sodium hydroxide that are reported in the literature result from its highly caustic property and are not applicable to the accident-generated water, which has a near-neutral pH. The constituent of interest in the accident-generated water is the sodium ion.

Sodium is extremely soluble in water and in body fluids. The sodium ion is common in many chemical compounds including table salt. Essential to all forms of plant and animal life, sodium is not considered toxic or harmful except when present in excess. For example, those people with high blood -

pressure are often cautioned to limit their sodium intake.

2.2.5.2 Interactions of the Sodium with Biological Systems Sodium is one of the seven major minerals present in the body as ions that play important roles in the electrical properties of cells and in the transfer and utilization of chemical energy (Vander, Sherman and Luciano 1980). Sodium is vital to the osmotic balance between cells and body fluids.

It is readily absorbed by the body and as readily excreted depending on body needs. The sodium ion constitutes far less than 1% of the total atoms of the body. Normal sodium intake is about 10.5 g/ day but may vary from 50 milli-grams for a patient on a low-salt diet to 25 grams for a gross consumer (Vander Sherman and Luciano 1980).

2.2.5.3 Environmental Concentration of Sodium Sodium is the sixth most abundant element on earth, comprising about 2.8%

of the earth's crust. Its most common compound is sodium chloride, which is used extensively in food and food products.

Sodium in relatively high concentration is detrimental to fresh water fish and other aquatic life. Very low concentrations are also detrimental.

About 95% of the waters supporting a good fish fauna have less than 85 mg/L sodium plus potassium. About 50% have less than 10 mg/L sodium plus potassium and only 5% have less than 6 mg/L sodium plus potassium (McKee and Wolf 1963).

Water sampling in the Susquehanna River between June 1967 and August 1974 showed minimum, average, and maximum sodium concentrations of 2.3, 12.71, and 52.9 mg/L, respectively (NRC 1976) .

2.12

2.3 REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS Disposition of the accident-generated water must be carried out in accor-dance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and permits as discussed below.

2.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations The EPA has the responsibility and authority to set standards for the release of radionuclides to the environment to protect the public from radio-activity. The EPA also has the authority to regulate the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous nonradioactive materials. These authorities arise from various federal laws and executive orders including the Atomic Energy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Air Act.

Any release of radioactivity (to the atmosphere or to any water body) must meet EPA's environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle in 40 CFR 190, which' require that "The annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ of the body as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the general environment from uranium fuel cycle operations and to radiation from these operations."

Any release of radioactivity to waters of the United States, including the Susquehanna River must meet EPA's National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards in 40 CFR 141 that limit beta particle and photon radioactivity from manmade radionuclides in community water systems to that level which "...

shall not produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal organ greater than 4 millirem / year." The regulation specifically limits the concentration of tritium to 20,000 pCi/L of water and the concentration of strontium-90 to 8 pCi/L. This standard applies to concentrations at community water intakes downstream of the discharge point.

Wastes from disposal of the accident-generated water under any disposal method contemplated would not meet the definition of " hazardous waste" under RCRA. Hence, EPA regulations in 40 CFR 260-271 also would not apply.

The EPA also has the responsibility of regulating ocean disposal of radioactive wastes for the United States. See 40 CFR 220-231, see e.g.

Section 227.7. The United States is a signatory to the Resolution of the Ninth Consultive Meeting of the London Dumping Convention which has estab-lished a moratorium on any ocean disposal of radioactive wastes (IMO 1985).

2.3.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations The NRC regulationc in 10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against

, Radiation," apply to the disposal of the accident-generated water. These regulations implement the EPA standards in 40 CFR 190 and specify allowable discharge concentrations of radioactivity in effluents to air and water in unrestricted areas. Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of tritium, strontium-90, and cesium-137 are presented in Table 2.5.

2.13

TABLE 2.5.

ConcentrationsinAirandWyt Unrestricted Areas (pCi/mL) gr Above Background in  !

Isotope Air Water Tritium (Hydrogen-3) S 2x 10 -7 3 x 10 -5 I 2 x 10~ 3 x 10 Sub 4 x 10 ~

Cesium-137 S 2 x 10 2 x 10

~

I 5 x 10" 4 x 10 -5 3 x 10 "

~

Strontium-90 S 3 x 10

~

~

I 2 x 10~ 4 x 10 (a) When more than one radionuclide is present, the sum of the concentrations of each radionuclide, divided by the concentration in the table, must be less than or equal to 1 (10 CFR 20 App B footnote 1).

(b) S = soluble I = insoluble Sub = submersion in a semispherical infinite cloud of airborne material.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations in 10 CFR 71, " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials," apply to the packaging and shipment of low-level radioactive wastes resulting from some alternatives for disposal of the accident-generated water. If the radionuclide concentrations in the product waste forms are such that the wastes would be required to be trans-ported in accident-resistant Type B shipping containers, special provisions apply. This regulation is interpreted to apply to resins used for retreatment in some alternatives. Because only small amounts of radioactive material are present in the accident-generated water, it is anticipated that the radio-nuclide concentrations in the non-resin wastes generated in all alternatives will be such that a less durable Type A chipping container can be used. The standards for Type A shipping containers, which are designed to withstand tests that simulate extreme conditions of normal transport, are found in Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR 173. These DOT regulations in 49 CFR 171 to 179 are applicable to the packaging and shipment of the product waste forms produced in each alternative.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations in 10 CFR 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," will apply to the dis-posal of any residues from the accident-generated water in a licensed low-level waste (LLW) burial site. While these regulations pertain to the licensing, operation, and closing of a low-level commercial waste burial ground, they also contain specifications for the-packaging, content, and char-acteristics of acceptable LLWs. Low-level radioactive wastes are classified as Class A, B, C, or unacceptable, depending on radioactive material content 2.14

and concentration and on characteristics other than radioactivity. For example, liquid wastes must be solidified.

Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plant licensees must dispose of solid waste with any licensee-generated contamination at commercial waste dis-posal sites or on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.302.

Under 10 CFR 20.302 nuclear power plant licensees may apply for disposal of slightly contaminated radioactive materials at other than commercial wastes sites (e.g., commercial landfill or onsite). Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff consideration of requests for onsite disposal of slightly contaminated radioactive material has focused principally on demonstrating that potential doses are a small fraction of annual background radiation exposure.

For disposal of radioactive materials in NRC non-Agreement States, the licensee's application is reviewed solely by the NRC. For disposal of radio-active materials in an NRC Agreement State, the NRC staff grants approval only for handling and storage. The Agreement State has jurisdiction for disposal either inside or outside of the site exclusion area. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is currently a non-Agreement State.

The NRC regulates the storage of LLW at licensee sites. Because of the perturbations brought about by the provisions of the Low Level Waste Policy Act and its amendments (see Section 2.3.3 for a discussion of these acts),

many sites have made provisions for storing LLW for periods beyond that normally required by operational considerations. The NRC has permitted this withincarefu{gycontrolledlimits,buthasclarifiedtheirpolicyinGeneric "It is the policy of the NRC that licensees Letter 85-14, which states:

should continue to ship waste for disposal at existing sites to the maximum extent practicable."

2.3.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 could have a significant impact on the alternative selected for disposing of the accident-generated water. The following provisions of the Act, H.R. 1083 - Public Law 99-240, may be applicable:

e Each commercial naclear power reactor shall, upon request, receive an allocation of low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity at one of the three existing regional disposal facilities. This capacity, in cubic feet, for the transition period of January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989, is determined for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) by multiplying the number of montns remaining in the period by 871, and by 1951 for boiling water reactors (BWRs). For the licensing period of January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1992, it is determined by multiplying the number of months remaining in the period by 685 for PRRs (1533 for BWRs).

(a) A letter to all licensees from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1, 1985,

Subject:

Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Not Generated by the Utility.

2.15

The number of months shall be computed beginning with the first month of the applicable period.

e Any unused allocation received by a reactor during the transition period may be used at any time prior to December 31, 1992, or prior to the commencement of operation of a regional disposal facility in the compact region or state in which the reactor is located, whichever occurs first.

e A commercial nuclear power reactor in a state or compact region that meets the requirements for access to a regional disposal facility may assign any disposal capacity allocated to it to any other person in the state or compact region, e The Secretary of Energy may, upon petition by the owner or operator of

' a commercial nuclear power eactor, allocate to the reactor, disposal capacity in excess of the amount calculated above to permit unusual or unexpected activities, providing these excess allocations, in total, do not result 3

in the acceptance for disposal of more than 800,000 ft3 (22,700 m ) of low-level radioactive waste or a total of the allocations in excess of 11,900,000 ft3 (337,000 m3 ) for the 7-year period of 1986 through 1992, o The disposal of low-level radioactive waste (other than low-level radio-active waste generated in a sited compact region) may be charged a sur-charge by the state in which the applicable regional disposal facility is located. Surcharges shall not exceed $10 per cubic foot in 1986 and 1987, $20 per cubic foot in 1988 and 1989, and $40 per cubic foot in 1990 and 1991.

In parallel with its proposal to the NRC to evaporate the accident-generated water and to solidify the evaporator bottoms for disposal at a commercial disposal site, the licensee haa petitioned the Secretary of Energy for additional waste volume allocation. It is expected that DOE approval of the licensee's request will be required to permit implementation of the licensee's preferred alternative. The DOE consideration of that request is pending.

2.3.4 Pe rmits i

The licensee holds an NPDES permit issued by Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania, Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER). A new permit was issued September 16, 1986 and covers discharge of nonradioactive pollutants into the Susquehanna River. Any deliberate discharge of the accident-generated water into the Susquehanna River must comply with the provisions of the permit. The NPDES permit limits pH, free chlorine, and heat, and requires monitoring of several other parameters at the primary outfall and other quantities at other outfalls. Limits are not specified for sodium or boron, however, the permit does specify "The controlled rate of batch discharges of waste water contain-ing total boron shall be approved by the Department in a letter amendment prior to discharge" (p. 14A of 14).

l 2.16

l l

2.3.5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Following publication of the final PEIS in 1981, the Commission issued a policy statement stating that, "Any further proposal for disposition of pro-cessed accident-generated water shall be referred to the Commission for

approval" (Amendment to License 1981). This means that the Commission itself will make the final decision on disposal of the accident-generated water following completion of the final supplement to the PEIS. The TMI-2 license currently prohibits disposal of the accident-generated water and will require amendment before any disposal may be performed.

l 1

f 4

k 2.17 i

t

,n--,--

3.0 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER DISPOSAL The alternatives for the disposition of the accident-generated water are presented in this section. Although the list of alternatives is extensive, as a practical matter, not all possible alternatives are covered. The alter-natives that are discussed include those that the NRC identified as having the highest potential for technical feasibility and regulatory acceptability.

Additionally, the licensee's proposed method of accident-generated water dis-posal is included and evaluated in this section.

The alternatives are divided into two general categories: alternatives that were quantitatively evaluated, and alternatives that were considered but rej ected. Each of the 10 alternatives shown in Table 3.1 was evaluated, and is described in Sections 3.1 through 3.5. The alternatives are organized so that similar alternatives are considered in the same subsections. The alter-natives are organized into five groups: onsite evaporation, bulk liquid shipment, direct solidification, river discharge, and onsite storage. An additional 11 alternatives were considered and rejected because they were unlikely to gain regulatory acceptance, technically infeasible, or clearly inferior to other alternatives of comparable or lesser cost. The rejected alternatives are discussed briefly in Section 3.6.

The discussion of the evaluated alternatives includes the following topics: the system and operations that would be required to implement the alternative; the estimated environmental impacts; analysis of potential accidents; and regulatory constraints.

The principal environmental impacts associated with planned disposition of the accident-generated water are occupational radiation dose, radiation dose to the maximally exposed member of the general public, population dose, and resources committed (waste burial ground volume, land area, and financial resources in 1986 dollars). The bases for offsite dose estimates are docu-mented in Appendix B. The environmental impact of possible accidents includes the results of accidents occurring onsite and offsite. Possible onsite acci-dents are primarily liquid spills. Possible offsite accidents are primarily transportation accidents. Appendix C describes the basis for transportation accident estimates. Radiation doses from transportation of the accident-generated water or its residues are considered negligible and are therefore not presented (see Section C.2).

The radiological and nonradiological impacts to aquatic and terrestrial organisms have been determined to be insignificant and are not discussed

' further. With regard to radiological impacts, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are sufficiently protective for other species.

1 Sepcifically, the 1972 report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Advis-ory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 1972) concluded that no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than humans. Additionally, no significant nonradiological impacts to aquatic or terrestrial organisms are expected to result from any alternative because of the small quantity and characteristics of nonradiological contaminants in the accident-generated water.

3.1

TABLE 3.1. Summary of the Alternatives Evaluated Disposition of Disposition of Section and Title Retreatment (a) Tritium Borate I 3.1.1 Evaporation, Solldiffcation No Atmosphere at LLW burial of Bottoms, and Disposal at TH! ground near a Licensed Burial Ground Richland,(c)

Washington 3.1.2 Evaporation, Solidification Yes Atmosphere at TMl Site of Bottoms, and Retention THI Onsite 3.2.1 Off No Atmosphere at NTSgeEvaporationatthe Shallow land NTS burial at NTS 3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection at the No Deep strata Deep strata NTS at NTS at NTS 3.2.3 Crfb Disposal No Ground at Ground at Hanford Hanford, g Washington ,)

3.3.1 Permanent Onsite Storage Yes Atmosphere Cround at of Solidified Waste at TMI TMI Site 3.3.2 Solf difIcation and Dis- No Atmosphere LLW burial posal at a Commercial at TMl ground near Low-Level Waste Site Richland,(,)

Washington

, 3.4.1 Long-Term Rfver Dischargs Yes Susquehanna Susquehanna 1

River River 3.4.2 Short-Term Rfver Discharge Yes Susquehanna Susquehanna River River 3.S.1 Liquid Storage in Tanks No THI TMt Site (no-action alternative)

(a) Retreatment of the accident generated water would involve processing all of the water including that currently in storage, with the SDS and EPICOR 11 systems.

(b) In every case there would be some cesium-137 and strontium-90 associated with the i borate; however, in those options employing retreatment of the water, the quantity is approximately 1/10 of what it is without retreatment.

(c) A comercial NRC-licensed site for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) operated by U.S. Ecology.

(d) NTS = Nevada Test Site, a DOE facility.

(e) DOE site at Hanford.

The impacts of each alternative and the relationship between radiation dose and potential health effects are discussed in Section 5.

l 3.1 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING ONSITE EVAPORATION Two alternatives involving onsite evaporation are evaluated. Both involve the use of a commercial low-level liquid waste evaporator, and differ only in the disposition of the evaporator bottoms. Two additional onsite evaporation alternatives were considered but were rejected and are discussed in Sec-tions 3.6.2 and 3.6.3.

3.2

3.1.1 Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and Disposal at a Licensed Burial Ground This alternative rhich has been proposed by the licensee, involves forced evaporation of the majority of the accident-generated water in a com-mercially available system. Forced evaporation of the accident-generated water would release most of the tritium to the atmosphere and concentrate the remainingradioggjivityandchemicalcontaminantsinaliquidresidue(evapo-A volume-reduction factor of from 10 to 20 is expected.

rator bottoms).

Portland cement would be mixed with the residue and the slurry poured into containers for solidification. The solid waste would then be transported to the commercial (NRC-licensed) LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

3.1.1.1 System Description and Operation A transportable, commercially available evaporation system would be installed on a concrete pad at the site. Piping from existing water storage locations would be connected to the evaporator system. A possible location is shown on the site plan in Figure 3.1. The accident-generated water, without additional treatment, would be fed to the evaporator where it would be heated and evaporated. Although most vendor-supplied transportable evaporator systems are designed to operate in a closed-cycle mode, modifications would be 1

made to the evaporator to allow it to operate in an open-cycle mode that would permit vapor to be discharged to the atmosphere. Some form of moisture sepa-

- rator would be provided to assure that liquid droplets and dissolved compon-ents are not discharged with the vapor. Discharge of the vapor is anticipated to be through existing plant waste gas disposal flow paths (e.g., the chemical cleaning building ventilation system, with a stack elevation of 361 f t (110 m) above sea level, 56 ft (17 m) above ground]. The discharge would be monitored to verify radioactivity release rates.

In its proposal, the licensee assumed a typical processing rate of 3 gal / min (11.4 L/ min) and operating enough of the time to complete evapora-tion and solidification in approximately 28 months. A total of about 33 months would be required for setup, processing, and decommissioning of the equipment.

The resultant evaporator bottoms would be mixed with Portland cement in large, approximately 170-ft 3 (4.8-m3 ) liners for forming, curing, transport-ing, and burial. The total solidified volume is expected to be between 27,000 and 46,000 ft 3 (765 to 1,300 m3 ), for 25 wt% solids and 16 wt% solids, respec-tively, assuming a 0.35 cement binder-to-bottoms volume ratio as shown in Table 3.2.

Chemical impurities frequently affect the curing rate and the final strength of concreto. Therefore, it may be necessary to control the boric acid and sodium ion content of the evaporator bottoms by a less complete (a) The terms " evaporator bottoms" and " residue" are used to refer to the concentrated salts that are left after the majority of the accident-generated water has been evaporated.

3.3 r .

,.7., r._ , ._ - _ _ _ - . _ . _ , . . - - , -_---_-.,4-,,,--._.,--___.-_,m .-.7 m,_,,, ,, -_ ,

\

\

l}

j!

L b ij .

l0 ]

c- . e i d ;j 11 .

)/ ai J

o g

"/ W l}t til

/ _

O w"' m eiG, Er~o4li u d!

\

, na t . g is 11 i  :

,/ a' ~na0 ],.e \2f1 _ l e f  ! j' o

f, f,

e x .n al -

jf 3

m

, g,-)1, , .

l i b- fk

/,

l u

3

=

i

@G ,,,

l p

n 2 t

i y, i:i Q e 1 h}

f 3.4

.- --. .m -m.m. - _ ..._-.-.--.,----------w~---,w-r,m--, ,----.-,w,.---w-_ -----,-------,-,-m- ,

i TABLE 3.2. Characteristics of Evaporator Bottoms [ letter and attachment from F. R. Standerfer l (GPU Nuclear) to W. D. Travers (NRC), July 31, 1986]

)

Cement

! Binder-Solids to- Total l

Concentration Quantity Bottoms Activity Burial Volume Per Liner, Volume, j of Bottoms, of Numberg wt% Bottoms, Ib Ratio Liners Ci ft3 16 2,012,500 .35 271 .004507 46,022 l w 16 2,012,500 .66 517 .002358 87,972 25 1,288,000 .35 161 .007587 27,332 25 1,288,000 .66 307 .003940 52,258 (a) Solidification liner size is 170 f t ,

i i

I 1

I

evaporation of the bottoms, so that concrete of a sufficient strength can be produced. The measures used to improve concrete strength could increase the concreted waste volume to as much as 88,000 ft3 (2,500 m3 ), based on 0.66 cement binder-to-bottoms volume ratio for 16 wt% solids, as shown in Table 3.2). 1 The solidification process is expected to run concurrently with the evaporation process. Shipping could also run concurrently with the solidi-fication process but with a lag of 1 to 2 months. The commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington, is available to the licensee for a limited amount of waste. It is assumed that emergency alloca-tions of radioactive waste burial volume by DOE would also be at that site.

Alternatives to the prompt shipment of the solidified material include retention onsite for shipment when burial space becomes available, or reten-tion until a regional site becomes available. Prompt disposal usually results inamininumoccupationalexposureandwouldleadtotheleas{,jomplicated approval procesa. The NRC's policy is prompt waste disposal, therefore the retention options are considered less desirable than prompt shipment and are not quantitatively evaluated.

3.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts Tritium would be released during the evaporation of the water. The amount of tritium released depends on the volume-reduction factor. A volume-reduction factor of 10 to 20 is expected to result in the release of approxi- '

mately 90% to 95% of the tritium. At the expected evaporation rate, the maximum release rate of the tritium has been estimated to be less than 25 pCi/sec, which is less than 5% of the continuous release rate (570 pCi/sec) permitted by the licensee's current technical specifications. The release would be from a stack [361 ft (110 m) above sea level, 56 ft (17 m) above ground], thereby decreasing the exposure to persons onsite and to nearby resi-dents, compared to alternatives involving ground-level evaporation. As the concrete cures, about half of the remaining 5% to 10% of the tritium would be released at ground level. Assuming a solidification process rate of 0.3 gal / min (1,14 L/ min) results in an average estimated tritium release rate of 1.2 pCi/sec (0.2% of the permitted continuous rate) . Small amounts of tritium would remain in the concrete and slowly exchange with water in the environment before, dur-ing, or af ter transport.

The majority of the cesium and strontium would remain in the evaporator bottoms for solidification and subsequent burial. Small amounts of the strontium-90 and cesium-137 would be released to the atmosphere during evapo-ration. The fraction released would be dependent upon the concentration in the water input; the feed rate to the evaporator; the design of the evapo-rator; and the removal fraction from plate-out on the moisture separator, (a) A letter to all licensees from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1, 1985,

Subject:

Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Not Generated by the Utility (Generic Letter 85-14).

3.6

ducts, and stack. In its proposal, the licensee estimated 1% or less of the nonvolatile material would be released in the gaseous effluent. The NRC staff concurs with this achievable level. Based on the expected initial concentration in the accident-generated water, the release rate for non-tritium radioactive material, principally cesium-137 and strontium-90, is expected to be 0.0003 pCi/sec. This rate is less than 2% of the continuous release rate permitted (0.024 pCi/sec) by the licensee's technical specifications.

Transportation of the solidified material to Washington State will require approximately 80 to 135 truck shipments based on two 170-ft 3 (4.8-m3 )

concreted resin liners per shipment (assuming a 0.35 cement binder-to-bottoms volume ratio and 25 wt% and 16 wt% solids, respectively). The number of ship-ments may increase to 260 if a 0.66 cement binder-to-bottoms volume ratio is used for 16 wt% solids.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. The NRC staff has estimated that the operation of the evaporator will require from 7 to 11 person-rem of occupa-tional exposure. This exposure is primarily due to the ambient radiation in the vicinity of the evaporator. Radiation exposure from the bulk liquid and the evaporator bottoms is negligible with respect to other sources (e.g. other radioactive wastes awaiting shipment) on the TMI site. Using the radionuclide concentrations expected to remain in the evaporator bottoms, a surface dose rate of leas than 0.1 mrem /h was calculated for rator bottoms assuming no additional shielding.ggge entire volume ofofevapo-Solidification the evaporator bottoms would require an additional 5 to 9 person-rem for a total occupational exposure of 12 to 20 person-rem.

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The 50-year dose commitment ( } to the maximally exposed member of the public, as a result of processing the accident-generated water prescribed in this alternative, is calculated to be 3 mrom to the bone and 0.5 mrem to the total body. These calculations are based on a number of conservative assumptions. The maximally exposed individual is assumed to breathe air at the offsite location of highest airborne concentra-l tion, and to consume food products raised exclusively in the offsite location that receives the maximum ground deposition of the released radioactive mater-ial. The annual dose to the maximally exposed offsite individual is estimated to be 0.9 mrem to the bone and 0.2 mrem to the total body.

The collective 50-year dese commitment to the affected population, an estimated 2.2 million people within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius, is calculated to be 2 person-rem to the bone and 3 person-rem to the total body.

The accumulated dose and the dose to the maximally exposed individual are calculated for the entire period. The bases for the calculations are given in Appendix B.

(a) Calculated using ISOSHLD-II computer code (Engel, Greenborg and Hendrickson 1966; Simmons et al. 1967).

(b) Fifty-year dose commitment is the total radiation received from initial exposure through the succeeding 50 years.

