ML20245D150

Advises of Decision Re Approval of Method of Disposal of Contaminated Water Other than Discharging Water in River

ML20245D150
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/20/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T, Jeanne Johnston HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS
References
NUDOCS 8904280132
Download: ML20245D150 (7)

Text

4' 3

g% g(2 8 UNITED STATES

- { % 5g ' -i$ ~ -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o #

. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556

\ ***** g April 20, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In House Conference Report 100-498, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was directed to evaluate alternatives for the disposal of contaminated water from the Three Mile Island huclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2). Upon completion of the evaluation, the NRC was to advise both Committees on Appropriations of its de-cision on whether to approve another method of disposal of contaminated water other than discharging the water inte the Susquehanna River.

In July 1986, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, the licensee for the TMI-2 facility, submitted a proposal for the disposal of the approximately 2.3 million gallons of contaminated water arising from the March 28, 1979 accident at TMI-2. This water is referred to as the accident-generated water ( AGW). The licensee's proposal evaluated in detail three alternatives for disposing of the water: on-site solidification and burial, on-site forced evaporation to the atmosphere with off-site disposal of the evaporator bottoms, and discharge into the Susquehanna River. After evaluating each of these alternatives, the licensee concluded that the preferable alternative was on-site forced evaporation to the atmosphere with off-site disposal of the evaporator bottoms. Early in 1987, the licensee applied for an amendment of its operating license for THI-2 to delete certain  ;

prohibitions on disposal of the AGW. The amendment will permit the licensee to use the forced evaporation alternative.

In June 1987, the NRC published a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the disposal of the AGW. A copy of this PEIS is enclosed. The NRC staff considered a total of 23 alternatives. Nine were quantitatively evaluated, including the three proposed by +.he licensee. (The other alternatives did not receive such evaluation because they were clearly less desirable.)

The NRC staff concluded that any of the nine alternatives, in- 1 cluding discharging the water into the Susquehanna River, could be implemented without a significant environmental impact. No one of the nine alternatives was found to be clearly preferable to any of l the others. l

_o yk

~

pSn ot' P"

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

4 s

In' July 1987, the Commission decided to offer an opportunity for an. administrative hearing before any staff action was taken on the licensee's proposal. A hearing was requested, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) conducted _the hearing in November 1988. The primary issue heard at the hearing was whether a no-action alternative (proposed by interveners in the proceeding) is obviously superior to the licensee's proposal to evaporate the AGW.

On February 2, 1989, the ASLB issued a final initial decision resolving all the issues heard at the hearing in favor of the licensee and granting the requested license amendment authorizing disposal of the AGW by forced evaporation. Subsequently, interveners filed an appeal from this initial decision and an application for a stay of the effectiveness of the decision. On April 4, 1989, the Atomic Safety anc Licensing Appeal Board issued a memorandum and order denying the interveners' application for a stay. The appeal is currently pending before the Appeal Board.

The Commission has also reviewed the ASLB final initial deci-sion as well as comments of the parties on whether the decision should be made immediately effective. On April 13, 1989, we issued the enclosed Order making the ASLB decision immediately effective. This is, of course, without prejudice to the appeal now pending before the Appeal Board.

l The final design of the evaporator system is still under review by the NRC staff. If approved, the expectation is that startup

• of the evaporator system could occur in early summer 1989.

I believe this information fulfills the requirements of House Conference Report 100-498. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. ]

Sincerely,

-d4744 b- M .

Lando W. Zech Jr.

Enclosures:

As Stated ,

i cc: Senator Mark 0. Hatfield i

e

q

,~

h6 0,7

~ f. n. UNITED STATES

t- {, , i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% y j[-

o, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 CHA R N~ '

The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on-Energy and Water Development f 4

Committee on Appropriations {

United States House of Representatives j Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In House Conference Report 100-498, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was directed to evaluate alternatives for the disposal of contaminated water from the Three Mile Island Nuclear '

Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2). Upon completion of the evaluation, the NRC was to advise.both Committees on Appropriations of its de-cision on whether to approve another method of disposal of '

contaminated water other than discharging the water into the Susquehanna River.