3.7

Commitment of Resources. Operation of a forced evaporation system would not involve any permanent commitment of land at the TMI site. Approximately 27,000 to 88,000 ft3 (765 to 2,500 m 3 ) of solid radioactive waste would be generated from the solidified evaporator bottoms for disposal at a commercial LLW burial site.

The licensee estimated the cost for processed-water disposal by forced evaporation using a vendor-supplied transportable system and vendor solidifi-cation of the evaporator bottoms as ranging from $6.2 to $12 million depending on bottoms concentration and binder-to-bottoms volume ratio. This cost is broken down in Table 3.3.

TABLE 3.3. Cost Breakdown for Evaporation, Solidification of the Bottoms, and Disposal at a Licensed Burial Ground Cost, Tasks $ Millions 0

Evaporation of 2.1 x 10 gallons of water 3.6 3

Solidification of evaporator bottoms at $33/ft 0.9 to 2.9 Transportation and burial of solidified bottoms at $63/ft3 1.7 to 5.5 TOTAL 6.2 to 12.0 3.1.1.3 Accident Analysis The accidents that have been identified for consideration in this alter-native include an onsite liquid release and a truck accident involving ship-ment of solidified evaporator bottoms.

A leak or spill caused by rupture of a storage tank used in this alter-native, or a break, leak, or spill from the feed line to the evaporator or solidification system would result in the release of accident water or bottoms to the soil on the island. Even in the case of a very serious failure, not more than a few thousand gallons would likely reach the Susquehanna River via normal rainwater runoff channels. However, in the unlikely event where the entire inventory of an 11,000-gallon (42,000-liter) storage tank of accident-generated water prior to retreatment spills into the river, the estimated 50-year dose commitment to the maximally exposed individual will be 0.002 mrem to the total bcdy and 0.01 mrem to the hone.

The calculations are based on a number of conservative assumptions. The maximally exposed individual is assumed to consume water and fish from the river as well as participate in recreation along the river banks. An addi-tional 50-year dose commitment of approximately 0.0001 mrem to the bone and 0.000003 mrem to the total body would be added to the dose of the maximally exposed individual assuming consumption of shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay at the maximum rate of 97 lb/yr (44 kg/yr) for the mid-Atlantic region (Rupp, Miller and Bates 1980). The collective 50-year dose commitment to the 3.8 l

I affected population (an estimated 300,000 people downstream from TMI) would be l l

0.2 person-rem to the bone and 0.005 person-rem total body from drinking river l

vater, consuming river fish, and engaging in recreation along the river banks.

l The total 50-year dose commitment to the larger population group that consumes l shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay is estimated to be 0.5 person-rem to the bone and 0.01 person-rem total body. The bases for these calculations are given in Appendix B.

A truck accident involving solidified evaporator bottoms is not likely to disperse the solidified waste, but could result in sericus injuries or fatal-

) ities. Approximately 80 to 260 shipments between TMI and the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington would be required. For the 260-shipment case, 1.9 accidents involving a truck trans-porting waste are estimated to occur. For the 80-shipment case, 0.6 truck l accidents are estimated to occur.. The number of injuries and fatalities estimated for the 260-shipment case is about 1.6 and 0.13. the number of injuries and fatalities estimated for the 80-shipment case is 0.5 and 0.04.

3.1.1.4 Regulatory Considerations Any disposal method for the accident-generated water must be approved by the Commission (Section 2.3). In addition, for this alternative it is i

expected that the licensee will require the DOE approval for the allocation of emergency waste disposal volume. In the absence of the allocation, only a small portion of the solidified material could be shipped as generated without impacting other cleanup activities requiring waste disposal.

3.1.2 Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and Retention Onsite i

This alternative involves additional retreatment of all of the water, and evaporation in a commercial LLW evaporator as described in Section 3.1.1.

Forced evaporation of the accident-generated water would release most of the tritium to the atmosphere and concentrate the remaining radioactive and chem-ical contaminants in the evaporator bottoms. The residue would be solidified by mixing it wich Portland cement. The concreted waste would then be placed in a lined trench onsite and covered for disposal. Some additional ground-l water monitoring would be performed initially to assure that releases were as expected. Ultimate disposition of the site would not be affected by the

presence of the concreted waste.

! This alternative has not been proposed by the licensee, however, it might i

be considered if burial space allocations are not available to place the I

evaporator bottoms in a commercial LLW burial site. The licensee has con-sidered the related alternative of direct solidification of the entire water mass. This alternative is evaluated in Section 3.3.1.

3.1.2.1 System Description and Operation  ;

The evaporation would be performed as described in Section 3.1.1 except l that all of the accident-generated water would be re-treated by the SDS and EPICOR II system to facilitate onsite disposal the solidified waste. The types and quantities of contaminants expected to remain in the water are listed in Table 2.2 (in the Achievable Quantity and Concentration columns).

3.9

Retreatment would generate 61 additional resin liners, 58 of which are 170 ft3 (4.8 m3 ) and 3 of which are 50 ft3 (1.4 m3 ), for a total volume of approxi-mately 10,000 ft3 (283 m 3). These resin liners would be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste by packaging and transporting to the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

The evaporation and concretion processes would be the same as described in Section 3.1.1 except that the wet concrete would be pumped directly into a prepared pit rather than be formed in liners. A pit approximately 150,000 ft3 )

(4,250 m3 ) in voluge would be adapted or excavated. A 2-ft (0.64-m) layer of clay and a Hypalon liner would provide groundwater protection. Leachate collection laterals would be placed on the liner and then covered with gravel ard soil (shown in Figure 3.2). The collected leachate would be held and monitored in a sump located at the landfill site.

A trailer-mounted grouting system would be used to mix Portland cement with the bottoms and pump the mixture into the pit. A waste water / cement ratio of 0.35 to 0.66, depending on the requirements for complete solidifica-tion in a reasonable period of time, would be used.

The final volume of concrete would be between 27,000 and 88,000 ft3 (765 and 2,500 m3 ) depending on the percent of solids in the bottoms and the cement binder-to-bottoms ratio. Table 3.2 indicates the expected burial volume, based on the solids concentration and cement binder-to-bottoms volume ratio for solidification of the bottoms in liners. These would be the same for solidification in a trench. The time for the disposal of the evaporation bottoms will be dictated by the time required to evaporate the bulk of the accident water, approximately 28 months. Following solidification, a Hypalon cap would be placed over the pit and at least 2 ft (0.64 m) of soil cover placed over that. The final covering of the pit will be completed approxi-mately 5 months after the solidification.

To verify the containment capability of the pit, monitoring wells would be constructed up- and down-gradient of the pit. The water from these wells would be sampled at regular time intervals.

In the future, following decommissioning of both units, it is anticipated that the license would be terminated and the site released for unrestricted use. A discussion of the criteria and monitoring required prior to such release is beyond the scope of this report; however, the solidified material retained onsite is not expected to impact this disposition because of the very low doses that would result from any future use.

3.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts About 90% to 95% of the tritium would be released to the atmosphere dur-ing evaporation. As explained in Section 3.1.1.2, at the expected evaporation rate, the release rate of the tritium has been estimated to be less than 25 pCi/see, which is less than 5% of the continuous release rate (570 pCi/sec) permitted by the licensee's technical specifications. About half of the e A registered trademark of E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company.

l l 3.10 l

Hypalon@

Cap \...... . . . . . . ..o............. h

['

g,....-... .

jjjjjj..

- iiijjjjj..

.:ue.. -

{ Soil and Clay Capj .

, . . :.:.. .s.

u 2 to Sft Existing Grade I ,I I r l I

. .,I g ,t .. . .. . ...... ....

g . ... .

. g g. . . ... .

1t .=. ..... . ... ....

.. ... .......'t1.'e'..

.... .. . 1

. I f i

Solidified Acc.i dent-Generated Water

is l ::.: : .: ..

...: . . -- 1Il ... 8

...... .. ... .. t . l lI . . .. .

l y 1 ......

l.... .. ....

.. . .. I IIi

......... l

.. I 1 ...

>= I 6

• • *. I f

.. 8 1

I - _.. .l.tI . ...... .... . ,

g 4,e,Ie, l

i . ffei.:::.n.;.;.

. r w :..figg:..f_: g f.;,.;ff.p; g 9 i:;gy. :.g.: f,;j gi,;; g .:, :: ,. . ,

t 2ft

." .. *. . 'e Ti'i.f'e:s;e: :::en:::::::i;sM !

1

',!,',*.m ' . . ~ > u . i , i, y , i ,f i i. 0 f. ... ... .. .....

9f4 *t

... .f. . -

Gravel Soil Backfill Leachate Collection Laterals Hypalon Liner Compacted Clay Liner FIGURE 3.2. Conceptual Landfill Cross Section

remaining 5% to 10% of the tritium would be released to the atmosphere dur-ing curing of the concrete. Assuming a solidification processing rate of 0.3 gal / min (1.14 L/ min), results in an average estimated tritium release rate of 1.2 pCi/sec (0.2% of the permitted continuous release rate). A small amount would remain in the concrete and slowly exchange with water in the environment over a period of several years.

The majority (all but about 1% as estimated for evaporator operation in Section 3.1.1.2) of the cesium and strontium in the accident-generated water would remain in the evaporator bottoms and be solidified with the coc. crete.

The release rate for non-tritium radioactive material during evaporation (principally cesium-137 and strontium-90) is expected to be 2.6 x 105 pCi!

sec, which is approximately 0.1% of the permitted continuous release rate (0.024 pC1/sec). The concentrations of cesium, strontium, and tritium in the concrete when it is formed and at the end of 30 years, based on radioac-tive decay and assuming no migration or atmospheric exchanges, are shown in Table 3.4. The earliest that the site might be released for unrestricted use (based on the assumed continued operation of Unit 1) is estimated to be 30 years. In several decades, the cesium and strontium would eventually leach from the concrete after the liner fails. The leachate would not be expected to reach the river for several more decades because of ion exchange with site soils (NRC 1981, Appendix V).

TABLE 3.4. Radionuclide Concentrations in the Concreted Evaporator Bottoms Anticipated Maximum Concentration Concentration After When Cured, pCi/g 30 Years, pCi/g

-6 -5 -6 -5 Cesium-137 4.4 x 10 to 3.7 x 10 2.2 x 10 to 1.8 x 10 Strontium-90 1.2 x 10

-5 -5 -6 -5 to 9.8 x 10 5.6 x 10 to 4.6 x 10

-3 -2 Tritium 7.5 x 10 to 6.2 x 10 1.4 x 10- to 1.1 x 10 -2 Occupational Radiation Exposure. The retreatment of the remaining accident-generated water would result in approximately 2 to 5 person-rem of occupational exposure. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, evaporation would result in 7 to 11 person-rem of occupational radiation exposure and solidification would result in an additional 5 to 9 person-rem. The total occupational exposure would be 14 to 25 person-rem.

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The 50-year dose commitment to the maximally exposed member of the public (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) from the atmospheric releases is estimated to be 3 mrem to the bone and 0.5 mrem to the total body. The collective 50-year dose commitment to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius is estimated to be 2 person-rem to the bone and 3 person-rem to the total body. This value would be based on the time required for the evaporation, solidification, and trench covering, approximately 33 months.

3.12

i l

l l

From the material that could eventually be released to the Susquehanna River from the leachate, the maximally exposed individual will receive a 50-year dose commitment of 0.0004 mrem to the bone and 0.00004 mrem to the total body from 5.1 curies of tritium, 0.0008 curies of strontium-90, and 0.0003 curies of cesium-137. These calculations are based on a number of conservative assumptions. The maximally exposed individual is assumed to

! ingest water and fish from the river and participate in recreational activ-ities on the river such as swimming and boating. The collective 50-year dose i'

commitment to the affected population (an estimated 300,000 people downstream from TMI) from eventual liquid releases is estimated to be 0.03 person-rem to the bone and 0.002 person-rem to the total body.

I

{' This alternative also presumes ultimate release of the reactor site after approximately 30 years with the concreted waste remaining in place. At that-time the site might be used for other purposes, including construction of residences, farming, cattle, grazing, etc. The NRC hae adopted the De Minis 1s Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology (Oztunali and Roles 1984) for estimating

]

postdisposal impacts. Using this methodology and the concentration shown in Table 3.4, a dose to the maximally exposed individual of 0.5 mrem /yr to'the bone and 0.5 mrem /yr total body has been calculated. This calculation assumes-that the maximally enposed individual is cxposed to leachate from the waste, consumes food grown on the site, participates in construction on the site, and j uses well water from the site.

Commitment of Resources. This alternative would commit a land area on the TMI site of approximately 15,000 ft 2(1,400 m 2) for storage of the con-

creted evaporator bottoms until verification of expected future dose was

! confirmed, at which time some future user might still be affected by the

! presence of concrete. This alternative would also require approximately 10,000 ft 3(283 m 3) of burial spaces at a commercial LLW burial site for the resin liners from treatment of the accident-generated water.

4 The estimated cost for completion of this alternative is $6.7 to $8.8 mil--

lion. This cost is broken down in Table 3.5.

I TABLE 3.5. Cost Breakdown for Evaporation, Solidification of Bottoms, and Retention Onsite Cost, Tasks $ Millions Retreatment of water ,

(includes transportation and burial of resin liners) 2.3 Evaporation of water 3.6

Solidification and burial onsite 0.7 to 2.6 j Radiological monitoring 0.1 to 0.3

}

TOTAL 6.7 to 8.8 l

i 3.13 4

The radiological monitoring costs include groundwater monitoring wells and surveillance programs to verify that the 10 CFR 20.302 and criteria of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been met. Upon completion of pit closure, the surveillance program would be included in the overall TMI site program with little additional cost.

3.1.2.3 Accident Analysis The accidents that have been identified for consideration in this alter-native include an onsite liquid release and truck accident in the shipment of resin liners.

If the solidification runs concurrent with evaporation, any accident that is feasible for the solidification process has insignificant radiological consequences compared with the accidents possible in the evaporation of the accident water. The analysis of accidents during the evaporation process is the same as that given in Section 3.1.1.3 with the exception of the trucking accidents.

A truck accident involving a shipment of the resin liners, which are shipped in Type B containers, is not likely to have radiological consequences but could result in serious injuries or fatalities. Approximately 60 ship-ments will be required between TMI and the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington. For the 60 truck shipments, the staff has estimated 0.5 accidents, 0.4 injuries, and 0.03 fatalities.

3.1.2.4 Regulatory Considerations Commission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 (Section 2.3.2) would be required. Approval would require a determination that the level of radio-activity in the material to be buried is below regulatory concern. The prin-cipal controlling criteria for such disposal would be the condition that the maximum dose to any member of the public would be acceptably low (i.e., less than 10 mrem /yr) under all possible circumstances. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would also be involved in the approval of the site as a landfill.

3.2 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING BULK LIQUID SHIPMENT Feasible disposal methods that involve bulk shipment of accident-generated water include pond evaporation and deep-well injection at the DOE'r Nevada Test Site (NTS), and crib disposal at the DOE's Hanford Site. Bulk shipment in 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank trucks is considered more pract-ical than packaged shipment in 55-gallon (200-liter) drums. Bulk rail ship-ment of accident-generated water might prove feasible but truck shipment was considered more likely. Approximately 420 truck shipments each containing 2.5 curies of tritium, plus traccc of cecium and strontium, would be required.

Shipment by tank trucks is allowed under the provision of 49 CFR 173, and would require about 9 to 18 months, depending on the number of trucks avail-able and the shipping distance.

3.14

3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation at the Nevada Test Site Implementation of this alternative involves loading the accident-generated water into tank trucks and transporting it to a specially con-

! structed, lined pond at NTS. The water, including the tritium, would evaporate from the pond and the remaining solids would either be capped with concrete and covered with soil, or covered with soil only and vitrified in situ. In situ vitrification is equivalent in environmental impact to the concrete and soil cover and might prove less costly.

i 3.2.1.1 System Description and Operation A lined pond with a capacity of approximately 1 million gallons (3.87 mil-lion liters) and a surface area of approximately 15,000 ft (1,400 2 m ) 2would be constructed at NTS. The accident-generated water would be transported in 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank trucks (approximately 420 truck shipments would be required) and placed in the pond where natural evaporation would take place. The evaporation rate would nearly equal the shipment rate.

The tritium would be released to the atmosphere at the same rate that the water is evaporated until approximately 90% of the water is evaporated. At that point the rate of evaporation would slow because of the nature of the remaining salts, but the tritium would continue to be lost to the atmosphere by isotopic exchange with water vapor in the air until the tritium level in the remaining salts approaches background level. The evaporation residues could then be disposed of in place by covering them with concrete, and then a layer of soil.

Another method of disposal might be in situ vitrification. In this method the residues are covered with soil, electrodes are introduced, and a 4

current is passed through the residues and soil to melt them into glass (Oma et al. 1983).

3.2.1.2 Environmental Impacts Environmental impacts arise from loading the approximately 420 truck ship-ments, the evaporation of water and the release of essentially 100% of the tritium in Nevada, and the perpetual storage of the remaining waste in Nevada.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. Loading trucks at TMI for transfer to NrS is expected to result in 0.5 to 1 person-rem of occupational radiation exposure. This dose results primarily from exposure to sources on the TMI site other than the accident-generated water. Thus, occupational exposure at the disposal site, where the only source of exposure is the accident-generated water, could be controlled by assuring that personnel remain upwind and do not

approach the pond when the concentration of tritium in the air approaches the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) prescribed in 10 CFR 20. Although there would be a few MPC-hours of exposure associated with this alternative during unloading of the accident-generated water and during the evaporation process, exposure would be minimized by proper site selection and operating procedures. Total occupational dose would be between 0.5 and 1 person-rem.

3.15

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The collective 50-year dose commit-ment to the affected population (estimated to be 6400) within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the proposed disposal site at NTS would be 0.0003 person-rem. This dose occurs during the evaporation. Dose from the residue will be negligible once it is covered. Because all the offsite ,

population is at least 27 miles (43 kilometers) away, no dose to a maximally  !

exposed individual was calculated in this alternative.

Commitment of Resources. Evaporation of the accident-generated water at I NTS and2 covering the waste disposal site would commit approximately 15,000 ft 2 (1,400 m ) of land. Disposal of the accident water via pond evaporation at NTS is estimated to cost approximately $2.5 to $3.4 million. This cost is broken down in Table 3.6.

TABLE 3.6. Cost Breakdown for Offsite Evaporation at the Nevada Test Site Cost, Tasks $ Millions Construction and closure of pond 0.2 to 0.6 Operation and monitoring 0.2 to 0.7 Transportation 2.1 TOTAL 2.5 to 3.4 3.2.1.3 Accident Analysis The accidents that have been identified for consideration in this alter-native include truck accidents on- or offsite.

In the case where the 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) is released directly into the Susquehanna River because of a truck accident, for instance, as the tanker leaves the island, the additional dose to the public would be less than 50% of that estimated for the total discharge of 11,000-gallon (42,000-liter) storage tank containing untreated accident-generated water to the river (see Section 3.1.1.3).

l l The maximum credible accident peculiar to alternatives involving bulk liquid shipment involves an accident in which the contents of the 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank on a truck are released at one time. During transit, if the tank fails and the accident-generated water is released onto the roadway, for a short time airborne tritium concentrations might exceed occupational l limits in the immediate vicinity of the accident. However, the majority of

! the accident-generated water would drain off the roadway and be absorbed into the soil. The approximately 125 pounds (56.7 kilograms) of boron in the accident-generated water transported by one truck would likely kill or stunt any vegetation growing where the spill occurred. Plant growth would be impaired until the boron concentration in the soil was reduced from 3000 ppm 3.16 l

l

i to a concentration of 1 to 4 ppm. The dose to the maximally exposed individ-ual, assuming the individual spent 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the accident site, would be on the order of 0.2 mrem. The 50-year dose commitment to an individual consuming 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of produce harvested 14 days after the accident, from the one-half acre of soil where the accident-generated water was absorbed (af ter the boron concentration had been reduced to innocuous levels and assuming no reduction in the radionuclide concentration), could be up to 60 mrem. If the duration between the spill and harvest were greater, the dose would be less.

The one-way shipping distance from TMI to NTS is 2612 miles (4203 kilo-meters). Calculations indicate that about 1.5 accidents are likely to occur in the 1.1 million miles that waste is transported and another 1.5 accidents are likely on the return trips. These accidents will not necessarily result in the spilling of the loaded accident-generated water, however, a total of 2.6 injuries and 0.2 fatalities were estimated to result from these accidents.

3.2.1.4 Regulatory Considerations BothNRCandDOEapprovalwouldberequiredforthedisposyg)ofwaste described in this alternative. The Memorandum of Understanding between agencies does not include any commitment for DOE to accept TMI waste that can be disposed of by commercial means.

3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection at the Nevada Test Site, This alternative requires that the accident-generated water be shipped by truck to the NTS, unloaded into a tank, and injected into underground cavities created by nuclear explosives testing.

3.2.2.1 System Description and Operation The accident-generated water would be transported by truck to the NTS as in the pond evaporation alternative discussed previously in Section 3.2.1.

Approximately 420 shipments in 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank trucks would be required. The water would be unloaded into temporary storage tanks from which it would be pumped or drained into a cavity.

The geology and hydrology at the NTS make the site ideal for deep-well disposal. Prior injection of liquid waste into wells that discharge into weapons test cavities have demonstrated isolation capabilities (ERDA 1977).

The rate of groundwater flow at the NTS and the type of strata are such that further human exposure to the water is unlikely prior to radioactive decay of essentially all of the activity, a process that requires approximately 300 years.

(a) A copy of The Memorandum of Understanding is available in the NRC Reading Room.

3.17

3.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts Environmental impacts of this alternative arise primarily from the loading of the accident-generated water for transport to the NTS.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. Under normal conditions occupational exposure wculd be extremely small. Loading the trucks would result in 0.5 to 1 person-rem. This dose primarily results from exposure from sources on the TMI site other than the accident-generated water. Thus, very little exposure j is expected during transfer operations at the NTS where the accident-generated water will be the only source of radiation. Some accident-generated water might evaporate during transfer operations, releasing tritium to the air and resulting in some minor occupational exposure. Unloading and disposal opera-tions are expected to result in very little, if any, additional exposure.  ;

Therefore, the total occupational dose from this alternative is O.5 to 1 person-rem.

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The area designated as the disposal zone is isolated from aquifers and the rate of groundwater movement is such that the radionuclides would have decayed to background levels or lower prior to exposure of the offsite population. No other exposure pathways from routine operations have been identified.

Commitment of Resources. Although there would be a prohibition on water use from the disposal site at the NTS, no use is anticipated or would be acceptable because of previous contamination at the site during weapons testing. The estimated cost of this alternative would range from $2.9 to

$4.1 million. This cost is broken down in Table 3.7.

TABLE 3.7. Cost Breakdown for Deep-Well Injection at the Nevada Test Site Cost, Tasks $ Millions Equipment 0.5 to 1.5 Operation 0.3 to 0.5 Transportation 2.1 TOTAL 2.9 to 4.1 3.2.2.3 Accident Analysis The radiological and a nonradiological accident and their potential impacts are addressed in Section 3.2.1.3 (the accident analysis for offsite evaporation at the NTS).

3.18 l

1

- - a ,- , . - -.

3.2.2.4 Regulatory Considerations The implementation of this alternative would require approval from both NRC and DOE. The Memorandum of Understanding between agencies does not include a commitment for DOE to accept TMI waste that can be disposed of by commercial means.

3.2.3 Crib Disposal This alternative involves transporting the accident-generated water to Hanford and introducing it into existing in-ground structures for the disposal of low-level liquid radioactive waste. These structures are called cribs.

Thedisposaloflow-levelgjquidradioactivewastebypercolationthroughthe is an established procedure, and a feasible cribs at the Hanford Site alternative for the accident-generated water disposal. Approval from the DOE would be required.

Thc alternative was not addressed by the licensee, nor was it addressed by the PEIS (NRC 1981). However, the staff recognized this disposal method to be an obvious alternative to deep-well injection at the NTS.

3.2.3.1 System Ececription and Operation The accident-generated water would be transferred to 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank tricks and transported to the Hanford Site for dispersal into the existing'ifibsi Approximately 420 tank truck shipments would be required. The liquid would be released through a perforated pipe running the length of the crib and allowed to percolate through the soil into the closely monitored groundwater, f

3.2.3.2 Environmental Impacts Environmentalimpactsofbhisalternativeariseprimarilyfromthe loading of the accident-generated water into tank trucks for transport to the Hanford Site.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. Approximately 0.5 to 1 person-rem of occupational exposure would be incurred in the loading of the water frucks.

This dose is primarily from exposure to sources at TMI other than the accident-generated water. Thus, very little exposure is expected during transfer operations at Hanford where the accident-generated water will be the primary source of radiation. Some accident-generated water might evaporate during transfer operations, releasing a small amount of tritium to the air and resulting in small amounts of occupational radiation exposure. However, internal exposures at Hanford would be minimized by monitoring the tritium level above the crib. The total occupational dose from this alternative is 0.5 to 1 person-rem.

(a) A nuclear reservation operated by the DOE near Richland, Washington.

3.19

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The addition of the approximately 1,000 curies of tritium in the 2.1 million gallons (7.9 million liters) of accident-generated water, at an activity level of 0.13 pCi/mL and the small amounts of strontium-90 and cesium-137 to the radioactive inventory already existing beneath the Hanford cribs would not be measurable except in the immediate vicinity of the crib.

Commitment of Resources. Additional committed land area would not be added by this alternative. The cost of disposal of the accident water through the Hanford cribs would be between $2.3 to $3.1 million. This cost is broken down in Table 3.8.

TABLE 3.8. Cost Breakdown for Crib Disposal at Hanford Cost, Tasks $ Millions Preparation of crib 0.1 to 0.5 Operation and monitoring 0.1 to 0.5 Transportation 2.1 TOTAL 2.3 to 3.1 3.2.3.3 Accident Analysis The maximum credible accident for this alternative is total release of the contents of a tank truck as described in Section 3.2.1.3. The one-way shipping distance from TMI to Hanford is 2680 miles (4313 kilometers). Cale-ulations indicate that 3.1 truck accidents could occur during the 420 round trips required to transport the accident-generated water. These accidents would not necessarily result in the spilling of the accident-generated water, however a total of 2.7 injuries and 0.2 fatalities were estimated to result from these accidents.

3.2.3.4 Regulatory Considerations Both NRC and DOE approval would be required for this alternative. The Memorandum of Understanding between agencies does not include any commitmant for DOE to accept TMI waste that can be disposed of by commercial means.

3.3 ALTEPNATIVES INVOLVING DIRECT SOLIDIFICATION Solidification of radioactive liquids is frequently used to facilitate safe transport and/or burial. Two alternatives involving direct solidifica-tion were considered: 1) permanent onsite storage, which was evaluated by the licensee and 2) solidification and shipment to a commercial LLW burial site, which was not evaluated by the licensee but considered in the PEIS (NRC 1981).

l 3.20

3.3.1 Permanent Onsite Storage of Solidified Waste This alternative requires the retreatment of the water. The processed water would then be mixed with Portland cement and cast into a previously prepared trench onsite. The concrete would be expected to remain at TMI beyond the time that the licensee maintained control of the site.

The licensee evaluated the solidification and onsite burial with the objective of reducing the radionuclide inventory to a level such that NRC approval of onsite disposal could be sought under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.302. Approval by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would also be required.

l 3.3.1.1 System Description and Operation l

l Prior to solidification, all accident-generated water would be re-treated l by the SDS and/or the EPICOR 11 system to reduce the strontium-90 and the i cesium-137 concentrations. The types and quantities of contaminants expected to remain in the accident-generated water are given in Table 2.2 (in the Achievable Quantity and Concentration columns). Retreatment would generate an 3

i additional 61 resin liners, for a total volume of approximately 10,000 ft (283 m3). These resin liners would be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

A 260- by 190- by 15-ft (79- by 58- by 4.6-m) pit (similar to Figure 3.2) would be excavated and lined with 2 fe (0.64 m) of clay followed by a Hypalon liner. Leachate collection laterals would be placed directly on the liner and the entire pit bottom would be covered with gravel and soil. A trailer-mounted grouting system would be used to mix Portland cement with the accident-generated water and to pump the resulting slurry into the pit. The formula-tions considered by the licensee include the use of Type 1 Portland cement or masonry cement with the water-to-cement ratios between 0.5 and 0.75 by weight.

The concrete volume would range between 390,000 and 460,000 ft3 (11,000 and i 13,000 m3 ) depending on the cement used and the water-to-cement ratio. The

! hardened concrete would be covered with a Hypalon cover and approximately l 2 feet (0.64 meter) of soil.

l l Wells vould be constructed to monitor the groundwater. One monitoring l

well would be constructed up-gradient and the rest would be constructed I down-gradient of the groundwater flow paths. Collected leachate, held in a sump located at the landfill site, would be monitored.

It is anticipated that 39 weeks will be required to complete operations including excavating the disposal pit, erecting the grouting system, complet-ing the grouting operations and completing the backfill operations. This time

! estimation is based on operating approximately 50% of the time.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Impacts Approximately one half of the tritium would be discharged to the atmos-l phere during the concrete curing processes. Assuming a solidification system i that processee water at a rate of 10 gal / min (38 L/ min), 5 gal / min (19 L/ min) l 3.21 l

- __.. - , - - ~ _ . . . _

- ,--, _ ,- ,, . _ _ - , , , - - , _ _ _ _ - ._ -___--.,n. _ _ - ,

would evaporate, releasing tritium at an estimated maximum rate of 41 UCi/sec.

This rate is 7% of the TMI-2 Technical Specifications limits (570 WCi/sec).

The remaining 50% of the tritiated water would slowly exchange with environ-mental water until the tritium concentrations were equal. In several decades, cesium and strontium would eventually leach from the concrete after the liner fails. The leachate would not be expected to reach the river for several more decades because of ion exchange with site soils (NRC 1981, Appendix V).

Occupational Radiation Exposure. This alternative is estimated to result in 2 to 5 person-rem from retreatment of the water and 9 to 11 person-rem from casting the concrete. Occupational exposure during concrete casting would come- from other sources at the site, not the water or concrete. Several hundred hours of exposure to airborne tritium would also result in additional dose that is released during the concrete curing. The total occupational exposure would be approximately 12 to 17 person-rem.

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The tritium that is released during  :

the concrete curing will leave the site in a gaseous state and will become a potential source of exposure to the public. The staff has estimated that the maximally exposed individual (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) will receive a 50-year dose commitment of 0.22 mrem to the total body from the 510 curies of tritium that will be initially released to the atmosphere.

The collective 50-year dose commitment to the affected population, approximately 2.2 million people within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius, is estimated to be 2 person-rem to the total body. From the material that could eventually be released to the river from the leachate (5.1 curies of tritium, 0.008 curies of strontium-90, and 0.003 curies of cesium-137), the maximally exposed individual (as described in Section 3.1.1.3) will receive a 50-year dose commitment of 0.0004 mrem to the bone and 0.00004 mrem to the total body.

The collective 50-year dose commitment frem the eventual liquid release to the affected population (approximately 300,000 people downstream of TMI) is estimated to be 0.03 person-rem to the bone and 0.002 person-rem to the total body.

This alternative also presumes ultimate release of the reactor site after approximately 30 years with the concreted waste remaining in place. At that time the site might be used for other purposes, including construction of residences, farming, cattle, grazing, etc. The NRC has adopted the De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology (Oztunali and Roles 1984) for estimating postdisposal impacts. Using the methodology and the concentration shown in Table 3.9, a dose to the maximally exposed individual of 0.8 mrem /yr to the bone and 0.8 mrem /yr to the total body has been calculated. The bases f.4 these calculations are the same that are used in Section 3.1.2.2.

3.22

TABLE 3.9. Radionuclide Concentrations in the Concreted Waste Anticipated Maximum Concentration Concentration After When Cured, uCi/g 30 Years, uCi/g

~

-6 ~

~7 Cesium-137 9.2 x 10 to 1.1 x 10 4.6 x 10 to 5.5 x 10

-6 1.2 x 10 -6 -6

-6 Strontium-90 2.5 x 10 to 2.9 x 10 to 1.4 x 10 Tritium (Hydrogen-3) 1.6 x 10 -2 to 1.8 x 10

-2 1.9 x 10 -3 to 3.4 x 10

-3 l

Commitment'of Resources. This alternative would involve a relatively permanent commitment of approximately one acre (0.4 hectare) of land onsite.

It would also require approximately 10,000 ft 3 (283 m3 ) of burial space at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington,

, for the resin liners from re-treating the additional accident-generated water.

The estimated cost of retreatment of the accident-generated water, solidi-fication, and disposal onsite ranges from $5.4 to $6.0 million. This cost is broken down in Table 3.10.

i TABLE 3.10. Cost Breakdown for Permanent Onsite Storage 1

of Solidified Waste Cost, Tasks $ Millions Retreatment of water (includes transportation and burial of resin liners) 2.3 construction and close of pit 0.2 to 0.5 i

Solidification system 1.5

, Solidification processing 1.3 to 1.5 Surveillance and monitoring 0.1 to 0.2 TOTAL 5.4 to 6.0 i 3.3.1.3 Accident Analysis Credible accidents are unlikely to result in the release of accident-

! generated water offsite. Accidents occurring during the shipment of the resin liners to the LLW burial site are addressed in Section 3.1.2.3.

i 3.23 i

3.3.1.4 Regulatory Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 (Sec-tion 2.3.2) would be required. Approval would require a determination that the level of radioactivity in the material to be buried is below regulatory concern. The Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania would also be included in the approval of the site as a landfill. j i

3.3.2 Solidification and Disposal at a Commercial Low-Level Burial Site 4

)

This alternative requires the direct solidification of all of the l accident-generated water and disposal at a commercial LLW burial site.

Although the accident-generated water can be transported as bulk liquid, this l alternative assumes that solidification would be performed onsite. Approxi- l mately 1300 to 1600 shipments would be required to move the solidified waste to the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

3.3.2.1 System Description and Operation Retreatment of the accident-generated water would not be performed for this alternative. Solidification would be virtually the same process described for onsite storage in Section 3.3.1 with the following exceptions:

A water-to-cement ratio between 0.5 and 0.6 would be used to ensure the integrity of the concrete for transfer to a storage site.

The concrete would be discharged from the grouting system into approximately 4- by 6- by 12-f t (1.2- by 1.8- by 3.7-m) forms.

Following a minimum 28-day cure period, the blocks would be coated with asphalt and boxed (or shipped in enclosed " exclusive use" vehicles).

After these steps have been followed, the blocks would be trucked to the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

390,000 to 460,000 ft 3 (11,000 Thetotalvg)lumeofconcretewouldrangefrom to 13,000 m depending on the water / cement ratio. This would require 1300 to 1600 shipments based on one block per shipment. The solidification process would be expected to require approximately 6 months, and the shipping process approximately 12 months.

3.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts During concrete mixing and curing, approximately 50% of the water and tritium would be evaporated to the atmosphere. Assuming a solidification system that would process water at the rate of 10 gal / min (38 L/ min),

5 gal / min (19 L/ min) would evaporate and release tritium at an estimated maximum rate of 41 DCi/sec. This rate is 7% of the TMI-2 technical specifi-cation limit (570 DCi/sec). The remaining tritium would slowly exchange with water in the environs before, during, and after transport.

3.24 r

Occupational Radiation Exposure. The occupational radiation exposure to perform this alternative would include 5 to 9 person-rem for solidification and coating and 1 to 4 person-rem to package and load the solidified material for transport. This exposure is primarily due to ambient radiation in the vicinity of the solidification equipment. Radiation exposure from the bulk liquid and solidified waste is negligible with respect to ither sources on the TMI site. A total dose of 6 to 13 person-rem is therefore estimated.

Unioading would result in very little additional occupational exposure.

Radiation Exposure to the Public. The released tritium would leave the site in a gaseous state and will become a source of exposure to the public.

The staff has estimated that the maximally-exposed individual (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) will receive a 50-year dose commitment of 0.2 mrem to the total body from the 510 curies of tritium that will be released to the atmos-phere. These releases were estimated to result in a 50-year dose commitment (total body) to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of less than 2 person-rem.

Commitment of Resources. This alternative would not involve any per-manent commitment of land at the TMI site. It would generate 390,000 to 460,000 ft3 (11,000 to 13,000 m3 ) of solid radioactive waste for disposal at a commercial LLW burial site.

This alternative would cost from $34.2 to $40.7 million. The cost is broken down in Table 3.11.

TABLE 3.11. Cost Breakdown for Solidification and Disposal at a Commercial Low-Level Burial Site Cost, Tasks $ Millions Solidification and packaging 12.9 to 15.2 Transportation and burial 21.3 to 25.5 TOTAL 34.2 to 40.7 3.3.2.3 Accident Analysis Credible accidents onsite are unlikely to release accident-generated-water to the river as discussed in Section 3.1.1.3.

Offsite truck accidents involving the solidified waste material are not expected to result in radiological consequences because the radionuclide con-centrations are extremely low and the waste form (cement) is relatively strong and durable. However, should a truck accident occur, fatalities and injuries may result. It was estimated that 10 to 12 accidents could occur (depending on the final waste volume) as a result of shipping the solidified waste pro-ducts from TMI to the LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, 3.25

Washington. The staff estimated that 8.2 to 10 injuries would result from the projected accidents over the shipping campaign. The number of fatalities that would result from these accidents was estimated at 0.6 to 0.8.

3.3.2.4 Regulatory Considerations As discussed in Section 3.1.1.4, the use of this waste disposal method requires not only the approval by the Commission, but is also likely to require the allocation of emergency waste disposal volume by the DOE. This disposal method would require a very significant portion of the available emergency allocation.

3.4 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING RIVER DISCHARGE Two cases of controlled discharges to the Susquehanna River were con-sidered: long-term and short-term discharge. These cases are discussed in this section.

3.4.1 Long-Term River Discharge This alternative for disposal of the accident-generated water involves controlled discharge to the Susquehanna River over a span of two or three years. Prior to discharge to the Susquehanna River, all of the accident-generated water would be re-treated to assure that the concentration of radioactive material in the effluents is minimized. The water would then be sampled and mixed with letdown water from the mechanical draft cooling tower and released to the river.

3.4.1.1 System Description and Operation Before discharge to the river, the accident-generated water would be re-treated through the SDS and/or the EPICOR II water purification system to further reduce the radionuclide concentrations. The types and quantities of contaminants expected to remain in the water are given in Table 2.2 (in the Achievable Quantity and Concentration columns). The tritium and borate concentrations would remain essentially unchanged. Retreatment would generate 3

anaddg)tional61resinlinersforatotalvolumeofapproximately10,000ft (283 m . These would be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste at a commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

After retreatment, the water would be pumped from storage tanks to one of two evaporator contensate test tanks to be mixed to assure homogeneity and sampled to verify the concentration of contaminants. The water would then be pumped to the mechanical draft cooling tower letdown lines where it would be discharged to the river. The rate of release would be controlled to assure a continuous boron release of 25 ppm. To reduce the boron concentration below 25 ppm would require a dilution factor of at least 120. The concentrations of cesium, strontium, and tritium will be reduced by a factor of 120 from the concentrations shown for re-treated water in Table 2.2 (Achievable Quantity and Concentration columns). The cooling tower would provide a diluent flow of about 22,000 gal / min (83,000 L/ min) to the accident-generated water discharge.

3.26

3.4.1.2 Environmental Impacts The downstream population would be exposed to the accident-generated water in a highly diluted form through the drinking water treatment plant influent, direct exposure, and the consumption of fish and shellfish.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. The occupational radiation exposure required for completion of this alternative is primarily derived from the Addi-retreatment of the accident-generated water, about 2 to 5 person-rem.

tional dose would be received during operation of the pumping contrcis, sam-pling and analysis of each tank, and routine verification of system performance.

The dose from the water would be negligible but other sources at the site would contribute approximately 0.5 to 2 person-rem. This results in a total esti-mate of 2.5 to 7 person-rem for this alternative.

Public Radiation Exposure. The maximally exposed individual could receive a 50-year dose commitment of approximately 0.2 mrem to the bone and 0.04 mrem to the total body. The maxims 11y exposed individual is a person who consumes Susquehanna River water and fish and participates in rivershore activities including bathing and swimming. The time period of the discharge does not materially affect the total dose received, but does affect the rate at which the dose is received. An additional 50-year dose commitment of approximately 0.02 mra to the bone and 0.0006 mrem to the total body would be added to the dose of the maximally exposed individual with the assumption that he consumes shellfish from chesapeake Bay at a maximum rate of shellfish con-sumption for the mid-Atlantic region, 97 lb/yr or 44 kg/yr (Rupp, Miller and Bates 1980).

The total 50-year dose commitment to the population that uses Susquehanna River water, and consumes drinking water and fish from the river (approxi-mately 300,000 people) from the discharge of the water is estimated to be 3 person-rem to the bone and 0.3 person-rem to the total body. The total 50-year dose commitment to the larger population group that consumes shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay is estimated to be 0.2 person-rem total body and 8 person-rem to che bone. The total population dose received would not be materially affected by the time period over which the discharge occurred with the exception of the insignificant radioactive decay taking place during the discharge.

Commitment of Resources. No permanent land commitment is anticipated although approximately 10,000 ft 3 (283 m3 ) of burial space would be required at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington for the resin liners from re-treating the accident-generated water.

This alternative, retreatment of the accident-generated water and long-term discharFe to the Susquehanna River, is estimated to cost from $2.9 to

$3.6 million. This cost is broken down in Table 3.12.

3.27 i

i

TABLE 3.12. Cost Breakdown for Long-Term River Discharge Cost, Tasks $ Millions Retreatment of water (includes transportation and burial of resin liners) 2.3 System modifications and instrumentation 0.5 to 1.0 Operating costs (2 years) 0.1 to 0.3 TOTAL 2.9 to 3.6 3.4.1.3 Accident Analysis The potential accidents that have been considered for this alternative are the discharge of batches of the accident-generated water prior to retreat-ment as well as transportation accidents during the shipment of the resin liners to the commercial LLW burial site.

The discharge of a batch of accident-generated water prior to retreatment is highly unlikely; however, the release of water from a storage tank contain-ing approximately 11,000 gallons (42,000 liters) would result in the doses discussed in Section 3.1.1.3.

Accidents occurring during the shipment of resin liners to the LLW dis-posal site are addressed in Section 3.1.2.3.

3.4.1.4 Regulatory Considerations Both the NRC and the PaDER approval would be required for this disposal option. The EPA requirements of 10 CFR 141 and 190, as discussed in Sec-tion 2.3.1, must be met.

The 10 CFR 20 Appendix B limits for radioisotope concentrations in air and water above background in unrestricted areas apply (see Table 2.5) as do the station technical specification limits. The NDPES permit issued September 19, 1986, and discussed in Section 2.3.4 restricts the pH of liquid discharges to between 6.0 and 9.0 and requires the PaDER approval prior to discharge of boron.

3.4.2 Short-Term River Discharge In this alternative, the accident-generated water would be re-treated to reduce the radionuclido concentrations as in the previous alternative. It would then be discharged to the Susquehanna River as rapidly as possible. At least 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> would be required to reduce boron levels to 25 ppm (presumed maximum discharge concentration allowed by PaDER) with the maximum dilution obtainable using equipment presently available at TMI. Initially it was pre-sumed that downstream water intakes could be closed during the short duration of accident-generated water passage. However, there are several impoundments that would hold up and mix the water so that some accident water would remain in the vicinity of river intakes for several weeks.

3.28

3.4.2.1 Systew Description and Operation The total inventory of the accident-generated water would be re-treated by the SDS and/or the EPICOR II water purification system prior to initiating river discharge to further reduce the radionuclide concentrations. The types and quantities of contaminants expected to remain in the water are given in Table 2.2 (in the Achievable Quantity and Concentration columns). The tritium and borate concentrations would remain essentially unchanged. Retreatment would generate an additional 61 resin liners (approximately 10,000 ft3, or 283 m) to be disposed of at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S.

Ecology near Richland, Washington.

After retreatment, the accident-generated water would be sampled and analyzed to determine the concentrations remaining. The re-treated accident-generated water would be pumped to the mechanical draft cooling tower dis-charge where water dilution would be added. Typical service water cooling tower blowdown flow is about 22,000 gal / min (83,000 L/ min). The rate of discharge of the re-treated accident-generated water would be controlled such that the radionuclide concentrations at the point of discharge would be below the permissible release concentrations given in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, column 2, and plant technical specifications.

To reduce the boron concentration to 25 ppm would require a dilution factor of 120, and a maximum discharge rate of 1,100 gal / min (4,000 L/ min).

l The concentration of cesium, strontium, and tritium would also be reduced by a l

factor of 120. An increase in the dilution flow to about 140,000 gal / min (530,000 L/ min) could be implemented, with minor modifications to existing equipment and changes in the technical specifications. At this rate of dilution flow, the rapid discharge of water to the river could occur over a shorter period of time and maintain the release concentrations within the limits'.

3.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts The downstream population would be exposed to the water in a highly di-luted form through the drinking water treatment plant influent, direct expo-sure, and the consumption of fish and shellfish.

Occupational Radiation Exposure. The occupational radiation exposure required for the completion of this alternative is primarily derived from the retreatment of the accident water, about 2 to 5 person-rem. Additional dose would be received during operation of the pumping controls, sampling and analysis of each tank, and routine verification of system performance. The dose from the water would be negligible but other sources at the site would contribute approximately 0.5 to 1 person-rem. This results in an estimate of 2.5 to 6 person-rem for the entire process.

Public Radiation Exposure. Ingestion of contaminants from the accident-generated water by use of the Susquehanna River water or consumption of drink-ing water and fish from the river would result in a 50-year dose commitment of 0.2 mrem to the bone and 0.04 mrem to the total body of the maximally exposed individual (described in Section 3.4.1.2 for long-term river discharge). An additional 50-year dose commitment of approximately 0.02 mrem to the bone and 3.29

0.0006 mrem to the total body would be added to the dose of the maximally exposed individual assuming consumption of shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay at a maximum rate of 97 lb/yr (44 kg/yr) for the mid-Atlantic region (Rupp, Miller and Bates 1980). The 50-year dose commitment for the total population from short-term discharge of accident-generated water is the same as given in Section 3.4.1.2. The duration of the discharge does not materially affect the total population dose received. The population that uses the Susquehanna River water, and consumes drinking water and fish from the river would receive 3 person-rem to the bone and 0.3 person-rem to the total body. The population that consumes shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay would receive 8 person-rem to the bone and 0.2 person-rem to the total body.

Commitment of Resources. No permanent land commitment is anticipated although an additional 10,000 f t 3 (283 m 3

) of burial space is required at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington for the resin liners from re-treating the accident-generated water.

This alternative is estimated to cost from $2.8 to $3.3 million. The cost is broken down in Table 3.13.

TABLE 3.13. Cost Breakdown for a Short-Term River Discharge Cost.

Tasks $ Millions Retreatment of water (includes transportation and burial of resin liners) 2.3 System modifications, instruments, and operating costs and monitoring 0.5 to 1.0 TOTAL 2.8 to 3.3 3.4.2.3 Accident Analysis Discharge in a short period of time is the maximum accident for several other alternatives. It is doubtful that any accident would increase offsite doses or consequences beyond that predicted for a rapid release of the accident-generated water. The only exception would be the discharge of a batch of accident-generated water prior to retreatment. This scenario is unlikely, but is addressed in Section 3.1.1.3.