In July 1986, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, the 2 licensee for the TMI-2 facility, submitted a proposal for the disposal of the approximately 2.3 million gallons of contaminated water arising from the March 28, 1979 accident at THI-2. This water is referred to as the accident-generated water (AGW). The licensee's proposal evaluated in detail three alternatives for disposing of the water: on-site solidification and burial, on-site. forced evaporation to the atmosphere with off-site disposal of the evaporator bottoms, and discharge into the Susquehanna River. After evaluating each of these alternatives, the licensee concluded that the preferable alternative was on-site forced. evaporation to the atmosphere with off-site disposal of the evaporator bottoms. Early in 1987, the licensee applied for an amendment of its operating license. for TMI-2 to delete certain prohibitions on disposal of the AGW. The amendment will permit the licensee to use the forced evaporation alternative.

In June 1987, the NRC published a final Programmatic Environmental i Impact Statement (PEIS) on the disposal of the AGW. A copy of 1 this PEIS is enclosed. The NRC staff considered a total of 23 alternatives. Nine were quantitatively evaluated, including the three proposed by the licensee. (The other alternatives did not receive such evaluation because they were cleerly less desirable.)

The NRC staff concluded that any of the nine alternatives, in-cluding discharging the water into the Susquehanna River, could be implemented without a significant environmental impact. No.one of the nine alternatives was found to be clearly preferable to any of the others.

l l

In July 1987, the Commission decided to offer an opportunity for an administrative hearing before any staff action was taken on the licensee's. proposal. A hearing was requested, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) conducted the hearing in November 1988. The primary issue heard at the hearing was whether a no-action alternative (proposed by interveners in the proceeding) is obviously superior to the licensee's proposal to evaporate the AGW.

On February 2, 1989, the ASLB issued a final initial decision resolving all the issues heard at the hearing in favor of the licensee and granting the requested license amendment authorizing disposal of the AGW by forced evaporation. Subsequently, interveners filed an appeal from this initial decision and an application for a stay of the effectiveness of the decision. On April 4, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a memorandum and order denying the interveners' application for a stay. The appeal is currently pending before the Appeal Board.

The Commission has also reviewed the ASLB final initial deci-sion as well as comments of the parties on whether the decision should be made immediately effective. On April 13, 1989, we issued the enclosed Order making the ASLB decision immediately effective. This is, of course, without prejudice to the appeal now pending before the Appeal Board.

The final design of the evaporator system is still under review by the NRC staff. If approved, the expectation is that startup i of the evaporator system could occur in early summer 1989. '

I believe this information fulfills the requirements of House Conference Report 100-498. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Sincerely, 441(4 kl. l Lando W. Z h, .

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Rep. John T. Myers j I

l 1

I

- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - . _ _ . . - _ _ . _-- _ _ -_b

NUREG-0683 Supplement No. 2 Final Report Programmatic Envimnmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28,1979 accident at l Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 {

Docket No. 50-320

)

Final Supplement Dealing with Disposal of Accident-Generated Water GPU Nuclear, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TMI Cleanup Project Directorate June 1987 v

ga a'a <,,

~

I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'89 rn 13 P3 :56 COMMISSIONERS: v" Lando k'. Zech, Jr. , Chairman -.

Thomas M. Robert Kenneth !!. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss SEFNED APR 131%9 In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, E_T _

A_L_. ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit 2)

)

ORDER CLI-89 ,05 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard has issued an initial decision M relating to the disposci of accident-generated water at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. The decision resolved all relevant matters in favor of the applicant-licensee, General Public Uttiities Nuclear Corporation (GPUN), and granted the licensee's application for an operatino license amendment that would delete prohibitions on disposal of the accioent-generated water. This I LPB No. 89-07, 29 NRC

, February 2, 1987.

Op* '% ,

l

and that the no-action alternative would cost $800,000 more to implement than the evaporation proposal. Baseo on these findings, the Board determined that the interveners' no-action alternative is not obviom ly superior to the evaporation proposal, and granted the licensee's request for an amendment to its license.