Accidents resulting from the transport of the resin liners to the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington are discussed in Section 3.1.2.3.

3.4.2.4 Regulatory Considerations Both the NRC and the PaDER approval would be required for this disposal option. The EPA requirements of 40 CFR 141 and 190, as discussed in Sec-tion 2.3.1, must be met. The 10 CFR 20 Appendix B limits for radioisotope 3.30

concentrations in air and water above background in unrestricted area (see Table 2.5) and the plant technical specifications apply. The NDPES permit l issued September 19, 1986 and discussed in Section 2.3.4 restricts the pH of l liquid discharges to between 6.0 and 9.0 and requires the PaDER approval prior to discharge of boron.

l 3.5 ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING ONSITE STORAGE Maintaining the accident-generated water onsite through storage as a bulk

liquid and burial as a solid were considered. The solidification of the accident-generated water and disposal onsite was discussed in Section 3.3.

Onsite maintenance as a liquid is evaluated further.

3.5.1 Liquid Storage in Tanks This alternative is the no-action alternative. The liquid waste would be maintained in tanks onsite for an indefinite period of time. Liquid storage i in tanks might be the least expensive alternative considered; however, in this alternative the accident-generated water is not disposed of and significant costs might be incurred in the future. Because ultimate disposal would be

,' necessary, this alternative merely defers disposal for the period of storage.

l The reduction of the approximately 0.13 pCi/mL of tritium to a level compar-able to the EPA limits for drinking water. 0.00002 pCi/mL, via radioactive decay would take approximately 150 years (neglecting isotopic exchange, evaporation, and dilution mechanisms). Because tanks have a finite life, transfer to new tanks may be required in the future to avoid an inadvertent release to the environment.

3.5.1.1 System Description and Operation The entire inventory of accident-generated water would retained in exist-ing storage tanks at TMI. Routine surveillance and monitoring of the tanks would be required. This activity could be included in the continuing surveil-lance programs for the TM1 site. The tanks would be vented to the atmosphere and a slow rate of evaporation and/or exchange would occur. Eventually, the tanks would need to be replaced or the water otherwise disposed of to prevent release from tank deterioration.

I i 3.5.1.2 Environmental Impacts Environmental impacts of this niternative arise only at the time of water disposal or in the event of tank failure, i

f Occupational Radiation Exposure. Continuing surveillance of the water tanks is not expected to contribute significant additional occupationni j radiation exposure, l

Nadiation Exposure to the Public. Since the accident-generated water is expected to remain onsite, there are no significant exposure pathways to the public other than accidents.

i 3.31 i

Commitment of Resources. No additional land commitment at TMI is antici-pated during the storage peri:d. This alternative is estimated to cost from 0 to $1.2 million. The cost is broken down in Table 3.14.

TABLE 3.14. Cost Breakdown for Liquid Storage in Tanks Cost, Tasks $ Millions Monitoring and surveillance 0 to 0.2 Tank replacement O to 1.0 TOTAL 0 to 1.2 3.5.1.3 Accident Analysis The only credible accident identified for this alternative is tank rup-ture, which in the worst case could result in discharge of the entire tank contents in a short period of time. Tank rupture and accidental discharge of the water are a possibility before the 150-year period required for decay to background levels without continued maintenance or rank replacement. The population dose would be somewhat less than that anticipated for prompt dis-charge of all accident-generated water prior to retreatment (because of the radioactive decay). The prompt accidental discharge of 2.1 million gallons (7.9 million liters) of this water would result in a bone dose of 1.9 mrem and a total body dose of 0.4 mrem for the maximally exposed individual, assuming that individual ingests water and fish from the Susquehanna River and parti-cipates in recreational activities such as swimming and boating. An addi-tional 50-year dose commitment of approximately'O.001 mrem to the bone and 0.000003 mrem to the total body would be added to the dose of the maximally exposed individual assuming consumption of shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay at the maximum rate of 97 lb/yr (44 kg/yr) for the mid-Atlantic region (Rupp, Miller and Bates 1980). The collective 50-year dose commitment to the popu-lation (approximately 300,000 people downstream of THI's is estimated to be 38 person-rem to the bone from ingestion of drinking water and fish from the river as well participation in recreational activities and 1.0 person-rem to the total body. The total 50-year dose commitment to the larger population group that consumes shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay is estimated to 90 person-rem to the bone and 2 person-rem to the total body. These doses would be lower after some radioactive decay.

3.5.1.4 Regulatory Considerations No regulatory impediments are anticipated prior to termination of the license. However, this alternative is inconsistent with the Commission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radioactive waste from the TMI site, be carried out safety and expeditiously. It is likely that ultimate disposition of the water would be required prior to termination of the THI-2 license.

3.32

3.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED Feveral alternatives for disposal of the accident-generated water were considered but were eliminated from further evaluation as being less desirable from a technical standpoint or clearly inferior to other alternatives receiv-ing more detailed consideration. The bases for these findings included insufficiently developed technology, lack of cost effectiveness, and regula-tory and institutional issues not expected to be resolved in a reasonable period of time. These alternatives are briefly described here along with the basis for their rejection.

3.6.1 Ocean Disposal l Ocean disposal either as a bulk liquid or as a solidified packaged solid I (concreted in drums) was considered; however, EPA approval under the provis-l ions of 40 CFR Subchapter H would be required. A resolution of the London l Dumping Convention (IMO 1985), to which the United States is a signatory, has i established a moratorium on ocean disposal of radioactive wastes. Therefore, approval is highly unlikely in the near future. Costs are not expected to be substantially less than other, more available options.

3.6.2 Pond Evaporation Onsite Pond evaporation onsite was considered, but was reiscted for two ' reasons.

First, onsite ponds would collect rain water at approximately the same rate as water would evaporate; therefore, although the tritium would be released to the atmosphere, the total volume of water to be disposed of would not decrease. This drawback might be overcome by the addition of heaters or spray systems to the ponds. However, if this equipment were installed to enhance evaporation, the occupational exposure to tritium would be the highest of any alternative considered, and no significant advantages over a commercial low-level liquid waste evaporator were identified.

3.6.3 Onsite Cooling Tower Evaporation and Bottoms Disposal to the River Onsite evaporation in a forced draft cooling tower with the cooling tower blowdown going to the river was considered in the PE1S (NRC 1981) and reevalu-ated briefly. To implement this alternative, the accident-generated water would be re-treated, and diluted before being fed to the forced draft cooling  ;

tower. Approximately 90% of the tritium and 20% to 30% of the cesium, strontium, and boron would be released to the atmosphere. The tritium would be released primarily in water vapor. The cesium, strontium, and boron would be dissolved in water and released in fine water droplets and particulates.

The larger droplets would deposit in the immediace vicinity and smaller drop-lets and particulates would be dispersed over a wider range. The remaining 70% to 80% of cesium, strontium, and boron, as well as the remaining tritium, would be released to the Susquehanna River in the cooling tower blowdown.

This alternative was rejected for the following reasons: the cesium and strontium release to the atmosphere would be 20 to 30 times the amount released using a commercial LLW evaporator; there would likely be areas, at least on-site, where boron deposition would inhibit vegetation growth for some time; the onsite radionuclide concentrations in the vicinity of the cooling tower 3.33

_ _ , _y_ ~ _~.-- - -. . - . - _ , -. ..-.. -- ~._.,__- ~ _ . . ~ , _ _, -_- _ _ - -

would be higher than with other alternatives; and river releases are not

, eliminated, but merely reduced relative to river disposal of the bulk water.

3.6.4 Deep-Well Injection at Three Mile Island Deep-well injection on the TMI site would require an extensive invest-igation of the underlying strata to ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR Subchapter D are met (40 CFR 144). The likelihood of finding suitable hydro-1 Feologic conditions is considered small. Following the investigations, state and EPA approval would be required before starting well construction. This alternative for disposal is estimated to require at least five years. There is a high probability that it would not gain approval.

3.6.5 Disposal at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Hydrofracturing Facility Disposal of the accident-generated water at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) hydrofracturing facility involves transporting the bulk accident-generated water to ORNL where it would be mixed with grout and i

injected into the ground under sufficient pressure to fracture the strata, 1 The mixture would then harden to fix the water in a solid sheet in the strata .

Additional facilities at ORNL and the approval of DOE would be required. The estimated seven-year-disposal time and the fact that the cost would not be less than the rost of trucking the accident-generated water were the reasons that precluded further consideration of this alternative.

3.6.6 Reuse Disposing of the all the accident-8enerated water (either in its present form or as a residue following evaporation) by reuse in other reactors or facilities was considered and found to be impractical. The licensee's pro-posal indicated that accident-generated water, especially if concentrated by  !

evaporation, contains impurities (e.g. river silt, corrosion products, sul-fates, phosphates, carbonates, and biological debris) that are not acceptable for use in reactor cooling systems.

For use in other reactors, the accident generated water would be commingled with RCS liquids, collected as normal plant letdown, processed through plant radwaste systems, and released to the host plant liquid waste discharge system. The TMI reactors, other commercial reactors, and DOE reactors were considered for the reuse alternative.

' Disposal through reuse at TMI-1 would involve the consumption of approxi-mately 300 gallons (1100 liters) of accident-generated water per day and would

' require 19 years for disposal. The 19-year disposal period is not desirablet but the alternative was rejected primarily because it has no advantages over other niternatives that result in release to the Suaquehanna River.

I

! Reuse at other reactors would require an agreement among utilities to I

' accept the accident-generated water and discharge it at their sites. A wide range of reguintory and institutionni issues would need to be resolved and, i because reactor coolants are purified by ion exchange, the ultimate environ-mental release would not be appreciably lower than for other alternatives involving discharge to the environment.

3.14 s

- . - - - - _-------__.___en,n,-----n,------_,n

--,w-----~,n__-, ,-- - . -. - - , ..- n , ,w---- - - - , . - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Disposal by reuse at DOE facilities is not practical. The accident-generated water is unsuitable for use in DOE reactors because of the borate concentration, and reuse at other types of DOE facilities did not appear advantageous.

3.6.7 Land Spraying at the Nevada Test Site Land spraying at NTS was considered in addition to pond evaporation (Section 3.2.1) and deep-well injection (Section 3.2.2). Transportation considerations are, of course, the same. Additional storage capacity at the NTS would be required because spraying would only be done during favorable climatic conditions. The borate and boric acid salta containing cesium and strontium would remain on the surface, where they could become airborne. In addition, land spraying has no identified advantages over deep-well injection or pond evaporation at the NTS.

3.6.8 Combined Catalytic Exchange Treatment Methods to remove the tritium from the stable water were investigated.

In a method called the combined catalytic exchange treatment, electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas from the accident-generated water.

The oxygen gas is vented off and the hydrogen gas, which contains the tritium from the original water, is put in contact with the bulk solution. Under these circumstances the liquid phase becomes enriched in tritium and the gas phase becomes depleted in tritium. The gas then may be released. The liquid phase would still require disposal.

Application of this technology to the accident-generated water would require a significant, costly research and development effort because the method has never been implemented on such a large scale and never in the pre-sence of boric acid. Moreover, the partitioning of tritium is incomplete and a relatively large tritium-enriched liquid waste would remain f rom such an effort. The citernative was therefore rejected in favor of the proven and lens costly technology of the ether alternatives.

3.6.9 Water Distillation Treatment Another method for removing tritium from the stable water is by distil-lation. Distillation columns, in conjunction with catalytic exchange, have been used to produce relatively pure tritium and tritium-depleted water. The technique haa proven effective in reducing water containing 3 Ci/kg of tritium to 1 C1/kg of tritium; however, data are not available to indicate that it would be effective in further reducing the tritium level from its approximately 0.00014 Ci/kg in the accident-generated water. This alternative was also re-jected in favor of proven and less costly alternatives.

3.6.10 llish-Altitude Disposal The alternative of high-altitude disposal was rejected because shipping the bulk liquid to the llarrisburg International Airport, loading it in pinnes, and discharging into the very high atmosphere over the ocean would result in a population dose and a cost that would be considerably higher than other offsite disposal options.

3.35 I . _ _

3.6.11 Open Cycle Evaporation at Maxey Flats, Kentucky Open cycle evaporation at the Maxey Flats Site was considered but rejected as probably unavailable. Maxey Flats is a low-level radioactive waste disposal site owned by the Commonwealth of Kentucky where commercial operations were terminated in 1977. The Commonwealth requires the site operator to manage the tritium-contaminated water that collects in the burial trenches. The water is collected, solids are removed, and the water is evaporated. Rickard and Kirby (1984) report that approximately 86 Ci/ day of tritium (averoga of discharge from 1979 to 1984) are disposed of in this manner. The bottoms are stored for disposal. A primary goal of the operation is the completion of the water removal from the trenches and the termination of the evaporation process.

Approval to transport the TMI-2 accident-generated water to Maxey Flats, commingle it with the trench water, and process it through the evaporator would involve the Commonwealth of Kentucky and would not have a high probabil-ity of approval.

It would result in the release of tritium to the atmosphere both onsite and offsite just as other evaporation alternatives would. This alternative was rejected. ,

i 1

3.36

l l

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section contains a brief description of the environment and popula-tion that may be affected by the proposed actions to dispose of the TMI-2 accident-generated water. This information has been taken primarily from the PEIS (NRC 1981) . Ponnlation distribution estimates have been updated. Other sections have been reviewed and changes since the PEIS do not affect the environmental analysis.

Four areas that have the potential to be affected by the activities involved in disposition of the TMI-2 accident-generated water have been identified: the area in the vicinity of the facility, the area downstream including the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay, the transportation routes used for movement of materials to and from the site, and the offsite disposal locations.

The vicinity of the site is defined as the area within an approximate 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius of TMI. For the purposes of evaluating radia-tion doses from the disposal alternatives, the area within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius is considered. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the location of the site and its relationship to population centers and municipalities in the area. The total population in the 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius is estim-ated to be 2.2 million. Approximately 350,000 people live within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius of TMI. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the population dis-tribution within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) and a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of TMI.

4.1 Tile VICINITY OF TIIREE MILE ISLAND i The area is predominantly rural, and supports dairy, poultry, farming, and forestry operations. The soils in the vicinity, combined with favorable physiographic and climatological features, produce higher-than-average crop yields for the state.

In spite of the agricultural operations, the population density is rela-tively high, about 570 people per square mile (220 people per square kilo-meter). Several municipalities are located within the area; the largest city, 12 miles (20 kilometers) to the northwest, is llarrisburg with a population of about 53,000 (in 1980).

4.1.1 Climate The area has a continental climate. In winter, the predominant air mass over the region is continental polar air somewhat moderated by the influences In summer, of the Appalachian Mountains and the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays.

maritime tropical air masses originating over the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea predominate.

4.1

I 100 Miles I l

(160 Kilometers) [

Susgoehanna g,

% 4Williamsport _

i 80 0 Delaware River 50 Miles 3 Bethlehemd (80 Kilometers)

Altoona Allentow

\

Johnstown Susquehanna f

River Harrisburg Reading

/l

\ 76 g Three Mile lsland Lancaster 76 I

. , f, 81 83 Philad Oyster Creek 30 York 30 Peach 2 amden

)

g\ pENN Bttom O

Wilmin to 70 Hagerstown- -- -

/ 3 MD 95 alem and H pe Cree Atlantic W VA City g

7 70 9 h Baltimore i

Rockville - ) DEL' r

g Washington e,o VA k.  ; Atlantic I

Ocean Potomac River .Calven '

Cliffs j 95

\WC 4

• Nuclear Power Plant Sites i j, FIGURE 4.1. Map of the Area Within a 100-Mile (160-Kilometer) Radius of the Three Mile Island Site 4.2

/

\ .\

qfe, Susquehanna River *g Lebanon o

/ Harrisburg C / ,  %

PettL.ounWygunty Hershey .

Cumbet\an 1 ,,

C Mg f k t,e t C0 0

g" %rp Middletown ,' (3c ca C 20 Miles co0*

Goldsboro TMI[./h p (32 Kilometers)

I Elizabethtown hotd '

, ko& g%e Lancaster

1. o, #'er County

% ounty

\ O Miles / ,

N. (1 Kilometers) Susquehanna T. 9 w, River

' o,\(o\ D (

O.

c York

( 20 Miles (32 Kilometers)

FIGURE 4.2. Ma) of the Area Within a 20-Mile (32-Kilometer) Radius of the Three Mile Island Site 4.3

l l

N 9eNW h4E 4100 I 25300 6700 ww NE 86600 7,g 3500 11800 6300 WNW ENE l N 5W

! NNW NNE 3900 1400 77 ww 400 m g 3900 3000 600 i 300 100 go 7300 600 l 20 70 500 .. -- , 300 WMW 'O 90 50 80 ENE 20 .

g

! w = a e M 30 200 1200 6500 4700 E w 2100 700 500 300 3 - neergeme. -

80  : Lah

~

w 100 2001 200 .

70 80 E 100 5  % ** ~

~

3 , 700 A #

g 70fg 40 ESE 1300 2900

7. ** 'a 6m 80 ,0 100 80 80 4500 2g l 200 50 w$, 1400 ESE l 200 1300 1800 ssw ssE I t t t 0 2 3 4km 1300 2100 3300 5600

,g SW SE 6100 9500 25500 SSW SSE l

e i e i t t i 0 4 6 9 14 20km i

FIGURE 4.3. Population Distribution Within a 12-Mile (20-Kilometer) Radius of Three Mile Island (data from an internal NRC document prepared by the Site Analysis Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "1981 Residential Population Estimates 0-80 Kilometers For Nuclear Power Plants")

_a

N NNW NNE 47600 17500 54000 NW NE 13300 59700 14900 13200 15500 4000 5100 ENE WNW 50500 206000 4800 8500 12700 13300 10300 36400 13800 31900 6200 6500 372 3800 7000 118 33002730C 57500 32800 F W 21300 19400 4300 2000 0700 113000 9200 15200 46900 11800 82M M 48400 28500 83500 8300 ESE WSW 11100 33100 8000 10700 48200 12900 l

20600 28200 25000 SE SW 49100 54100 69700 SSW SSE S, , , , g 0 20 40 60 80 km FIGURE 4.4. Population Distribution Within a 50-Mile (80-Kilometer) Radius of Three Mile Island (data from an internal NRC document pre-pared by the Site Analysis Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "1981 Residential Population Estimates 0-80 Kilometers For Nuclear Power Plants")

4.5

Winters are relatively mild for the latitude; summers are warm and humid.

While the extreme temperatures recorded for the area were 107'F (42*C) in July 1966 and -14*F (-26*C) in January 1912, temperatures of 90*F (32*C) or higher may be reached on only 20 to 25 days annually and temperatures of 0*F (-18'C) or lower may be expected 1 to 2 days annually. The predominant wind flow is from the northwest. Figure 4.5 shows the onsite wind data at the 100-ft (30-m) level.

Annual total precipitation in this area is expected to exceed 40 inches (102 centimeters) including a normal average snowfall of 37 inches (94 centi-meters). The average annual evaporation is within the range of 33 to 45 inches (84 to 114 centimeters), depending on the volume of water. Consequently, sig-nificant net water loss to the atmosphere is not expected from closed ponds.

4.1.2 Surface Water ,

The TMI site is located in the Susquehanna River drainage basin which has a total drainage area of 27,510 square miles (7,125,090 hectares) where it enters the Chesapeake Bay. Recorded data beginning in 1890 indicate that the flow rate of the Susquehanna River is highly variable, ranging from a minimum flow of 1700 cfs (48 m3 /sec) in 1964 to a maximum flood of record of 1,020,000 cfs (29,000 m3 /sec) during spring flooding in 1972 (NRC 1976). Mean monthly flows for the period 1891 to 1979 ranged from 11,700 to 82,600 cfs (330 to 2,300 m3 /sec) with the low flow occurring in late summer and the high flows occurring in early spring. Several dams and reservoirs are located on the Susquehanna River above and below TMI for flood control, low-flow aug-mentation, and power generation.

The surface water of the Susquehanna River downstream from Harrisburg is acceptable for all general uses, e.g. , supporting aquatic life, recreation, and primary contact. The river is not an attractive source of public water supply because of occasional high sulfate levels and high amounts of wastewater-derived coliform bacteria. Presently, the river and the streams in the vicinity of TMI are used for both public and industrial water supplies, power generation, boating, sport fishing, and recreation. Sport fishing, but not commercial fishing, is done in all streams in the general area of the site. The nearest potable water user is five miles downstream at the Brunner Island steam-electric generating station. See Figure 4.6 for principal water users downstream of the TMI plant.

Specific water quality data can be found in the PEIS (NRC 1981). In general, the water is moderately high in total hardness, with high and vari-able sulfate and iron concentrations (often in excess of the state limit), a relatively low alkalinity, and a nigh fecal coliform count (also, of ten in excess of the state limit). These characteristics are largely attributable to drainage from old coal mines in the watershed and from domestic and agricul-tural wastes.

Radioactivity measurements of Susquehanna River water were made by the U.S. Geologic Survey prior to the TMI accident. The tritium concentration 4.6

N NNW NNE 14 12 NE NW 10

'~

12.7 ; : . 9.4 .

8

.::' ..l.\C . . : .' -

', , ,.' i. . . . ".'1,'i: 6

• ENE WNW ..I . :f,. . :N.!' ' #*".et: . 4 7 4 2

9.2. ;:l-l * . . .. Y.:.:

• . . ,, .,,i;;i 2.5.. ' . 3.4

. :-.,. * ,.::. .. . . .: . 4.6

' :l. :, -

'~., -E W- 7.9 i .. ," , I " , . , ' , . . . . .

, , , 3f ,i, 72

. . ' :- .. ..Q. .. if .' ' . . .

5.2 ,,,

, ' , , . .;id: , . .l.'. 6.2 s.... .:. .:. .

7 'T 5.2 5.5 ' . :. ,.; g .;.g. , ,

5.9 5.1 ESE WSW s

SE SW 1

l l

l SSW -

SSE

+

S

+:.9: Indicates Percent of Time Wind Blows From Direction Shown l

FIGURE 4.5. Three Mile Island Annual Average Wind Direction at 100 ft l

(1972 to 1975 data) 4.7

Harrisburg York Haven

/ Dam 1

2 3 4 6 Safe Harbor 7 Dam Susquehanna River Muddy Run 8

g (Pumped Storage) Normal Holtwood Dam Pennsylvania an m h

-jo - Elevation,ft Maryland jj Conowingo Da 12 j3 Conowingo 109.2 14 Muddy Run 520 15 -

(Pumped Storage)

. Holtwood 171 Baltimore Safe Harbor 228

, c York Haven 255

s u -

E>-@"mh 400 f Eb$ 200 @

I O

$E"O 2 40 w  %

1 Industrial Users g c

l}

l3 $hE mem Yb do e

1. Pennsylvania Supply Co. g ggmzo c- 250 g>.::

2. York Haven Power Co. 8E ,Io ~ ji... 200 a,

3. Brunner Island Station Oo I [ 150 Q

4. Wrightsville Water Supply Co. Chesapeake i 100 ,ti; e

5. Peach Bottom Station Bay Sea Level l 50 $$

0 u; 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Domestic Water Supplies Distance, miles

6. Columbia Borough 13. Bainbridge Navel

7. City of Lancster Training Station j 8. Safe Harbor Village including Port

! 9. Holtwood Village Deposit i

10. City of Chester 14. Perry Point

11. City of Baltimore Veterans Hospital

12. Conowingo Village 15. Havre de Grace FIGURE 4.6. Principal Water Users Along the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of Three Mile Island l

4.8

was measured during the 1977 water year and found to be fairly constant at 178 pCi/L. Gross beta activity was measured on November 8, 1976, and reported as follows:

Dissolved gross beta: 2.4 pCi/L as cesium-137 1.9 pC1/L as strontium-90/ yttrium-90 Suspended gross beta: 0.4 pCi/L as cesium-137

<0.4 pCi/L as strontium-90/ yttrium-90 Radium-226 was measured on the same date by the radon method as 0.08 pCi (alpha) per liter. Gross alpha activity on the same date is reported as:

Dissolved gross alpha <1.6 pg/L as natural uranium (<1.08 pCi/L)

Suspended gross alpha 0.7 pg/L as natural uranium (0.5 pCi/L)

A measurement of uranium concentration, presumably by the chemical (fluo-rimetric) method made on the same date gave a value of 0.06 pg/L. Defining a strictly natural background for fission products and tritium is difficult because of small but significant contributions (depending on the latitude) from nuclear testing. The contribution from the commercial nuclear fuel cycle is negligible. The radioactivity observed in the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg during 1977 was below the level regarded as normal for this latitude. For example, the average radioactivity levels in surface water in the Chicago area have been reported as: alpha, 0.1 to 3 pCi/L and beta, 5 to 10 pCi/L. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements cites that an average tritium level in surface water for the north latitudes of 30 to 50 degrees is 287 pCi/L. Additional discussion of the radionuclides of concern in the proposed action is contained in Section 2.3.

4.1.3 Groundwater The TM1 site has a water table elevation of about 280 feet (85 meters) mean sea level (MSL), depending upon the Susquehanna River stage r which is normally at 277 feet (84 meters) MSL. Site borings and observation wells indicate that water table elevations vary about 5 feet (1.5 meters) from a high at the island's center to the shores. The water table gradient is about 0.006 toward the river. The nearest potable water supplies are three wells located on the east bank of the Susquehanna River, directly across from TMI.

All of these wells have groundwater elevations above the river and above the groundwater level at TMI. Since they are upgradient, these wells are not likely to be affected by site activities.

The site is underlain by sandy silts, sands, gravels, weathered bedrock, and hard siltstone (Gettysburg Formation). The Gettysburg Formation has basic artesian characteristics in the site area. Groundwater flow is highly anisotropic along the strike direction, with specific capacities ranging from 0.33 to 15.0 gallons per minute per foot (1.2 to 57 liters per minute per meter) of drawdown. The leakage of groundwater from the Gettysburg Formation would be expected to be upward but would vary considerably with the degree of 4.9

jointing and relationship to strike direction. Therefore, effluents released accidentally from the plant should not migrate into the Gettysburg Formation.

Eight monitoring wells and nine observation wells have been installed on the site. Grcundwater quality has been monitored since the wells were installed in 1980.

4.2 ECOLOGY The aquatic and terrestrial ecology of the site and downstream areas are summarized in the following sections.

4.2.1 Aquatic Ecology of the Site The biota of the Susquehanna River includes organisms usually associated both with flowing waters and, because of the impoundments, with standing waters. A dominant source of primary production is algae. The algae produc-tion is representative of algal succession in a lake and indicates the impor-tance of the impoundments in the trophic structure of the river. Zooplankton composition and abundance are variable; the dominant groups are rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods. Periodic large populations of rotifers also sug-gests excessive domestic waste loadings of the river. The most abundant benthic invertebrates are tubificid worms and insect larvae.

The fish community can be characterized as a warm-water assemblage, and 1 is dominated by members of the minnow, perch, and sunfish families. The lower i

portion of the river (below the Conowingo Dam, Figure 4.6) receives spawning migrations of some anadromous species, primarily members of the herring family and striped bass. Sport fishing for crappie, bass, walleye, channel catfish, and sunfish is popular on the entire river.

Further downstream in the shallow waters of the upper Chesapeake Bay, j aquatic microphytes are present, and terrestrial plants such as cord grass and i

wild cherry are quite productive, making the area an attractive food source for waterfowl.

The invertebrate fauna is diverse and includes a gradation from freshwater to marine types, depending on the salinity of the water and the bottom substrate in the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters, clams, and bluecrabs are important to the commercial fishing industry.

The fish fauna of the Chesapeake Bay also is diverse, and dominant I

species change with the season and migratory patterns. Commercial fishing in the bay is important to the surrounding states. The major species harvested from Maryland waters include menhaden and bluefish.

4.2.2 Terrestrial Ecology of the Site The land use in the vicinity of TMI is primarily agricultural with a significant amount devoted to residential and urban development. The popula-tion density of 570 people per square mile (220 people per square kilometer) 4.10

is substantially higher than the rest of the state as a whole. The urban development is concentrated around population centers and along major trans-portation corridors. Agriculture is diverse and includes the farming of field crops such as corn and wheat, as well as dairy, poultry, and livestock opera-tions. The forested areas contain both hardwood and softwood trees. The plant community is less than 80 years old and consists of species that are common to this type of terrain.

In the TMI vicinity, 212 species of terrestrial vertebrates including birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians have been found. Small-game animals include the eastern cottontail rabbit and the gray squirrel. Mammalian preda-tors include the longtail weasel and the red fox. The largest mammal found on the site was the white-tailed deer. Four species of upland game bird were found onsite: ring-necked pheasant, American woodcock, mourning dove, and rock dove. Whistling swan, Canada goose, nine species of dabbling duck, seven species of diving duck, and three species of mergansers also were reported.

This sampling of species in typical of the f9una found downriver. Because the Susquehanna River is a major flyway, large numbers and many species of migra-

[

tory and resident waterfowl nest and feed on the ponds and reservoirs along the river.

No endangered species are known to occur on the plant site. However, the site lies within the ranges of occurrence of three endangered species:

southern bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and Indiana bat. During periods of migration, it is possible that individuals from these endangered species could visit the site.

4.3 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER / CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA The predominant features of the potential impact area are the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. The 450-mile- (724-kilometer-) long Susquehanna is a major river in the eastern United States and supplies about 50 percent of the fresh water in the bay. Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest estuaries in the world, having a surface of about 4,400 square miles (1,139,600 hectares),

a length of nearly 200 miles (320 kilometers), and more than 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometers) of shoreline. The Susquehanna River / Chesapeake Bay system supports commercial and recreational fishing, boating and supplies water for public and industrial use.

Sport fishing on the Chesapeake Bay is a popular activity involving both private and charter boats. The majority of the fishing is done by residents of Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Sport

, fishing is also popular in the Susquehanna River from the vicinity of TMI to

! Havre De Grace (see Figure 4.6) . While the river primarily serves local residents, sizable numbers of fishermen from Maryland and Pennsylvania are l attracted to the river. There is also a large and growing use of the area for l

water-oriented recreation, such as boating.

Shellfish and finfish that are harvested commercially from the Chesapeake Bay include bluecrabs, oysters, soft-shelled crabs, surf clams, sea scallops, I menhadden, croaker, bluefish, and flounder. The shellfish and finfish harvest

\

l 4.11 l

l

i

.i is marketed to the fresh and processing markets, wholesalers, restaurants, and individuals, from Montreal, Canada to Texas, and from Chicago to Los Angeles, k

In addition to Chesapeake Bay's importance to commercial and sport fish-

'ing, the surrounding marshes and woodlands provide thousands of acres of natural habitat-for a diversity of wildlife. This area is in the path of the Atlantic flyway and provides wintering and feeding grounds for migrating

waterfowl. The waterfowl species that are attracted to the region in large numbers include Canada geese, ducks, whistling swans, other species of birds that require the wetlands for food and other habitat requirements, plus a variety of game birds. The wildlife resources of the area provide opportun-

. ities for hunting and trapping, and for nonconsumptive activities such as bird watching, nature walking, and nature photography.

J 4.4 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES The vicinity of TMI is broadly delineated by four transportation routes that encompass an irregularly shaped area. Interstate 83, with a north-south orientation connects Baltimore, York, and Harrisburg. Interstate 76, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, connects Harrisburg with urban centers to the east and to the west. Interstate 95 forms the southern border of the area and connects Baltimore with other east coast cities. State Route 10, which in

, oriented north-south, connects Interstate 76 and Interstate 95 on the eastern boundary. With the exception of the state route, the roadway net provides high-speed and high-capacity access to the area. U.S. Route 30, another high capacity road, connects York with Lancaster.

l Shipments from the TMI site pass over this roadway net to connect with

the national interstate system. Highway routes to possible LLW disposal sites are shown in Figure 4.7.

i 4.5 0FFSITE DISPOSAL LOCATIONS Nine of the ten alternatives involve disposition of the accident-generated water, the solidified evaporator bottoms, or resin liners at offsite i

locations. The offsite locations potentially involved are the commercial LLW burial site near Richland, Washington, the DOE site at Hanford, Washington,

, and the NTS at Mercury, Nevada. All of these are arid or semi-arid areas of i relatively low population densities. Each of the sites is currently used for

storage or disposal of radioactive waste materials.

{ 4.5.1 Commercial Low-Level Waste Burial Site, Richland, Washington The LLW burial site near Richland, Washington, is operated by U.S.

Ecology, Inc. as a commercial radioactive waste disposal site. The facility n is located 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Richland, Washington, on

, 100 acres (40 hectares) of leased land near the center of the DOE Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The facility is licensed by the NRC for the disposal of commercial radioactive waste.

J j 4.12 i .

• _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ - ______._m _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ , , _ , , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ .

v N.. (

f Washington L v Spokane:

Canada . Route .n.

Hanford Richland 395

%-~_ . . . _

Mi:es Montana g ,

Lake Superior I . North Dakota i p,rgo ginnes ta Oregon

/' b 90 gillings 94 m- k , Wisconsin

~

(

i 94 i St. Paul 2 k Hu o South Dakota s {

k* ,0 New York

'N[ Wyoming Minnea tis 94 g c@

g

_ . M Ma\ison % hkago-e Nevada Toledo burg .arr Nevada f Salt Lake 15 City t Test II*

• Site "

(

Colorado V

%, i ( irginia

/

California n 95 Kansas Missouri

\ 'm, %_ i Kentucky -

' .- ~

, Carolina p

/ -

- Arizona . Tennessee .

Oktahom -

.! Arkansas

' S. Carotina i

\%

w.-- - g ,,,gi, p

I Texas y,,,issippi FIGURE 4 7- Routes to tow-Level Maste Disposa1 Facilities from m ee Mile Island

4.5.2 U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site Thd Hanford Site is a limited-access area of over.500 square miles (129,500 hectares) located in southeastern Washington. The site is controlled by the DOE and is used primarily for nuclear-related defense activities.

4.5.3 U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Test Site The NTS is a limited access area of over 1,300 square miles (336,700 hec-tares) located in the southern Nevada. The site is controlled by the DOE and is used primarily for below-ground nuclear tests.

i 4.14

5.0 COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES This section compares the alternatives for the disposal of the accident-generated water based on the environmental impacts described in Section 3.

The impacts are summarized for each of the ten alternatives evaluated. The environmental impacts fall into three categories: radiological impacts, non-radiological impacts, and potential impacts from accidents. The discussion of the radiological impacts includes an estimate of the possible health effects resulting from radiation doses to the maximum exposed offsite individual, the population, and the workers. The discussion of nonradiological impacts includes consideration of chemical contaminants released, the cost, land commitment, and time required to implement each alternative. The discussion of potential accident impacts includes consideration of radiological impacts resulting from spills and nonradiological impacts resulting from traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.

The impacts which have been estimated to result from any alternative considered in this supplement are consistent with those estimated in the NRC staff's March 1981 PEIS.

5.1

SUMMARY

OF THE IMPACTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Table 5.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the ten alternatives evaluated in Section 3. The table lists the offsite dose pathways / locations in which the dose is incurred, the estimated doses (for the maximally exposed offsite individual, the offsite population, and the workers), the cost of implementing the alternative, the long-term commitment of land and radioactive waste burial ground space for each alternative, the elapsed time for comple-tion of the alternative, and the estimated number of transportation accidents expected during the shipping process for each alternative.

For all evaluated alternatives the 50-year dose commitment to the maxim-ally exposed individual dose ranges from 0 to 3 mrem to the bone and 0.0 to 0.53 mrem to the total body. These doses are based on exposures occurring over a period of 1 to 36 months and on a series of conservative assumptions as discussed in Section 3 and Appendix B. These doses are in addition to the approximately 87 mrem /yr received by the average Harrisburg resident from natural background (Klement et al. 1972).

The population dose ranges from 0 to 8 person-rem to the bone and from 0 to 3 person-rem to the total body. The population doses from the atmos-pheric releases from onsite evaporation or solidification processes at TMI are distributed to a population of 2.2 million persons in the vicinity of TMI.

The population also receives an annual background radiation dose of approxi-mately 190,000 person-rem. The doses resulting from the liquid releases to the Susquehanna River are distributed to a population of approximately 300,000 people who use the river for recreation and who consume river water and food products, plus an additional population of unknown size and geo-graphic distribution that are consumers of shellfish from Chesapeake Bay.

5.1

TABLE 5.1. Environmental Impacts of Water Disposal Alternatives Dose Elapsed Estimated Maximally Exposed . Offsite occupa- Long-Term Time for Ntanber of Section Offsite Dose Offsite Individual, Population, tional, Cost, Commit {gf Completion, Traffic Number and Alternative Pathway / Location mrom person-rom person-rem $ millions Space months Accidents 3.1.1 Forced Evaporation, Atmosphere /TMl 3 bone 2 bone 12 to 20 6.2 to 12 27,000 to 3 35 0.6 to 1.9 Solidification, with 0.5 total body 3 total body 88,000 ft Offsite Burial 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, Atmosphere /TMI 3 bone 2 bone 14 to 25 6.7 to 8.8 10,000 ft 3 33 0.5 Solidification, with 0.5 total body 3 total body disposal Retention Onstto and site River /TMI 4 x 10.g bone 0.03 bone 15,000 ft 2

4 x 10 5total body 0.002 total body onsite 3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation Atmosphere /NTS -

3 x 10'" total body . 0.5 to 1 2.5 to 3.4 15,000 ft 2 9 to 18 3.0 NTS at NTS 3.2.2 Oeep-Welt injection None 0 0 0.5 to 1 2.9 to 4.1 None 9 to 18 3.0 NTS 3.2.3 Crfb Disposal Mone 0 0 0.5 to 1 2.3 to 3.1 None 9 to 18 3.0 Hanford 3.3.1 Onsite Solldtfication Atmosphere /TMt 0 bone 0 bone 12 to 17 5.4 to 6.0 10,000 ft 3 10 0.5 and Burial 0.2 total body 2 . total body disposal and site u River /TMl 4 x 10 bone 0.03 bone 1 acre g 4 x 10' total body 0.002 total body onsite 3.3.2 Onsite Solidification Atmosphere /TMI O bone 0 bone 6 to 13 34 to 41 390,000 to 3 18 10 to 12 with Offsite Burial 0.2 total body 2 total body 460,000 ft disposal site -

3.4.1 Long-Term River /TMI 0.2 bone bone 3 11 2.5 to 7 2.9 to 3.6 10,000 f t 24 to 36 0.5 River Discharge and 0.04 total body 0.5 total body disposal Chesapeake Bay site 3.4.2 Short-Term River /TMt 0.2 bone bone 3 11 2.5 to 6 2.8 to 3.3 10,000 f t 1 to 2 0.5 River Ofscharge and 0.04 total body 0.5 total body disposal (after re-Chesapeake Bay site treatment of water) 3.5.1 Storage in Tanks None 0 0 0 0 to 1.2 No addf- 0 0 Onsite tional (a) Land commitments are in3ft or acres. LLW burial ground space are in 3ft . For metric equivalents, see text.

Annually, 300,000 people will receive 26,000 person-rem from background sources. The dose to personnel from evaporation at the NTS, 0.0003 person-rem, are distributed to a population of 6,500 persons who live 27 to 50 miles (43 to 80 kilometers) from the site. This population receives approximately 566 person-rem total body from natural background.

No measurable population doses were expected to result from the deep-well injection of wastes at the NTS, the crib disposal at the Hanford site, or from storage of the accident-generated water in tanks on the TMI site (unless the tanks leak). The dose to the population along the transport route to the NTS, the Hanford Site, or the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington was determined to be zero. This is based on the small dose rate (calculated to be less than 0.1 mrem /yr) from a vehicle con-taining 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) of untreated, accident-generated water.

Occupational dose estimates for all evaluated alternatives range from 0.5 to 25 person-rem. Essentially all of the external occupational doses received for all scenarios are due to other sources in the vicinity of the workers, not the accident-generated water. During the evaporation and solidification pro-cesses, workers will receive some additional total body dose from the inhala-tion of the tritium in the water vapor. This dose is included in the occupa-tional dose estimates. The possible health effects resulting from these doses are discussed in Section 5.2.

i The cost of implementing the various alternatives (excluding the no-action alternative) ranges from $2.3 to $41 million (as shown in Table 5.1).

The most costly alternative ($34 to $41 million) is the direct solidification of the accident-generated water followed by transportation and disposal at the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

The alternative selected by the licensee, forced evaporation and solidifica-2 tion onsite with burial of the residue offsite, is estimated to cost from $6.2 to $12 million. The remaining eight alternatives are each expected to cost less than $9 million. The no-action alternative, storage in tanks, cost nothing except for monitoring and possible tank replacement. Three of the alternatives, the forced evaporation followed by solidification with retention

onsite, onsite solidification and burial, and storage of the waste in tanks onsite, would probably require an additional expense for some years for mon-itoring to assure releases do not exceed the levels expected. Monitoring costs are included in the range of estimates for these alternatives.

The onsite requirements for long-term committed land ranged from no additional requirement, for onsite storage of the accident-generated water in existing tanks, to approximately one acre (0.45 hectare) for direct solidifi-cation and onsite burial of the re-treated accident water. The offsite requirements ranged from no additional commitment of land to up to 460,000 ft 3 (13,000 m3 ) of storage space in the LLW commercial burial site. One offsite alternative would commit approximately 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m 2) at NTS. These impacts, as well as the result of chemical releases, are discussed further in Section 5.3.

5.3

The estimated number of transportation accidents ranged from 0.5 to 12 for the alternatives (excluding no-action alternative). An accident is defined to mean any form of traffic accident and does not necessarily mean personnel injuries, fatalities or any disturbance to the cargo. The number of injuries, fatalities, and radiological events are described in Section 5.4.

5.2 RANGE OF RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS In estimating potential health effect results from both offsite and occupational radiation exposures as a result of the disposal of the accident-generated water, the staff used somatic (cancer) and genetic risk estimators tnat are based on widely accepted scientific information. Specifically, the staff's estimates are based on information compiled by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radia-tion (BEIR 1972; BEIR 1980). The estimates of the risks to workers and the general public are based on conservative assumptions (that is, the estimates are probably higher than the actual number). The following risk estimators were used to estimate health effects: 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rem and 220 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders j per million person-rem. i The cancer-mortality riak estimates are based on the " absolute risk" model described in BEIR I (BEIR 1972). Higher estimates can be developed by use of the " relative risk" model along with the assumption that risk prevails for the duration of life. Use of the " relative risk" model would produce risk values up to about four times greater than those used in this report. The staff regards the use of the " relative risk" model values as a reasonable upper limit of the range of uncertainty. The lower limit of the range would be zero because there may be biological mechanisms that can repair damage caused by radiation at low doses and/or dose rates. The number of potential cancers would be approximately 1.5 to 2 times the number of potential fatal cancers, according to the 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

Values for genetic risk estimators range from 60 to 1100 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rem (BEIR III 1980). The value of 220 potential cases for all forms of genetic disorders is equal to the sum of the geometric means of the risk of specific genetic defects and the risk of defects with complex etiology.

The preceding values for risk estimators are consistent with the recom-mendations of a number of recognized radiation protection organizations, such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1977), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1975b), the NAS (BEIR 1980), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1982).

The risk of potentially fatal cancers in the exposed work-force popula-tion is estimated as follows: multiplying the plant-worker-population dose (less than or equal to 25 person-rem for each of the alternatives) by the somatic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.003 cancer deaths may 5.4 l

l

occur in the total exposed population. The value of 0.003 cancer deaths means that the probability of one cancer death over the lifetime of the entire work force as a result of the disposal operation is about 3 chances in 1000. The risk of potential genetic disorders attributable to exposure of the work force is a risk borne by the progeny of the entire population and is thus properly considered as part of the risk to the general public.

Conservative estimates of the radiological doses and dose commitments resulting from the disposal of the accident-generated water have been esti-mated in Section 3. Accurate measurements of radiation and radioactive con-taminants can be made with a very high sensitivity so that much smaller amounts of radioisotopes can be recorded than can be associated with any possible observable ill effects. Furthermore, the effects of radiation on living systems have for decades been subject to intensive investigation and consideration by individual scientists as well as by select committees that have occasionally been constituted to objectively and independently assess radiation dose effects. Although, as in the case of chemical contaminants, l there is debate about the exact extent of the effects of very low levels of radiation that result from nuclear-power-plant effluents, upper bound limits

! of deleterious effects are well established and amenable to standard methods of risk analysis. Thus, the risks to the maximally exposed member of the public outside of the site boundaries or to the total population outside of the boundaries can be readily calculated and recorded. These risk estimates for the disposal of the accident-generated water are presented below.

The risk to the maximally exposed individual is estimated by multiplying the preceding risk estimator by the estimated dose to the total body (less '

than 5 mrem for the alternatives evaluated). This calculation results in a risk of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed indiv-idual from exposure to radioactive effluents (gaseous or liquid) from the dis-posal operations of less than 1 chance in 1 million. The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the average individual within 50 miles (80 kilom-eters) of the reactors from exposure to radioactive effluents from the dis-posal operation is much less than the risk to the maximally exposed individual.

These risks are very small in comparison to cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the disposal of the accident-generated water.

Multiplying the dos?. to the general population within 50 miles (80 kilom-eters) of TMI-2 from exposure to radioactive effluents (i.e. less than or equal to 3 person-rem to the total body for each of the evaluated alterna-tives) by the preceding somatic risk estimator, the staff estimates that less than 0.001 cancer deaths may occur in the exposed population. The signifi-cance of this risk can be determined by comparing it to the total projected incidence of cancer deaths in the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 in 1980. Multiplying the estimated population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 for the year 1981 (2.2 million people) by the current incidence of actual cancer fatalities (about 20%), about 440,000 cancer deaths are expected (American Cancer Society 1985).

For purposes of evaluating the potential genetic risks, the progeny of workers are considered members of the general public. However, it is assumed that only about one-third of the occupational radiation dose is received by 5.5

workers who have offspring after the workers' radiation exposure (e.g., see paragraph 80 of ICRP 1977) . Multiplying the sum of the dose to the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 from exposure to radioactivity attri-butable to the disposal of the accident-generated water (i.e., less than 3 person-rem total body, including gonads), and the estimated dose from occu-pational exposure (i.e. one third of 25 person-rem) by the preceding genetic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.002 potential genetic dis-orders may occur in all future generations of the exposed population. Because BEIR III (BEIR 1980) indicates that the mean persistence of the two major types of genetic disorders is about five generations and ten generations, in the following analysis the risk of potential genetic disorders from the dis-posal operation is conservatively conpared with the risk of actual genetic ill health in the first five generations, rather than the first ten generations.

Multiplying the estimated population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant (about 2.2 million persons in the year 1981) by the current incidence of actual genetic ill health in each generation (about 11%), about 1,2-million genetic abnormalities are expected in the first five generations of the popu-lation (BEIR 1980).

No significant radiological impact to aquatic or terrestrial biota result-ing from any disposal alternative is expected (see Section 3.0).