Subsequently, the interveners filed an application for a stay of the license amendment authorization with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. On April 4, 1989, the Appeal Board issued a memorandum and crder denying the interveners' application for a. stay.

As a result of our review of the final initial decision and the comments submitted by the parties regarding whether the decision should be mace effective immediately, we also find no reason to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision penoing completion of the appellate process.

Accordingly, the Comission finds that the Licensing Beard's oecision resolvir.g all relevant matters in favor of the licensee, and grantino the licensee's application for an operating license amendment, should become effective immediately. This is, of course, without prejudice to the appeal now pending before the Appeal Board.

It is so ORDERED.

Atg F r the Conrniss ,on *

[34

• k .

('

E E l e A e '

o" gi * ( -

(

,~ . _ _ _

i,- SAMUEL J.'1 K Secretary of the ommission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of .E \ ,1989.

• 1 Com=issioner Carr was not present for the Affirmation of this Order, if he had been present he would have approved it.

, g"'" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1 98 MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPRO-PRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1988

~

CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACXX)MPANY H.J. Res. 5 15

.t W

l Dscussa 22 legislative day, Dscusta 21),1987.--Ordered to be printed UJ. covranusxt rarnttwo orr ct 84-400 WASM!NOTON : 1987 l -

4 802 808

. TITLC IV-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COwimarON I

i d I.I. I I. I. I. rees agree to appropriate $107,000,000 to the Appalach-i II l l:l 2 Comminaion.

is g i rees, agree to insert bill e providing that appro-T " a for regional programs may be for $.he p of the Regional Development Act, without to Section i: -  :' (3), and (4) of that Act and funds in energy enterprise ij may be reapproved by the Commiazion for similar use.

i  ! .$ j! INrEarrATE COBOmeION ON THE POMMAC RIvra BASIN j! ! 'i jl ' urION TO INTEmFrATE COwraarON ON THE POTOMAC mIVER ii ; .i .

munN

, lj [ ^

.: $*-l riates $379,000 for the contribution to the Interstate Com-on the Potomac River Basin as proposed by the Senate in-Il r'E" '

$79,000 as proposed by the House.

lIj,$}!kl$jj R$5 i c: 3 v. - -

s g

i NucLxAn RaouLAmar ConimaioN

! *, :o ie priates $392,800,000 for Commiazion activities instead of ptf ril s . :I I WG" :;

,000 as proposed by the House and Senate, in light of budg-Iar t [ ! ! ! I RI, a

ta and deficit reduction allocations. This appropria-y:li kg by the apphcation of revenues from fees and other col-

.i!g4e; 3'j j j I gg i equal to 50% of the C-mi= ion's bu a

conferees have expressed their concern "s, ,, l , several reports se.

• .s s

~

recent appropriation Acts over the existence of du 11-

2 I 8 8 2 and redundant staffs within the Commiasion. SWhdly, rees have urged that the Offlee of Investigations be

[*: : 8e  :: with other inspection and examination organizations under di *i *--

• • • ! I""-! hh! tive Director. Yet, the Commismian's recent reorganiza-tinues the sepsration of these offices. The conferees there-the Comminaion to consolidate its inspection and exami-organizations under the Executive Director in order to more ef5cient and costeffective utilization of staff re-conf-raes direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commiazion to te other alternatives to releasing contaminated water from Mile Island Nuclear Plant into the Susquehanna River.

pompletion of this evaluation, the Comminaion should advise ttees on Appropriations _ofits decision on whether to ap-ine of the other metacas of disposal of the contaminated TENNE 5sEE VALLEY Attraomrrr conferees agree to anoropriate $103,000 000 for the Tennes-alley Authority. The conferees agree with the general distri-l of funds contained in the Senate report; however, an overall I reduction of $2,000,000 should be applied against all of the i

ties on a pro rata basis.

l the funds appropriated to'the Tennessee Valley Author-conferees direct TVA to prepare a plan for the water

.