5.3 RANGE OF NONRADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The major nonradiological impacts identified include the cost of imple-mentation, long-term commitment of land and burial ground space, and the i elapsed time required to perform the alternative.

Significant chemical releases are expected only in the alternatives involving direct discharge of the accident-generated water to the river. The rate of release of water to the river was assumed to be controlled to conform to a maximum of 25 ppm boron. No sodium release is expected because both of these alternatives require retreatment of all of the water. No discernible impact on the ecology or downstream water users are expected from chemical releases.

The cost of implementing the various alternatives ranges from 0 to

$41 million. The least costly alternative is the no-action option in which the accident-generated water would be stored in existing tanks onsite. This alternative, however, would not dispose of the water but delay its disposi-tion. The most costly alternative is onsite solidification of the accident-generated water and subsequent transport to the LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington. The stat significant costs for this alternative are for solidification and packaging, $13 to $15 million and transportation and burial, $21 to $26 million. The alternative selected by the licensee, forced evaporation and solidification of evaporator bottoms at the TMI site and burial in the LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near

~

Richland, Washington, is estimated to cost from $6.2 to $12 million. The major costs for this alternative are: forced evaporation, approximately 5.6

j i

I

$3.6 million; solidification, $0.9 to $2.9 million; and transport and burial,

$1.7 to $5.5 million. The remaining seven alternatives are less costly, ranging from $2.3 to $8.8 million.

The no-action alternative, storage of the accident-generated water in existing tanks at TMI, is estimated to be the least costly but would not pro-vide for disposal of the water. The estimated cost range, O to $1.2 million, considers the potential requirement to replace existing tanks, if the reten-tion period is long enough for tank degradation to cause leaks.

All alternatives require either the commitment of additional land or designated radioactive waste burial space of fsite with the exception of the alternatives for deep-well injection at NTS, crib disposal at Hanford, and the no-action alternative.

The requirements for long-term commitment of land include land at the TMI site, the NTS, the Hanford Site, and burial space in the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington. The solidification of evaporator bottoms with burial onsite would require an estimated 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m2) of land at the TMI site. The direct solidification of the accident-( generated water followed by onsite burial would require an estimated one acre 1 (0.40 hectares). The accident-generated water stored in tanks onsite would be retained in existing tanks and thus no additional onsite land requirement is expected.

Offsite evaporation of the accident-generated water would involve the commitment of 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m2) of land at the NTS. Deep-well injection of the waste at the NTS would have no permanent requirement of land, although some available disposal volume would not be available for other purposes.

Crib disposal at the Hanford site would occur in an existing radioactive waste crib and, as such, there would be no additional requirement for land.

The solidification of evaporator bottoms followed by shipment to the com-mercial LLW disposal site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington would require 27,000 to 88,000 ft3 (765 to 2500 m3) of disposal space. The direct solidification of the accident-generated water would require between 390,000 and 460,000 f t3 (11,000 to 13,000 m3) of space in the LLW disposal site. The alternatives which include the retreatment of the accident-generated water with the SDS or EPICOR II system would require approximately 10,000 f t3 (283 m3) of LLW burial space for the disposal of resin liners.

The estimated time commitments for completion of the alternatives except for the no-action alternative (storage in tanks onsite) vary from 1 month following retreatment of the accident-generated water to 36 months. Three of the alternatives would require some monitoring beyond the elapsed time for completion of the alternative.

No significant nonradiological impact to aquatic or terrestrial biota resulting from any disposal alternative is expected (see Section 3.0).

5.7

5.4 RANGE OF ACCIDENT IMPACTS AND THEIR PROBABILITY l

} The accident impacts include both radiological and nonradiological impacts. Table 5.2 lists the major radiological accident for each of the alternatives as well as the resulting dose estimates. The worst-case radio-logical accident scenario for many of the alternatives is the rupture of an 11,000-gallon (42,000-liter) tank of accident-generated water prior to retreatment, which would ficw into the Susquehanna River. This scenario is conservative (only a fraction of the water could reach the river), and the resulting 50-year dose commitment doses are quite low (0.01 mrem bone and 0.02 mrem total body for the maximum individual; 0.7 person-rem bone and 0.02 person-rem total body for the population).

For the no-action alternative, a second, although extremely improbable, accident scenario was included, the loss of the total inventory of accident-l generated water in an uncontrolled discharge. Conservative 50-year dose commitments are estimated to resulted in a maximum individual bone dose of 1.9 mrem and a total body dose of 0.4 mrem. The population 50-year dose commitment was estimated at 40 person-rem to the bone and 1 person-rem to the total body.

Two scenarios were considered for radiological transportation-related accidents: the release of the entire inventory of a 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank truck to a roadway, and the release of the same inven-tory to the Susquehanna River. For the first scenario, vegetation growth on the spill site would be impaired until the boric acid would be removed. If it were removed and the radionuclides were left, a person consuming 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of crops, harvested 14 days after the accident, grown on the site where the water was deposited could receive a maximum estimated dose of 60 mrem total body (50-year committed dose). A individual remaining at the accident site for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> might receive 0.2 mrem total body (50-year dose com- .

mitment). For the second scenario, release of 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) l to the Susquehanna River, the estimated doses to the maximum exposed indiv-idual would be less than 0.005 mrem bone, 0.001 arem total body, with a popu-lation dose of less than 0.4 person-rem bone and 0.01 person-rem total body (50-year dose commitment). The boron in the released accident-generated water would not effect the fish.

Transportation related accidents for the remaining alternatives are not expected to result in any radiological impact. An accident involving a truck transporting concrete slabs or resin liners is not expected to result in a measurable release to the environment or radiation dose to the public.

Although terrestrial and/or aquatic biota in the vicinity of an accident would be adversely affected, the impact would be temporary and of no long-term significance.

Table 5.3 lists the results of the nonradiological accident calculations for each of the alternatives, all but one of which involve offsite shipments.

Also shown in Table 5.3 are the material shipped and the number of shipments required for each of the alternatives. The number of potential accidents 5.8

1 i

TABLE 5.2. Environmental Impacts of Radiological Accidents i

Nontransportation Transportation Dose Dose Section Manime Ma n f am Population, Accident g Population, Indtvidual, scam person-rem Shamber and Alternative Descrietion IndiwIdual, orem person-res ~ Accident Ceseription i 3.1.1 Forced Evaporation, 11,000 gallon 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose

, Solidification, with tank ruptures 0.002 total 0.02 total

! Offsite Surfa1 unretreated water body body ficws into 1 Susquehanna Rfver l 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, 11,000 gallon 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose NJ dose Solidification, with tank rupturess 0.002 total 0.02 total l'

Retention Onstto unretreated water body body flows into i Susquehanna Rfver 3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation -------- Not applicable -------- 5000 gallons released 60 total body MTS on roedway 5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0.4 bone into river < 0.001 total < 0.01 total body body 3.2.2 Deep-Well injection -------- Not appifcable -------- 5000 gallons released 60 total body l on roadway g NTS l

5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0.4 bone 1 into river < 0.001 total < 0.01 total body body j

• 5000 gallons released 60 total body 3.2.3 Crfb Disposal -------- Not appilcable --------

l Hanford on roadway l

5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0. 4 bone 4

into river <0.001 total < 0.01 total i body body 1

! 3.3.1 Onsite Selffication -------- Not applicable -------- Truck accident No dose No dose

) and Burial 3.3.2 Onsite Solffication -------- Not applicable -------- Truck accident No dose No dose i and Burial at

), Hanford

! 3.4.1 Long-Term 11,000-gal tank O.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose i River Discharge rupturess unre- 0.002 total 0.02 total treated water body body 1 flows into Susquehanna River

]

3.4.2 Short-Tere 11,000-gal tank 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose l

4 River Discharge rupturess unre- 0.002 total 0.02 total l treated water body body

< flows into

!* Susquehanna River 3.5.1 Storage in Tanks Ultimately all 2 bone 130 bone . - - - - - - - - - - Not appi l cabl e - - - - - - - - -

i Onsite tanks falls water 0.4 total 3 total i flows into body body

' Susquehanna River

i TABLE 5.3. Estimated Nonradiological Accident Impacts from Offsite Shipments Section Number of Estimated Number Number and Alternative Shipments Accidents Injuries Fatalities Material Shipped (*}

3.1.1 Forced Evaporation, 80 to 260 0.6 to 1.9 0.5 to 0.9 0.04 to 0.07 Solidified evaporator "

Solidification, with residues Offsite Burial (170-ft3 concrete slabs) 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners Solidification, with Retention Onsite

3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation 420 3.0 2.6 0.2 Bulk liquid NTS (5,000-gallon tankers)

! 3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection 420 3.0 2.6 0.2 Bulk liquid NTS (5,000-gallon tankers)

. 3.2.3 Crib Disposal 420 3.1 2.7 0.2 Bulk liquid 5 Hanford (5,000-gallon tankers) 3.3.1 Onsite Solidification 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners and Burial  !

3.3.2 Onsite Solidification 1300 to 1600 10-to 12 8.2 to 10 0.6 to 0.8 Solidified accident- '

)

and Burial at generated water

, Hanford (288-ft3 concrete slabs) i 3.4.1 Long-Term 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners l River Discharge 4

3.4.2 Short-Term 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners

River Discharge 3.5.1 Storage in Ta as 0 0 0 0 No transportation Onsite j (a) For metric equivalents, see text.

1 4

resulting from transportation requirements range from 0.5 to 12 for each of the 9 alternatives involving shipping. The number of injuries estimated for each of these alternatives ranges from 0 to 10. The estimated number of fatalities ranges from 0 to 0.8. As expected, the greater the number of shipments, and the further the shipping distance, the larger the number of potential accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Appendix C describes the basis for the transportation-accident estimates.

l 1

3

.l l

5.11 I

i

6.0 CONCLUSION

S Based on updated information in this draft supplement to the Programmatic i Environmental Impact Statement (NRC 1981), the NRC staff has reevaluated the environmental impacts associated with disposal of the accident-generated water and concludes that this water can be disposed of without incurring significant environmental impact. The staff's evaluation of a namber of disposal alter-natives indicates that no alternative is clearly preferable. The risks to the general public from exposure to radioactive effluents from any alternative I

have been quantitatively estimated and are very small fractions of the esti-mated normal incidence of cancer fatalities and genetic disorders. The most significant potential impact associated with any disposal alternative is the risk of physical injury associated with transportation accidents. Addition-l ally, no significant impacts to aquatic or terrestrial organisms resulting

~

from any disposal alternative are expected.

The range of potential environmental impacts from the alternatives con-1 sidered, excluding the no-action alternative, are listed in Table 6.1. These impacts include O to 0.003 radiation-induced cancer fatalities in the worker

! population, O to 0.001 radiation-induced cancer fatalities in the offsite population, and 0.03 to 0.8 transportation-related traffic fatalities in the offsite population.

! Although extended liquid storage in tanks on the TMI site, the no-action

alternative, would also have a relatively small impact, the NRC staff views this alternative as inappropriate because it merely defers an ultimate deci-sion on disposal of the water. Additionally, this alternative is inconsistent with the Commission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radio-active wastes from the TMI site, be carried out safely and expeditiously.

6.1 1 i

TABLE 6.1. Range of Impacts from the Alternatives Considered Bone dose to the offsite population 0 to 11 person-rem total population 0 to 3 area, maximally exposed offsite individual Total body dose to the offsite population 0 to 3 person-rem total population 0 to 0.5 2 rem, maximally exposed offsite individual Estimated number of radiation-caused cancer fatalities to the offsite population 0 to 0.0001 Estimated number of radiation-caused genetic disorders to the offsite population 0 to 0.002 Occupational dose 0.5 to 25 person-rem Estimated number of radiation-caused cancer fatalities to the worker population 0.003 Land commitment 0 to 1 acre Radioactive waste burial ground volume O to 460,000 ft 3 Cost to the licensee $2.3 to 41 million Time to complete 2 to 36 months i Number of traffic accidents 0.5 to 12 Estimated number of traffic fatalities 0.03 to 0.8 t

3 l

l l

6.2

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

7.0 REFERENCES

American Cancer Society. 1985. 1985 Cancer Facts and Figures. American Cancer Society, New York.

American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI). 1983. American National 4 Standard for Dosimetry - Internal Dosimetry Program for Tritium Exposure -

Minimum Requirements. ANSI N13.14-1983. American National Standards Institute, Washington, D.C.

BEIR Report. 1972. The Effects on Populations of Exposure ro Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on che Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences - National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

BEIR Report. 1980. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences - National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.

Cashwell, J. W., K. S. Neuhauser P. C. Reardon and G. W. McNair. 1986.

Transportation Impacts of the Commercial Radioactive Waste Management Program. SAND 85-2715, TTC-0633, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Combs F., and R. J. Doda. 1979. "Large-Scale Distribution of Tritium in a Commercial Product." In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Behavior of Tritium in the Environment. SIL/ PUB /498, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Engel, R. L., J. Greenborg and M. M. Hendrickson. 1966. ISOSHLD - A Computer Code for General Purpose Isotope Shielding Analysis. BNWL-236, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.

40 CFR Part 190 (1985). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 190.)

EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program. 40 CFR Part 270 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 270.)

Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.

40 CFR Part 230 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR Part 230).

Hazardous Material Regulations. 49 CFR Subchapter C, Parts 171-179 (1985).

(Cited in text as 49 CFR 171-179.)

Hazardous Waste Management System: General. 40 CFR Part 260 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 260.)

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR Part 261 (1984).

(Cited in text as 40 CFR 261.)

7.1 J

Intergovernmental Maritime Organization (IMO). 1985. Report of the Ninth Meeting of the London Dumping Convention. IMO LDC/9/12, Intergovernmental Maritime Organization, London.

Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treat-ment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 265 (1984). (Cited in i text as 40 CFR 265.)

I l

Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of New Hazardous Waste Land Dis-posal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 267 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 267.)

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1959. Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation. ICRP Publica-tion 2, International Commission on Radiological Protection, Oxford.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recom-mendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP l Publication 26, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30, Part 1, Annuals of the ICRP, Volume 2, Number 3/4, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Kathren, R. L. 1984. Radioactivity in the Environment: Sources, Distribu-tion, and Surveillance. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur.

Klement, A. W., C. R. Miller, R. P. Minx and B. Schleien. 1972. Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000. ORP/CSD 72-1, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Rockville, Maryland.

Klusek, C. S. 1981. Strontium-90 in the Diet. Results Through 1980.

EML-395, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. 10 CFR Part 61 (1985). (Cited in text as 10 CFR 61.)

l Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240, H.R. 1083 (January 3, 1985).

McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, eds. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Publica-tion No. 3-A, The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, State of California.

McNair, G. W., B. M. Cole, R. E. Cross and E. F. Votaw. 1986. Truck and Rail Charges for Shipping Spent Fuel and Nuclear Waste. PNL-5797, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Metropolitan Edison Co., and Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 1974. Final Safety Analysis Report. Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

7.2

5.0 COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES This section compares the alternatives for the disposal of the accident-generated water based on the environmental impacts described in Section 3.

The impacts are summarized for each of the ten alternatives evaluated. The environmental impacts fall into three categories: radiological impacts, non-radiological impacts, and potential impacts from accidents. The discussion of the radiological impacts includes an estimate of the possible health effects resulting from radiation doses to the maximum exposed offsite individual, the population, and the workers. The discussion of nonradiological impacts includes consideration of chemical contaminants released, the cost, land commitment, and time required to implement each alternative. The discussion of potential accident impacts includes consideration of radiological impacts resulting from spills and nonradiological impacts resulting from traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.

The impacts which have been estimated to result from any alternative considered in this supplement are consistent with those estimated in the NRC l staff's March 1981 PEIS.

5.1

SUMMARY

OF THE IMPACTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Table 5.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the ten alternatives evaluated in Section 3. The table lists the offsite dose pathways / locations in which the dose is incurred, the estimated doses (for the maximally exposed offsite individual, the offsite population, and the workers), the cost of implementing the alternative, the long-term commitment of land and radioactive waste burial ground space for each alternative, the elapsed time for comple-tion of the alternative, and the estimated number of transportation accidents expected during the shipping process for each alternative.

For all evaluated alternatives the 50-year dose commitment to the maxim-ally exposed individual dose ranges from 0 to 3 mrem to the bone and 0.0 to 0.53 mrem to the total body. These doses are based on exposures occurring over a period of 1 to 36 months and on a series of conservative assumptions as discussed in Section 3 and Appendix B. These doses are in addition to the approximately 87 mrem /yr received by the average Harrisburg resident from natural background (Klement et al. 1972).

The population dose ranges from 0 to 8 person-rem to the bone and from 0 to 3 person-rem to the total body. The population doses from the atmos-pheric releases from onsite evaporation or solidification processes at TMI are distributed to a population of 2.2 million persons in the vicinity of TMI.

The population also receives an annual background radiation dose of approxi-mately 190,000 person-rem. The doses resulting from the liquid releases to the Susquehanna River are distributed to a population of approximately 300,000 people who use the river for recreation and who consume river water and food products, plus an additional population of unknown size and geo-graphic distribution that are consumers of shellfish from Chesapeake Bay.

5.1 i

TABLE 5.1. Environmental Impacts of Water Disposal Alternatives Dose Elapsed Estimated Maximally Exposed Offsite Occupa- Long-Term Time for Number of Section Of f site Dc 3e Offsite individual, Population, tional, Cost, Completion, Number and Alternative Pathway / Location eron person-rem Connit}g Traffic person-rea 5 af li t ons, Space months Accidents 3.1.1 Forced Evaporation. Atmosphere /TMI 3 bone 2 bone 12 to 20 6.2 to 12 27,000 to 35 0.6 to 1.9 Solidification, with 0.5 total body 3 total body 3 88,000 ft Offsite Burial 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, Atmosphere /TMI 3 bone 2 bone 14 to 25 6.7 to 8.8 10,000 ft 3 33 0.5 Solidification, with 0.5 total body 3 total body disposal Retention Onsite and site River /TMI 4 x 10'" bone 0.03 bone 15,000 ft2 4 x 10' total body 0.002 total body onsite 3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation Atmosphere /NTS -

3 x 10'" total body 0.5 to 1 2.5 to 3.4 15,000 ft 2 9 to 18 3.0 NTS at NTS 3.2.2 Deep-Well injection None 0 0 0.5 to 1 2.9 to 4.1 None 9 to 18 3.0 NTS 3.2.3 Crfb Cisposal None 0 0 0.5 to 1 2.3 to 3.1 None 9 to 18 3.0 Hanford 3.3.1 Onsite Solidification Atmosphere /TMI 0 bone 0 bone 12 to 17 5.4 to 6.0 10,000 ft 3 10 0.5 and Burial 0.2 total body 2 . total body disposal and site Ln River /TMI 4 x 10'" bone 0.03 bone

• 1 scre g 4 x 10' total body 0.002 total body onsite 3.3.2 Onsite Solidification Atmosphere /TMI O bone 0 bone 6 to 13 34 to 41 390,000 to 3 18 10 to 12 with Offsite Burial 0.2 total body 2 total body 460,000 ft disposal site 3.4.1 Long-Term River /TMt 0.2 bone 11 bone 2.5 to 7 2.9 to 3.6 10,000 ft 3 24 to 36 0.5 River Discharge and 0.04 total body 0.5 total body disposal Chesapeake Bay site 3.4.2 Short-Tern River /TMI 0.2 bone 11 bone 2.5 to 6 2.8 to 3.3 10,000 ft 3 1 to 2 0.5 River Discharge and 0.04 total body 0.5 total body disposal (after re-Chesapeake Bay site treatment of water) 3.5.1 Storage in Tanks None 0 0 0 0 to 1.2 No addf- 0 0 Onsite tional (a) Land commitments are in 2f t or acres. LLW burial ground space are in 3ft . For metric equivalents, see tent.

Annually, 300,000 people will receive 26,000 person-rem from background sources. The dose to personnel from evaporation at the NTS, 0.0003 person-rem, are distributed to a population of 6,500 persons who live 27 to 50 miles (43 to 80 kilometers) from the site. This population receives approximately 566 person-rem total body from natural background.

No measurable population doses were expected to result from the deep-well injection of wastes at the NTS, the crib disposal at the Hanford site, or from storage of the accident-generated water in tanks on the TMI site (unless the tanks leak). The dose to the population along the transport route to the NTS, the Hanford Site, or the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington was determined to be zero. This is based on the small dose rate (calculated to be less than 0.1 mrem /yr) from a vehicle con-taining 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) of untreated, accident-generated water.

Occupational dose estimates for all evaluated alternatives range from 0.5 to 25 person-rem. Essentially all of the external occupational doses received for all scenarios are due to other sources in the vicinity of the workers, not the accident-generated water. During the evaporation and solidification pro-cesses, workers will receive some additional total body dose from the inhala-tion of the tritium in the water vapor. This dose is included in the occupa-tional dose estimates. The possible health effects resulting from these doses are discussed in Section 5.2.

The cost of implementing the various alternatives (excluding the no-action alternative) ranges from $2.3 to $41 million (as shown in Table 5.1).

The most costly alternative ($34 to $41 million) is the direct solidification of the accident-generated water followed by transportation and disposal at the t

commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington.

The alternative selected by the licensee, forced evaporation and solidifica-tion onsite with burial of the residue offsite, is estimated to cost from $6.2 to $12 million. The remaining eight alternatives are each expected to cost less than $9 million. The no-action alternative, storage in tanks, cost nothing except for monitoring and possible tank replacement. Three of the alternatives, the forced evaporation followed by solidification with retention onsite, onsite solidification and burial, and storage of the waste in tanks onsite, would probably require an additional expense for some years for mon-itoring to assure releases do not exceed the levels expected. Monitoring costs are included in the range of estimates for these alternatives.

The onsite requirements for long-term committed land ranged from no additional requirement, for onsite storage of the accident-generated water in existing tanks, to approximately one acre (0.45 hectare) for direct solidifi-cation and onsite burial of the re-treated accident water. The offsite 3

requirements ranged from no additional commitment of land to up to 460,000 ft 3

(13,000 m ) of storage space in the LLW commercial burial site. One offsite alternative would commit approximately 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m2 ) at NTS. These impacts, as well as the result of chemical releases, are discussed further in Section 5.3.

5.3

The estimated number of transportation accidents ranged from 0.5 to 12 for the alternatives (excluding no-action alternative). An accident is defined to mean any form of traffic accident and does not necessarily mean personnel injuries, fatalities or any disturbance to the cargo. The number of injuries, fatalities, and radiological events are described in Section 5.4.

5.2 RANGE OF RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS In estimating potential health effect results from both offsite and occupational radiation exposures as a result of the disposal of the accident-generated water, the staff used somatic (cancer) and genetic risk estimators that are based on widely accepted scientific information. Specifically, the staff's estimates are based on information compiled by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radia-tion (BEIR 1972; BEIR 1980). The estimates of the risks to workers and the general public are based on conservative assumptions (that is, the estimates are probably higher than the actual number). The following risk estimators were used to estimate health effects: 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rem and 220 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rem.

The cancer-mortality risk estimates are based on the " absolute risk" model described in BEIR I (BEIR 1972). Higher estimates can be developed by use of the " relative risk" model along with the assumption that risk prevails for the duration of life. Use of the " relative risk" model would produce risk values up to about four times greater than those used in this report. The staff regards the use of the " relative risk" model values as a reasonable upper limit of the range of uncertainty. The lower limit of the range would be zero because there may be biological mechanisms that can repair damage caused by radiation at low doses and/or dose rates. The number of potential cancers would be approximately 1.5 to 2 times the number of potential fatal cancers, according to the 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

Values for genetic risk estimators range from 60 to 1100 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rem (BEIR III 1980). The value of 220 potential cases for all forms of genetic disorders is equal to the sum of the geometric means of the risk of specific genetic defects and the risk of defects with complex etiology.

The preceding values for risk estimators are consistent with the recom-mendations of a number of recognized radiation protection organizations, such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1977), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1975b), the NAS (BEIR 1980), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1982).

The risk of potentially fatal cancers in the exposed work-force popula-tion is estimated as follows: multiplying the plant-worker-population dose (less than or equal to 25 person-rem for each of the alternatives) by the somatic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.003 cancer deaths may 5.4

occur in the total exposed population. The value of 0.003 cancer deaths means that the probability of one cancer death over the lifetime of the entire work force as a result of the disposal operation is about 3 chances in 1000. The risk of potential genetic-disorders attributable to exposure of the work force is a risk borne by the progeny of the entire population and is thus properly considered as part of the risk to the general public.

Conservative estimates of the radiological doses and dose commitments resulting from the disposal of the accident-generated water have been esti- i mated in Section 3. Accurate measurements of radiation and radioactive con-taminants can be made with a very high sensitivity so that much smaller amounts of radioisotopes can be recorded than can be associated with any possible observable ill effects. Furthermore, the effects of radiation on living systems have for decades been subject to intensive investigation and j consideration by individual scientists as well as by select committees that i have occasionally been constituted to objectively and independently assess radiation dose effects. Although, as in the case of chemical contaminants, there is debate about the exact extent of the effects of very low levels of radiation that result from nuclear-power-plant effluents, upper bound limits of deleterious effects are well established and amenable to standard methods

of risk analysis. Thus, the risks to the maximally exposed member of the

! public outside of the site boundaries or to the total population outside of the boundaries can be readily calculated and recorded. These risk estimates for the disposal of the accident-generated water are presented below.

The risk to the maximally exposed individual is estimated by multiplying the preceding risk estimator by the estimated dose to the total body (less than 5 mrem for the alternatives evaluated). This calculation results in a risk of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed indiv-idual from exposure to radioactive effluents (gaseous or liquid) from the dis-posal operations of less than 1 chance in 1 million. The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the average individual within 50 miles (80 kilom-eters) of the reactors from exposure to radioactive effluents from the dis-posal operation is much less than the risk to the maximally exposed individual.

These risks are very small in comparison to cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the disposal of the accident-generated water.

Multiplying the dose to the general population within 50 miles (80 kilom-eters) of TMI-2 from exposure to radioactive effluents (i.e. less than or equal to 3 person-rem to the total body for each of the evaluated alterna-tives) by the preceding somatic risk estimator, the staff estimates that less than 0.001 cancer deaths may occur in the exposed population. The signifi-cance of this risk can be determined by comparing it to the total projected incidence of cancer deaths in the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 in 1980. Multiplying the estimated population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 for the year 1981 (2.2 million people) by the current incidence of actual cancer fatalities (about 20%), about 440,000 cancer deaths are expected (American Cancer Society 1985).

For purposes of evaluating the potential genetic risks, the progeny of workers are considered members of the general public. However, it is assumed that only about one-third of the occupational radiation dose is received by 5.5

c ,

workers who have offspring af ter the workers' radiation exposure (e.g., see paragraph 80 of ICRP 1977). Multiplying the sum of the dose to the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of TMI-2 from exposure to radioactivity attri-butable to the disposal of the accident-generated water (i.e., less than 3 person-rem total body, including gonads), and the estimated dose from occu-pational exposure (i.e. one third of 25 person-rem) by the preceding genetic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.002 potential genetic dis-orders may occur in all future generations of the exposed population. Because BEIR III (BEIR 1980) indicates that the mean persistence of the two major types of genetic disorders is about five generations and ten generations, in the following analysis the risk of potential genetic disorders from the dis-posal operation is conservatively compared with the risk of actual genetic ill health in the first five generations, rather than the first ten generations.

Multiplying the estimated population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant (about 2.2 million persons in the year 1981) by the current incidence of actual genetic ill health in each generation (about 11%), about 1,2-million genetic abnormalities are expected in the first five generations of the popu-lation (BEIR 1980).

No significant radiological impact to aquatic or terrestrial biota result-ing from any disposal alternative is expected (see Section 3.0).

5.3 RANGE OF NONRADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The major nonradiological impacts identified include the cost of imple-mentation, long-term commitment of land and burial ground space, and the elapsed time required to perform the alternative.

Significant chemical releases are expected only in the alternatives  !

involving direct discharge of the accident-generated water to the river. The rate of release of water to the river was assumed to be controlled to conform to a maximum of 25 ppm boron. No sodium release is expected because both of these alternatives require retreatment of all of the water. No discernible impact on the ecology or downstream water users are expected from chemical releases.

The cost of implementing the various alternatives ranges from 0 to

$41 million. The least costly alternative is the no-action option in which

the accident-generated water would be stored in existing tanks onsite. This l alternative, however, would not dispose of the water but delay its disposi-l tion. The most costly alternative is onsite solidification of the accident-l generated water and subsequent transport to the LLW burial site operated by l U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington. The most significant costs for this I alternative are for solidification and packaging, $13 to $15 million and l

transportation and burial, $21 to $26 million. The alternative selected by the licensee, forced evaporation and solidification of evaporator bottoms at the TMI site and burial in the LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington, is estimated to cost from $6.2 to $12 million. The major costs for this alternative are: forced evaporation, approximately l

5.6 l

l

$3.6 million; solidification, $0.9 to $2.9 million; and transport and burial,

$1.7 to $5.5 million. The remaining seven alternatives are less costly, ranging from $2.3 to $8.8 million.

The no-action alternative, storage of the accident-generated water in existing tanks at TMI, is estimated to be the least costly but would not pro-vide for disposal of the water. The estimated cost range, O to $1.2 million, considers the potential requirement to replace existing tanks, if the reten-tion period is long enough for tank degradation to cause leaks.

All alternatives require either the commitment of additional land or designated radioactive waste burial space offsite with the exception of the alternatives for deep-well injection at NTS, crib disposal at Hanford, and the no-action alternative.

The requirements for long-term commitment of land include land at the TMI site, the NTS, the Hanford Site, and burial space in the commercial LLW burial site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington. The solidification of evaporator bottoms with burial onsite wsaid require an estimated 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m2) of land at the TMI site. The direct solidification of the accident-generated water followed by onsite burial would require an estimated one acre (0.40 hectares). The accident-generated water stored in tanks onsite would be retained in existing tanks and thus no additional onsite land requirement is expected.

Offsite evaporation of the accident-generated water would involve the commitment of 15,000 ft2 (1,400 m2) of land at the NTS. Deep-well injection of the waste at the NTS would have no permanent requirement of land, although some available disposal volume would not be available for other purposes.

Crib disposal at the Hanford site would occur in an existing radioactive waste crib and, as such, there would be no additional requirement for land.

The solidification of evaporator bottoms followed by shipment to the com-mercial LLW disposal site operated by U.S. Ecology near Richland, Washington would require 27,000 to 88,000 f t3 (765 to 2500 m3) of disposal space. The direct solidification of the accident-generated water would require between 390,000 and 460,000 f t3 (11,000 to 13,000 m3) of space in the LLW disposal site. The alternatives which include the retreatment of the accident-generated water with the SDS or EPICOR II system would require approximately 10,000 f t3 (283 m3) of LLW burial space for the disposal of resin liners.

The estimated time commitments for completion of the alternatives except for the no-action alternative (storage in tanks onsite) vary from 1 month following retreatment of the accident-generated water to 36 months. Three of the alternatives would require some monitoring beyond the elapsed time for completion of the alternative.

No significant nonradiological impact to aquatic or terrestrial biota resulting from any disposal alternative is expected (see Section 3.0).

5.7 I

5.4 RANGE OF ACCIDENT IMPACTS AND THEIR PROBABILITY The accident impacts include both radiological and nonradiological impacts. Table 5.2 lists the major radiological accident for each of the alternatives as well as the resulting dose estimates. The worst-case radio-logical accident scenario for many of the alternatives is the rupture of an 11,000-gallon (42,000-liter) tank of accident-generated water prior to retreatment, which would flow into the Susquehanna River. This scenario is conservative (only a fraction of the water could reach the river), and the resulting 50-year dose commitment doses are quite low (0.01 mrem bone and 0.02 arem total body for the maximum individual; 0.7 person-rem bone and 0.02 person-rem total body for the population) .

For the no-action alternative, a second, although extremely improbable, accident scenario was included, the loss of the total inventory of accident-generated water in an uncontrolled discharge. Conservative 50-year dose commitments are estimated to resulted in a maximum individual bone dose of 1.9 mram and a total body dose of 0.4 mrem. The population 50-year dose commitment was estimated at 40 person-rem to the bone and 1 person-rem to the total body.

Two scenarios were considered for radiological transportation-related accidents: the release of the entire inventory of a 5,000-gallon (19,000-liter) tank truck to a roadway, and the release of the same inven-tory to the Susquehanna River. For the first scenario, vegetation growth on the spill site would be impaired until the boric acid would be removed. If it were removed and the radionuclides were left, a person consuming 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of crops, harvested 14 days after the accident, grown on the site where the water was deposited could receive a maximum estimated dose of 60 arem total body (50-year committed dose). A individual remaining at the accident site for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> might receive 0.2 mrem total body (50-year dose com-mitment). For the second scenario, release of 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) to the Susquehanna River, the estimated doses to the maximum exposed indiv-idual would be less than 0.005 mrem bone, 0.001 mrem total body, with a popu-lation dose of less than 0.4 person-rem bone and 0.01 person-rem total body (50-year dose commitment). The boron in the released accident-generated water would not effect the fish.

Transportation related accidents for the remaining alternatives are not expected to result in any radiological impact. An accident involving a truck transporting concrete slabs or resin liners is not expected to result in a measurable release to the environment or radiation dose to the public.

i I

Although terrestrial and/or aquatic biota in the vicinity of an accident would be adversely affected, the impact would be temporary and of no long-term

! significance.

Table 5.3 lists the results of the nonradiological accident calculations

}; for each of the alternatives, all but one of which involve offsite shipments.

Also shown in Table 5.3 are the material shipped and the number of shipments i

required for each of the alternatives. The number of potential accidents i

5,8 t

i

TABLE 5.2. Environmental Impacts of Radiological Accidents Nontranspo*tation Transportation Dose Dose Section Accident g ,3 Maximum Population, Mantman Population, Number and Alternative Description Individual, mrom person-rom Accident Description Individual. mrom person-rea 1

3.1.1 Forced Evaporation, 11,000 gallon 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose Solidification, with tank ruptures: 0.002 total 0.02 total Offsite Burial unretreated water body body flows into Susquehanna River 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, 11,000 gallon 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose Solidification, with tank ruptures; 0.002 total 0.02 total Retention Onsite unretreated water body body flows into Susquehanna Rtver 3.2.1 Offatte Evaporation ---*---- Not applicable -------- 5000 gallons released 60 total body NTS on roadway i 5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0.4 bone

' into river < 0.001 total < 0.01 total body body 3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection -------- Not appitcable - - - - - - - - - 5000 gallons released 60 total body NTS on roadway 5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0. 4 bone into river < 0.001 total < 0.01 total

, body body c

3.2.3 Crib Disposal -------- Not appilcable -------- 5000 gallons released 60 total body Hanford on roadway 5000 gallons released < 0.005 bone < 0.4 bone into river <0.001 total <0.01 total body body 3.3.1 Onsite Solffication -------- Not applfcable --------

Truck accident No dose No dose and Burial 3.3.2 Onsite Solification -------- Not appifcable -------- Truck accident No dose No dose and Burial at Hanford 3.4.1 f.ong-Tere 11,000-gal tank 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose River Discharge ruptures; unre- 0.002 total 0.02 total l treated water body body flows into

' Susquehanna River 3.4.2 Short-Tere 11,000-gal tank 0.01 bone 0.7 bone Truck accident No dose No dose River Discharge rupturess unre- 0.002 total 0.02 total

treated water body body flows into

< Susquehanna River l

. 3.5.1 Storage in Tanks Ultimately all 2 bone 130 bone - - = = = * - - - - Not appifcable - - - - - - - - -

i Onsite tanks fails water 0.4 total 3 total flows into body body Susquehanna River i

i TABLE 5.3. Estimated Nonradiological Accident Impacts from Offsite Shipments i Section Number of Estimated Number I Number and Alternative Shipments Accidents Injuries Fatalities Material Shipped a) 3.1.1 Forced Evaporation, 80 to 260 0.6 to 1.9 0.5 to 0.9 0.04 to 0.07 Solidified evaporator Solidification, with residues Offsite Burial (170-ft3 concrete' slabs) 3.1.2 Forced Evaporation, 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners Solidification, with Retention Onsite 3.2.1 Offsite Evaporation 420 3.0 2.6 0.2 Bulk liquid NTS (5,000-gallon tankers) i 3.2.2 Deep-Well Injection 420 3.0 2.6 0.2 Bulk liquid NTS (5,000-gallon tankers) j P 3.2.3 Crib Disporal 420 3.1 2.7 0.2 Bulk liquid 5 Hanford (5,000-gallon tankers) i 3.3.1 Onsite Solidification 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners l and Burial

! 3.3.2 Onsite Solidification 1300 to 1600 10 to 12 8.2 to 10 0.6 to 0.8 Solidified accident-and Burial at generated water l

l Hanford (260-ft3 concrete slabs)

! 3.4.1 Long-Term 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners

! River Discharge 3.4.2 Short-Term 60 0.5 0.4 0.03 Resin liners j River Discharge i

3.5.1 Storage in Tanks 0 0 0 0 No transportation Onsite

(a) For metric equivalents, see text.

resulting from transportation requirements range from 0.5 to 12 for each of the 9 alternatives involving shipping. The number of injuries estimated for each of these alternatives ranges from 0 to 10. The estimated number of fatalities ranges from 0 to 0.8. As expected, the greater the number of shipments, and the further the shipping distance, the larger the number of potential accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Appendix C describes the basis for the transportation-accident estimates.

i f

d l

e i

5.11

- . - - . . ._ ._ ._._ _ _ _ . . . _ . , _ . . . . _ - . . _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ - ~ , . _ - . . __. _ . . _ . . _ . -_

6.0 CONCLUSION

S Based onImpact Environmental updated information in this draft supplement to the Programmatic Statement (NRC 1981), the NRC staff has reevaluated the environmental impacts associated with disposal of the accident-generated water and concludes that this water can be disposed of without incurring significant environmental impact. The staff's evaluation of a number of disposal alter-natives indicates that no alternative is clearly preferable. The riska to the general public from exposure to radioactive effluents from any alternative have been quantitatively estimated and are very small fractions of the esti-mated normal incidence of cancer fatalities and genetic disorders. The most significant potential impact associated with any disposal alternative is the risk of physical injury associated with transportation accidents. Addition-ally, no significant impacts to aquatic or terrestrial organisms resulting from any disposal alternative are expected.

The range of potential environmental impacts from the alternatives con-sidered, excluding the no-action alternative, are listed in Table 6.1. These impacts include O to 0.003 radiation-induced cancer fatalities in the worker population, O to 0.001 radiation-induced cancer fatalities in the offsite population, and 0.03 to 0.8 transportation-related traffic fatalities in the offsite population.

Although extended liquid storage in tanks on the TMI site, the no-action alternative, would also have a relatively small impact, the NRC staff views this alternative sion on disposalasofinappropriate because it merely defers an ultimate deci-the water. Additionally, this alternative is inconsistent with the Commission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radio-active westes from the TMI site, be carried out safely and expeditiously.

6.1

TABLE 6.1. Range of Impacts from the Alternatives Considered Bone dose to the offsite population 0 to 11 person-rem total population 0 to 3 mrem, maximally exposed offsite individual Total body dose to the offsite population 0 to 3 person-rem total population 0 to 0.5 arem, maximally exposed offsite individual Estimated number of radiation-caused cancer fatalities to the offsite population 0 to 0.0001 Estimated number of radiation-caused genetic disorders to the offsite population 0 to 0.002 Occupational dose 0.5 to 25 person-rem Estimated number of radiation-caused cancer fatalities to the worker population 0.003 Land commitment 0 to 1 acre i 3

Radioactive waste burial ground volume 0 to 460,000 ft Cost to the licensee $2.3 to 41 million Time to complete 2 to 36 months Number of traffic accidents 0.5 to 12 Estimated number of traffic fatalities 0.03 to 0.8 6.2

7.0 REFERENCES

American Cancer Society. 1985. 1985 Cancer Facts r Figures. American Cancer Society, New York.

American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI). 1983. American National Standard for Dosimetry - Internal Dosimetry Program for Tritium Exposure -

Minimum Requirements. ANSI N13.14-1983. American National Standards ,

Institute, Washington, D.C.

BEIR Report. 1972. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences - National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

BEIR Report. 1980. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences - National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Cashwell, J. W., K. S. Neuhauser, P. C. Reardon and G. W. McNair. 1986.

l Transportation Impacts of the Commercial Radioactive Waste Management Program. SAND 85-2715. TTC-0633, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

~

Combs , F. , and R. J. Doda. 1979. "Large-Scale Distribution of Tritium in a i Commercial Product." In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the I

Behavior of Tritium in the Environment. SIL/ PUB /498, International Atomic l Energy Agency, Vienna.

t Engel, R. L., J. Greenborg and M. M. Hendrickson. 1966. ISOSHLD - A Computer i Code for General Purpose Isotope Shielding Analysis. BNWL-236, Pacific I Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.  !

! 40 CFR Part 190 (1985). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 190.)

i '

l EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program. 40 CFR l Part 270 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 270.)

! Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.

} 40 CFR Part 230 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR Part 230).

Hazardous Material Regulations. 49 CFR Subchapter C, Parts 171-179 (1985).

(Cited in text as 49 CFR 171-179.)

i l Hazardous Waste Management System: General. 40 CFR Part 260 (1984). (Cited a in text as 40 CFR 260.)

f Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR Part 261 (1984).

{ (Cited in text as 40 CFR 261.)

i

7.1 i,

Intergovernmental Maritime Organization (IMO). 1985. Report of the Ninth Meeting of the London Dumping Convention. IMO LDC/9/12, Intergovernmental Maritime Organization, London.

Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treat-ment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 265 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 265.)

Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of New Hazardous Waste Land Dis-posal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 267 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 267.)

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1959. Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation. ICRP Publica-tion 2, International Commission on Radiological Protection, Oxford.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recom-mendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30, Part 1, Annuals of the ICRP, Volume 2, Number 3/4, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Kathren, R. L. 1984. Radioactivity in the Environment: Sources, Distribu-tion, and Surveillance. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur.

Klement A. W., C. R. Miller, R. P. Minx and B. Schleien. 1972. Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000. ORP/CSD 72-1, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Rockville, Maryland.

Klusek, C. S. 1981. Strontium-90 in the Diet. Results Through 1980.

EML-395, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. 10 CFR Part 61 (1985). (Cited in text as 10 CFR 61.)

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240 H.R. 1083 (January 3, 1985).

McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, eds. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Publica-tion No. 3-A, The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, State of California.

McNair, G. W., B. M. Cole, R. E. Cross and E. F. Votav. 1986. Truck and Rail Charges for Shipping Spent Fuel and Nuclear Waste. PNL-5797, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Metropolitan Edison Co., and Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 1974. Final Safety Analysis Report, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

7.2

Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License. 46 Federal Register, 84, 24764-5 (Friday, May 1, 1981). (Cited in text as Amendment to License 1981.)

Munson, L. F., and R. Harty. 1985. Possible Options for Reducing Occupa-tional Dose from the TMI-2 Basement. NUREG/CR-4399, PNL-5557, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1975a.

Natural Background Radiation in the United States. NCRP Report No. 45.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1975b.

Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy. NCRP Report No. 43, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1979.

Trftium in the Environment. NCRP Report No. 62, National Council on Radia-tion Protection and Measuremer.ts, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1986.

Screening Techniques for Determining Compliance with Environmental Standards, Releases of Radionuclides to the Atmosphere. NCRP Commentary No. 3, National Council on Radiat_an Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 40 CFR Part 141 (1984).

(Cited in text as 40 CFR 141.)

Ocean Dumping. 40 CFR Subchapter H. Parts 220-233 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR Subchapter H.)

Oma, K. H., D. R. Brown, J. L. Buelt, V. F. Fitzpatrick, K. A. Hawley, G. B.

Mellinger, B. A. Napier, D. J. Silvera, S. L. Stein and C. L. Timmerman.

1983. In Situ Vitrification of Transuranic Wastes: Systems Evaluation and

_ Applications Assessment. PNL-4800, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Oztunali, O. I., and G. W. Roles. 1984. De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology, NUREG/CR-3585, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material. 10 CFR Part 71.

(1985). (Cited in text as 10 CFR 71.)

Procedures. 40 CFR Part 231 (1984), (Cited in text as 40 CFR Part 231.)

Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs. 40 CFR Part 271 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 271.)

7.3

Rickard, W. H., and L. J. Kirby. 1984. " Trees as Indicators of Subterranian Migration of Tritium at a Commercial Shallow Land Radioactive Waste Disposal Site." PNL-SA-12501, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Rupp, E. M. , F. L. Miller and C. F. Bates, III. 1980. "Some Results of Recent Surveys of Fish and Shellfish Consumption by Age and Region of U.S.

Residents." Health Physics 39(2):165-175.

Simmons, G. L., J. J. Regimbal, J. Greenborg, E. L. Kelly, Jr. and H. H.

Van Tuyl. 1967. ISOSHLD-II: Code Revision to Include Calculation of Dose Rate from Shielded Bremsstrahlung Sources. BNWL-236-SUP1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 10 CFR Part 20 (1985). (Cited in text as 10 CFR 20.)

Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR Part 262 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 262.)

Standards Applicable tv Transporters of Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR Part 263 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 263). ,

I Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 264 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 264.)

Strenge, D. L., T. J. Bander and J. K. Soldat. CASPAR II - Technical Reference and User Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, PNL-5907, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (to be published).

Strenge, D. L., R. A. Peloquin and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, PNL-5270, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Underground Injection Control Program. 40 CFR Part 144 (1984). (Cited in text as 40 CFR 144.)

United National Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 1982. _I_onizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects.

Report to the U.N. General Assembly, New York.

i U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 1985. National Transportation Statistics. DOT-TSC-RSPA-85-5, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA). 1977. Final Environ-mental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site. ERDA-1551, U.S. Energy Research and Development Agency, Washington, D.C.

l 7.4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) . 1976. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement related to the operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2. Docket 50-320. NUREG-0112, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatocy Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Programmatic Environ-mental Impact Statement related to decontamination and dispcsal of radio-active waste resulting from March 28, 1979, Accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2. NUREG-0683, U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1984. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Waste Resulting from March 28, 1979, Accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Final Supplement Dealing with Occupational Radiation Dose.

NUREG-0683, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. " Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities." 50 Federal Register, 28, 5600-5628 (Monday, February 11, 1985). (Cited as 50 FR 5600.)

Vander, A. J., J. H. Sherman and D. S. Luciano, 1980. Human Physiology, The Mechanisms of Body Function. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.

Wallen, I. E., W. C. Greer and R. Lasater. 1957. " Toxicity to Gambusia affinis of Certain Pure Chemicals in Turbid Waters." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 29:695.

Waste Disposal. 10 CFR Part 20.302 (1985). (Cited in text as 10 CFR 20.302.)

Weast, R. C. 1983. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 63rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Windholz, M, S. Budavari, L. Y. Stroumtsos and M. Noether Fertiz. 1976. The Merck Index, Ninth Edition. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey.

4 7.5 l

8.0 INDEX Accident Analysis - see Table of Contents Accident-Generated Water, definition, 2.1 Agreement (between City of Lancaster, Metropolitan Edison, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2.1 Agreement State, 2.15 ,

Agriculture, 4.11 Alternatives - see Table of Contents i

l Animals, 3.1, 4.11 Antimony, 2.3 Appalachian Mountains, 4.1 Asphalt, 3.24 l

Atomic Energy Act, 2.13 Background Radiation - See Natural Background Bainbridge Naval Training Station, 4.6 Baltimore, Maryland, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12 Barium-137, 2.7

< Barium-137m, 2.7 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), 3.1, 5.4 Biological Half-Life, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 hoiling Water Reactor (BWR), 2.15 Boric Acid, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.3, 3.35, 5.8 Boron, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9, 2.11, 2.16, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26, 3.28, 3.29, 3.31, 3.33, 5.6, 5.8 Boron, Properties of, 2.10 Brunner Island, 4.6 8.1

Cancer, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.2 Caribbean Sea 4.1 Cement. 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.21, 3.24, 3.25 Cerium-144, 2.3 Cesium-134, 2.3 Cesium-137, 2.3 Cesium-137, properties of, 2.7 Chesapeake Bay, 3.8, 3.9, 3.27, 3.30, 3.32, 4.1, 5.1 Chester, Pennsylvania, 4.6 Chlorine, 2.16 Clean Air Act, 2.13 Clean Water Act, 2.13 Climate, 4.1 Coal, 4.6 Coliform, 4.6 Columbia Borough, 4.8 Combined Catalytic Exchange Treatment, 3.35 Comment Period, iii, vi, vii Commission, 1.1, 2.13, 3.9 Commitment of Resources - see Table of Contents Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2.15 (see Pennsylvania)

Concrete, 3.3, 3.6, 3.10. 3.12, 3.13, 3.15, 3.21, 3.22, 3.24 Conowingo, 4.6, 4.10 Consumer Products, 2.7 Cooling Tower, 3.26, 3.33 Crib (s), 3.14, 3.19, 3.20, 5.2 8.2

Deep-Well Injection, 5.3, 5.7 Delaware, 4.11 I

Delaware Bay, 4.1 DOE - U.S. Department of Energy, 3.9, 3.17 DOT - U.S. Department of Transportation, 2.14 Ecology, 4.10, 5.6 Emergency Allocation, 3.2.5 Endangered Species, 4.11 EPA - Environmental Protection Agency, 2.13, 3.18 EPICOR II, 2.2, 3.2, 3.2.1 Evaporation, 3.1, 3.9, 4.6 Farming, 4.1, 4.10 Fish, 2,12, 4.10 Forestry, 4.10 Genetic Effects of Radiation, 6.1 Gettysburg Formation, 4.9 Gross Alpha, 4.9 Gross Beta, 4.9 Grout (grouting system), 3.2.4 Groundwater, 3.1, 3.4.9 Gulf of Mexico, 4.10 8.3

Half-Life, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 Hanford (Site), 3.14, 3.18, 4.14, 5.6 Hardness (total water hardness), 4.6 Harrisburg, 4.12 Havre de Grace, 4.6 Health Effects, 5.1, 5.4 High Altitude Disposal, 3.35 Holtwood. 4.6  ;

Hydrofracturing, 3.33 i Hydrogen-3, see Tritium Hypalon*, 3.10, 3.21 International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2.13, 3.32 In Situ Vitrification, 3.14 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 4.8 Landfill, 3.10 Leachate, 3.10, 3.21 London Dumping Convention, 2.13, 3.32 Low-Level (LLW) Burial (Site), 3.9 Low-Level (LLW) Policy Act, 2.15 Low-Level (LLW) Waste, 2.15 Maryland, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11 Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC), 2,14, 3.15, 3.21 8.4

Maxey Flats, Kentucky, 3.36  ;

Memorandum of Understanding, 3.17, 3.18 [

Microorganisms, 2.2 Monitoring Wells, 3.10, 3.13, 4.9 Muddy Run, 4.8 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 3.1, 5.4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), 5.4, 4.9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 2.10, 2.16 Natural Background Radiation, 2.3, 2.4, 4.9, 5.1, 5.3 Nevada Test Site (NTS), 3.14, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19, 4.14 No-Action Alternative, 5.6, 6.3 NTS - See Nevada Test Site Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 3.33 Observation Wells, 4.9 i

l Ocean Disposal, 3.32 Occupational Radiation Exposure, see Table of Contents l '

Offsite Evaporation, 3.1 Onsite Evaporation, 3.1 Onsite Storage, 3.1 Open Cycle Evaporation, 3.35 ORNL - See Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1

i

! 8.5 i

l

1 PaDer - See Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Peach Botton Station, 4.6 Pennsylvania, 2.15, 3.20, 4.11 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER), 2.16, 3.28 Pennsylvania Supply Company, 4.6 Perceived Risk, 6.1 Perry Point Veterans Hospital, 4.6 pH, 2.16 t

Pond Evaporation, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 Portland Cement, 3.3, 3.9, 3.21 Precipitation, 4.6 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), 2.15, 3.32 Radiation Exposure to the Public - See Table of Contents Radium, 4.9 Rail Shipment. 3.14 Reactor Coolant System (RCS), 2.2 Resin Liners, 3.21 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 2.13 Retention Onsite, 3.2, 3.6, 3.9 Reuse (of Accident-Generated Water), 3.34 RCRA - See Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 2.13 RCS - See Reactor Coolant System Richland, Washington, 4.12 River Discharge, 3.1 i

Ruthenium-106, 2.3 l

8.6 l

l

.- -- , - - - ~ - . . , . . - - _.- - , - . _ . . , , _ , _ _ .

Safe Harbor, 4.6 SDS - See Submerged Domineralizer System Shellfish, 3.8, 4.10, 5.1 Shipment, 3.1 Snowfall, 4.6 Sodium, 2.3 Sodium, Properties of, 2.12 Solidification, 3.1, 3.20 Somatic Effects of Radiation, 5.4, 5.5 l

l Strontium-90, 2.9 Strontium-90, Properties of, 2.8 Submerged Domineralizer System (SDS), 2.2, 3.9, 3.21 Sulfate, 4.6 Suspended Solids, 2.2 Susquehanna River, 3.26 Surface Water, 4.6, 4.9 Technical Specifications, 3.21, 3.29 Temperature, 4.6 Three Mile Island, Unit-1 (THI-1), 3.34 Transportation, 4.12 Tritium - Hydrogen-3, 2.3 Tritium, Properties of, 2.5 8.7

4 Uranium, 4.9 U.S. Department of Energy - See DOE U.S. Department of Transporation - See DOT.

U.S. Public Health Service, 2.9 Vertebrates, 4.11 Virginia, 4.11 I

Vitrification, 3.14 Water Table 4.9 i

j Wildlife, 4.11 i

Wrightsville Water Supply Company, 4.6 i

York Haven Power Company, 4.8 York, Pennsylvania, 4.12 Yttrium-90, 2.9, 4.9 l

i i

i f

I 8.8

- . . . _ . - _ _ . _ . - . . _ - .- - - . _._ _-- _ _ _ . - -.- . . . . . . . . - - , . . . , . . _ . . _ = . - _ - . -

APPENDIX A CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT l

i t

i 4

i

)

l l

APPENDIX A 1

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Three Mile Island Project Directorate of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The statement was prepared by members of the TMI Directorate with substantial assistance from other NRC components and the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The major con-tributors to the draft supplement, their affiliations, and function or expertise are listed below.

NAME AFFILIATION FUNCTION OR EXPERTISE Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael T. Masnik THI Cleanup Project Directorate Project Manager William D. Travers TMI Cleanup Project Directorate Director, TMI Project Directorate Jack Bell TMI Cleanup Project Directorate Senior Radiation Specialist Thomas A. Moslak TMI Cleanup Project Directorate Radiation Specialist Edward F. Branagan, Reactor Systems Branch, Division Radiological Effects Jr. of PWR-B Pacific Northwest Laboratory a)

Linda F. Munson Health Physics Department Project Manager Rebekah Harty Health Physics Department Health Physics Michele R. Landis Health Physics Department Health Physics Leo H. Munson Health Physics Department Health Physics Carl M. Stroud Health Physics Department Health Physics Emment Moore Energy Systems Department Regulatory Assessment Bruce Napier Earth Sciences Department Dose Assessment (a) The Pacific Northwest Laboratory is operated for the U.S. P.epartment of Energy by the Battelle Memorial Institute.

A.1

NAME AFFILIATION FUNCTION OR EXPERTISE Pacific Northwest Laboratory (continued)

Jennifer E. Tanner Health Physics Department Dose Rate Calculation Dave Baker Earth Sciences Department Dose Assessment John B. Brown Earth Sciences Department Senior Reviewer Linda A. Sigalla Health Physics Department Health Physics Phillip M. Daling Energy Systems Department Dose Assessment /

Transportation j Ronald L. Kathren Health Physics Department Senior Reviewer David A. Lamar Earth Sciences Department Dose Assessment William T. Farris Earth Sciences Department Dose Assessment A.2

- 4 4 4 _ ...L4 _ d<-- 4 m __4 ,. _ - .,.a. . -

APPENDIX B l

CALCULATION OF RADIATION DOSES FROM WATERBORNE AND AIRBORNE PATHWAYS l

e ,

e L

i i

i

+

4 i

J I

_ ..,_.r_.. , ., - ,,_.. . , ,_..... _ , , , .. . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . - . . .-.- - . ._, , , _.-._ . ~,. ..,__,. - _ _ _ ,. . ....__. . _ _ , , ... .,

APPENDIX B CALCULATION OF RADIATION DOSES FROM WATERBCRNE AND AIRBORNE PATHWAYS This appendix contains the methodologies, assumptions, and parameters used in the calculation of the radiation exposure to the public. The pathways are organized into three groups: waterborne pathways from the TMI site, airborne pathways from the TMI Site, and airborne pathways from the NTS.

B.1 WATERBORNE PATHWAYS The public radiation doses resulting from the release of accident-generated water to the Susquehanna River were generated by the NRC's LADTAP II computer code (Strenge, Peloquin and Whelan 1986). The LADTAP II generates 50-year dose commitments based on one year of ingestion. For the alternatives where ingestion occurs for a period of longer than one year, it was conserva-tively assumed that all the material ingested during the entire period of exposure was ingested in one year. Doses were determined for the maximum individual and for the population within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of L the power plant.

The pathways considered for doses to the maximally exposed individual and the population were consumption of drinking water and fish from the river, rivershore activities, and boating and swimming in the river. The irrigated farm product / food pathway was not applied to the dose calculations.

The af fected population within the 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius numbered 2.2 million people with age group distributions as follows: 71% adults, 11%

teenagers, and 18% children. Only 300,000 of the 2.2 million people were assumed to have obtained their drinking water from the river.

Table B.I contains the consumption and usage rates by the maximum indiv-idual for the various pathways. Table B.2 lists the consumption rates for drinking water and river fish used for the population dose calculations. Addi-tional parameters used for the population doses are as follows:

e shoreline usage - 83,000 person-h/yr e swimming - 120,000 person-h/yr e boating - 520,000 person-h/yr e sport fishing (edible) yield - 308,000 lb/yr (68,000 kg/yr) e commercial fishing yield - none assumed.

3 The flow rate of the river was assumed to be 34,000 cfs (963 m /sec) for all except one of the calculations. The exception was the calculation of dose to the maximally exposed individual from the consumption of fish. For this calculation, a 3,150 cfs (89 m 3/sec) flow rate was used. Since the flow rates B.1

. ..m .. . ,

, TABLE B.I. Consumption and Usage for the Maximum Individual Pathway Tarset Rate i

Fish Infant 0 lb/yr kg/yr)

(0 Children 15 lb/yr . (6.9 kg/yr)

Teenager 35 lb/yr (16 kg/yr)

Adult 46 lb/yr (21 kg/yr)

Drinking Water Infant 87 gal /yr (330 L/yr)

Children 140 gal /yr (510 L/yr)

Teenager 140 gal /yr (510 L/yr)

Adult 190 gal /yr (710 L/yr)

Shoreline Use Infant 'O h/yr Children 14 h/yr Teenager 67 h/yr Adult 12 h/yr Boating -All 0 h/yr' Swimming All 0 h/yr TABLE B.2. Consumption Rates for Population Doses Pathway -Target Rate Fish Children - 4.8 lb/yr (2.2 kg/yr)

Teenager 12 lb /yr (5.2 kg/yr)

Adult 15 lb/yr (6.9 kg/yr)

- Drinking Water Children 69 gal /yr (260 L/yr)

Teenager- 69 gal /yr (260 L/yr)

Adult 98 gal /yr (370 L/yr) of the river were so much larger than the discharge rates, the blowdown dilu-tion had no observable effects on the final doses. The transport time from the plant discharge point to the various targets was neglected during the dose calculations.

In addition to the doses discussed above, doses to the population that consumes shellfish harvested from Chesapeake Bay were also calculated. 'The accident-generated 3

water was diluted by the river flow of 34,000 cfs (963 m /sec). Further dilution by the cooling tower blowdown and dilution'in Chesapeake Bay was not considered.

An' annual shellfish harvest of 72 million pounds (33 million kilograms) was assumed. Assuming an edible fraction of 1/2, the total shellfish consumption would be 36 million pounds (16 million kilograms). The shellfish consumption rates for the average individual are listed in Table B.3, but the harvest was more than could be consumed by the B.2

TABLE B.S. Shellfish Consumption Rates {

Target Rate Children 0.73 lb/yr ( 0.33 kg/yr)

Teenager 1.6 lb/yr ( 0.75 kg/yr)

Adult 2.2 lb/yr ( 1.0 kg/yr)

Maximum Adult 97 lb/yr (44 kg/lb)g,)

(a) Rupp, Miller and Bates (1980).

population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the power plant. Therefore, the population dose from shellfish consumption is applied to the entire population consuming Chesapeake Bay shellfish.

B.2 AIRBORNE PATHWAYS AT THREE MILE ISLAND The public radiation doses resulting from atmospheric releases from the TMI site due to treatment and disposal of accident-generated water have been calculated using the GASPAR II computer code (Strenge, Bander and-Soldat 1986). The GASPAR code generated 50-year dose commitments based on one year of inhalation or ingestion.

Doses were determined for the maximally exposed individual and for the 2.2 million people (age group distribution: 71% adults, 11% teenagers, and 18% children) living within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the power plant. The pathways considered for both the maximally exposed individual and the population doses were inhalation, consumption of agricultural products, and external exposure.

The following input parameters were incorporated into the computer runs.

' Consumption rates for individual members of the population are 434 lb/yr

. (197 kg/yr), 35 gal /yr (131 L/yr), and 179 lb/yr (81 kg/yr) for vegetables, milk, and meat, respectively. Total annual agricultural production 8 for the 50-mile (80-kilometer) area surrounding the site is 1.2 x 10 lbs (5.32 7

x 8

107 kg), 1.4 x 108 gal (5.27 x 108L) , and 1. 2 x 10 lbs (5.44 x 10 kg) for vegetables, milk, and beef, respectively.

Specific exposure pathways factions used are:

e leafy vegetables from garden 0.5 e other edibles from garden 1.0 e fraction of time milk cows are on pasture 0.6 e fraction of time beef are on pasture 1.0 e fraction of time milk goats are on pasture 1.0 o milk cow intake from pasture 1.0 o beef intake from pasture 0.8 e milk goat intake from pasture 1.0 B.3

The population distributions were obtained from an internal NRC document by A. Sinisgallf, "1981 Residential Population Estimates 0-80 Kilometers For Nuclear Power Plants." The5/Q'valueswereobtainedfromAppendixWofthe PEIS (NRC 1981). The5/Q'valuesforthemaximallyexposedindividual (located at the site boundary. 0.34 miles (0.55 km) west of the site) was 3.61 x 10 6 ,,cf,3 In addition, the absolute humidity for the site is 8.0 g/m .

3 Exposure parameters for the calculations that are not specified above are contained in tne GASPAR code.

1 B.3 AIRBORNE PATHWAYS AT THE NEVADA TESTING SITE The tritium dose to persons living within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the site tion of andevaporation on the NTS generic parameter was estimated ugggg both site-specific informa-values. Site data, including the number of persons and locations, average wind speeds and their frequencies of occurrence in direction, were used in estimating atmospheric dilution factors at each population location following a method from the NCRP (1986). The inhalation dose from tho3 tritium was then determined using an average inhalation rate of 2.81 x 105 ft /yr (8000 m 3/yr) and a total body inhalation dose conversion factor of 90 ren/Ci inhaled (Strenge, Bander and Soldat 1986). The population dose from the tritium inhalation was then doubled to include any contribution from the possible ingestion of contaminated vegetables from gardens in the 50-mile (80-kilometer) region.

i i

I (a) Letter from S. Black (Environmental Monitoring Standard Laboratory, Las Vegas) dated November 5, 1986, to R. Harty, Pacific Northwest Laboratory.

Subject:

" Data for EPA AIRDOSE, NTS Wind Data-Yucca Flats." Available in NRC Public Document Room.

3

B.4 t

m i k I

1 APPENDIX C BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT AND TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES n, , , ,

APPENDIX C BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT AND TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES Several of the alternatives for disposal of the accident-generated water involve offsite shipment of the product waste forma. Because of the extremely low radionuclide content of these wastes, no radiological consequences are expected to result from these shipments, including consequences from normal (or incident-free) transport as well as accidents. However, accidents could occur and.therefore, nonradiological fatalities and injuries could also occur.

The approach, bases, and results of estimating the number of fatalities and injuries for each of the alternatives that involves offsite truck shipments are described in this appendix. The bases and approach to estimating trans-portation costs are also described.

C.1 TRUCK ACCIDENT FATALITY AND INJURY ESTIMATES The general approach to estimating the nonradiological impacts of acci-

. dents during offsite shipments is to multiply the number of vehicle-kilometers by a fatality (or injury) rate given in units of fatalities (or injuries) per kilometer. The number of vehicle kilometers-for each alternative is the pro-duct of the number of shipments times the round-trip shipping distance. Acci-dent fatality and injury data, as well as shipping distances, are available for travel in three population zones: rural, suburban, and urban (Cashwell et al. 1986). Therefore, the total fatalities (or injuries) over an entire ship-ping campaign is the sum of the products of the vehicle kilometers and fatal-ity (or injury) rates in each zone. The basic accident fatality rates, injury rates, and shipping distances used in this study are presented in Table C.I.

Only truck transportation is considered. The accident data in Cashwell et al.

(1986) were taken from statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation (DOT 1985).

A final calculation was performed to estimate the number of accidents expected for each alternative. This estimate is based on the ratio of the total number of truck accidents in 1983 to the total number of injuries pro-duced by these accidents (DOT 1985). This ratio is 1.18 accidents per injury.

To estimate the total number of accidents for each alternative, this ratio is multiplied by the number of injuries that was estimated using the injury rates shown previously.

C.1

TABLE C.I. Basic Truck Transportation, Accident, and Mileage Data (Cashwell et al. 1986)

Shipment Destination Hanford NTS One-Way Shipping Distance (km)

Rural 3,370 3,330 Suburban 890 820 Urban 29 27 1

Fatalities /km Rural 6.8 x 10 -8

-8 Suburban 1.7 x 10 -8

. Urban 1.0 x 10 Injuries /km Rural -7 Suburban 8.3 x 10-3.9 x 10 l

Urban 3.8 x 10-C.2 TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES Because of the low radionuclide concentrations in the accident-generated water, it is assumed that all wastes would be classified as LLW and could be shipped as a "non-highway-route-controlled" quantity. Special provisions are required for the higher-activity " highway-route-controlled" quantity shipments that are not needed for the waste products considered in this study. This section describes the approach and bases used to estimate transportation costs and presents the results for each alternative that involves offsite shipments.

A relatively straightforward approach was used to estimate offsite trans-portation costs. Unit costs for non-highway-route-controlled LLW shipments by truck were taken from McNair et al. (1986). The unit costs for these ship- ,

, ments were given at $1.90 per mile ($1.18 per kilometer). This unit cost was multiplied by the total one-way vehicle-miles to estimate the transportation costs for each alternative. McNair et al. (1986) indicated that this -rate should be multiplied by only the number of loaded vehicle-miles. The number

' of one-way vehicle-miles was calculated by multiplying the number of ship-ments by the one-way shipping distances from TMI to Hanford (2680 miles or 4313 kilometers) and from TMI to NTS (2612 miles or 4203 kilometers) given by Cashwell et al. (1986). The results of the transportation cost calcula-tions for each alternative that involves offsite shipments are presented in Table C.2.

i C.2

TABLE C.2. Summary of Transportation Cost Estimates for Alternatives Involving Offsite Shipments Transportation Number Shipments of(a) Cost, $ Millions Alternative Forced Evaporation, 80 (low) 0.41 Solidification with Offsite Burial 135 (high) 0.69 Bulk Liquid Shipment 420 2.1 Onsite Solidification, 1300 (low) 6.6 Burial at Hanford 1600 (high) 8.1 Shipment of Resin Liners After Retreat-ment of Accident-Generated Water 61 0.31 l (a) In some cases, a range was given for the number of truck shipments.

1 4

4 J

+0.3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1986-161 683 40035 C.3

'0" '

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (7 77) NUREG-0683, Suno. 2 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Draft Report ,

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Vo/ume No.,if appropnarel Programmatic Environ-mental f Radioactive Wastes Resulting from March 28, 1979,

2. (te=, aim */

/

/

Acciden Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 3. RECIPIENT [ ACCESSION NO.

Docket N . 50-320 /

7. AUTHOR (S) 5. DATE [ PORT COMPLETED

" " l ^"

Till Cleanu Project Directorate De er 1 86

9. PERFORMING ORG JIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (/nclucie Zip Codel D[E REPORT ISSUED TMI Cleanup Pro ct Directorate f0 NTH l YEAR Division of PUR ' censing-B / December 1986 Office of Nuclear actor Regulation [. Itene wen *>

U.S. Nuclear Regula ry Commission Washington, D.C. 205 8. (teeve u=*>

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION ME AND MAILING ADDRESS (/nclude Zip Codel .

11. CONTRACT NO.

13. TYPE OF REPORT P IOD COVE RED (/nclusive dates)

Draft Supplement to EIS g

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. (teeve Nm*/

16. ABSTRACT Q00 words or less)

In accordance with the National Environmen FPolicy Act, the Programratic Environmental l

Impact Statement Related to Decontamination d Disposal of Radioactive Waste for the 1979 Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear t ion, Unit 2 (PEIS) has been supplemented.

This draft supplement updates the environ nta valuation of accident-generated water disposal alternatives published in the P S, uti ' zing more complete and current infor-mation.

The staff concludes that this water ca. be disposed f without incurring significant envvironmental impact. The staff's e luation of a n ber of disposal alternatives indicates that no alternative is cle 'ly preferable. e risks to the general public from exposure to radioactive efflue s from any alternative have been quantitatively estimated and are very small fracti ns of the estimated n al incidence of cancer fatalities and genetic disorders. . he most significant po ntial impact associated with any disposal alternative is he risk of physical injur associated with trans-portation accidents. Additional' , no significant impacts t aquatic or terrestrial biotic from any disposal altern ive is expected.

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS / 17a. DESCRIPTORS

?

E I

17b. IDENTIFIERS /OPEN-ENDED TERMS {

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SE CURITY CLASS (This report / 21. NO. OF PAGES Unclassified Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. P RICE s

NRC FORM 335 (7-77)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION poetaes e m e m o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 wfEYe.

renastr me. em OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 4300 120555078877 1 1AN19A19819C1 US NRC ADM-DIV 0F PUB SVCS POLICY & PUB MGT BR-PDR NUREG W-501 WASHINGTON DC 20555 V

i

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _