ML19338F941
| ML19338F941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Brink T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338F942 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010280073 | |
| Download: ML19338F941 (4) | |
Text
T 5 2 A-(
)
s.
00T10 080 Mrs. Toni Brink PO Box 94 Coburn, Pennsylvania 16932 Dear firs. Brink.
Your letter to Commissioner llendrie about the effects of the accident at the Three flile Island nuclear station was referred to me for response.
Except for releases to the Susquehanna River of liquids containing only low or nondetectable levels of radioactivity, the release of contaminated water is not currently permitted. The Commission authorized use of the EPICOR-II water treat-ment system for processing the waste water stored in tanks in the auxiliary building. He do not currently permit the discharge of water processed by the EPICOR-II system. The disposal of the water processed by EPICOR-II is addressed in the Programmatic Enviromental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the decontamination anj disposal of radioactive waste at Three itile Island. Enclosed for your in-formation is a copy of the PEIS.
As a result of releases containing only low or nondetectable levels of radio-activity, the levels of radioactivity in the Susquehanna are indistinguishable from existing background levels at public water supply intakes from the river.
These levels have been confimed by independent measurments made by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
With regard to your concern about the purging of the radioactive krypton gas from the reactor building of T!1I Unit 2, !!etropolitan Edison Company sutaitted to NP,C a " Safety Analysis and Environmental Report" (November 13,1979) in which it evaluated alternative methods for the disposal of the krypton gases, such as purging and cryogenic processing, and selective absorption. i;RC also evaluated alternative methods for disposal of the krypton gas to detemine what effect de-contamination would have on workers, on the public health and safety, and on the enviroment. Based on its evaluation, IRC issued an enviromental assessment (IIUREG-0662 and two addenda) for public comment on 11 arch 26,1980, and received approximately COO comments. These comments were considered in the staff's preparation of the " Final Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three flile Island Unit 2 Reacter Building Atmosphere" (ItuREG-0662), vols. I and 2, copics of which are enclosed for your infomation.
From this process have emerged the following flRC staff conclusions:
- he potential physical health impact on the public of using _an2 of the proposed strategies for reroving the krypton-SS is negligible.
l
' rrece >
o su = = n es s >
o g.g DATE W Foran AEC-)t3 (Rev. M)) AECM O240 W u. s. novs areassgr Pamtime ornco s.n.sa is.
,,,n
_,~
[,.
4 f/ 4
[
.s
[4e 4 'D =A e he
- A A eri.
u
s.
!!rs. Toni Brink OCT16 bau
- The potential psychological impact is likely to grow the longer it takes to reach a decision, get started, and complete the process.
- The purging method is the quickest and the safest for the workers l
on Three !!ile Island to accomplish.
- Overall, no significant environmental impact would result from use of any of the alternatives discussed in the assessment.
On June 12, 1980, the Commission issued an Order for Temporary fiodification l
of License, authorizing controlled purging of the krypton-35 from the reactor building atmosphere. In a separate flemorandum and Order, also issued on June 12, 1930, the Commission discussed rationale for its decision. Actual purging operations began on June 28, 1980, and were completed on July 11, 1980. The doses resulting from the purge were well within those predicted in section 7.1 of volume 1 of tiRC's final environmental assessment. Copies of both Commission issuances are also enclosed.
You said that " strontium-90 poisons our soils." Enclosed is a copy of the summary of flVREG-0668 entitled " Staff Review of 'Radioecological Assessment of the Uyh1 ?!uclear Power Plant.'"
It includes a discussion of the release of strontium-90 from nuclear power plants and its transfer from soil to plants.
With regard to your concern about the management of nuclear waste, the goal of the U.S. fluclear Waste fianagement Program is to provide assurance that existing and future nuclear waste from military and civilian activities, including spent fuel from the once-through nuclear power cycle, can be isolated from the bio-sphere so as to pose no significant threat to public health and safety and to the environment. The NRC is responsible for providing the framework of criteria and regulations that will ensure that the disposal methods developed.for all types of radioactive waste are consistent with the achievement of this goal of safe, long-term waste disposal.
l The NRC's authority to license and regulate the storage and disposal of radio-active wastes is derived from three statutes: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the flational Environmental Policy Act of 1969. To implement this authority and to provide guidance to the U.S. De-l partment of Energy (00E), the industry, and the public, the flRC is developing j-new or revised regulations for such storage and disposal. These regulations will require conformance with a fixed set of minimally acceptable performance standards for waste management activities while providing for flexibility in the technological' approach.
The DOE's responsibilities concerning radioactive waste disposal are limited to high-level wastes and only those low-level mstes produced as_ part of DOE's pro-grams. Their responsibility does not incluos commercially generated low-level i
wastes.
i
+
or*ess >
su= = a = e >
ons*
p Form AEC.)ls (Rev. 9 53) AZCM ONO W u. s. oova===iar ramme o.r.cs: i.n.sae.ise j
n y..
-s u,
+j g f e'.- M eff;; g 4rcy,j e.p g e ;
e
,m ygegp*,** *"~ '
] +
c _a M v']f
.__ g g _ ~
s
s.
itrs. Toni Brink 3-OCT 101950 With regard to monitoring the long-term health effects of the accident, it is generally agreed that epidemiologic studies of the resident population of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, could not detect any excess morbidity or mortality due to radiation exposure from the accident at Three fille Island.
Even so, the Center for Disease Control and the Pennsylvania Department of Health (with l
assistance from the NRC) have conducted a census of the population residing within 5 miles of Three lille Island for the purpose of providing an adequate registry for potential future studies of health effects. The Department of I
Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also is planning to update the popu-lation registry every 5 years over the next 3 decades.
In addition, the Health 58 2
Department and several Pennsylvania universities are planning or already are conducting studies of health effects, including pregnancy outcome, congenital and postnatal thyroid diseases, mental health, and cytogenetic abnormalities.
Although it is unlikely that these studies will be able to unravel the complex etiology of these health effects, the NRC is monitoring the studies and assisting where possible through its Radiological Health Standards Branch.
A team of investigators from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environ-mental Protection Agency, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare calculated the doses to the people living witM, 50 miles of the Three Mile Island site and estimated the number of new cancers that would result from the exposure to the radioactivity that leaked out of the plant.
The team reported their work in a report entitled, " Population Dose and Health Impact of the Ac-cident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station" (NUREG-0558).
They concluded that the offsite collective dose associated with radioactive material released from ilarch 23, 1979, to April 7,1979, represents minimal risks (that is, a very small number of additional health effects to the offsite population). Also en-closed for your infonnation is the summary of HUREG-0558.
You may also be interested in the enclosed press release from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, according to which the fetal death rate actually dropped after the ac-cident at lHI.
Regarding the costs of the accident, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), in a decision and order of June 15, 1979, ruled that costs of damages caused by the accident at Three Mile Island would not be included in the present rate base for customers of Metropolitan Edison and the Pennsylvania Electric Company. These customers will, however, be responsible for costs associated with purchasing power to replace power that the TitI facility would have pro-vided.
The Pennsylvania PUC reaffirmed this decision in an order of May 23, 1980.
In the same order, it also ruled that Three illie Island Unit 1 be removed from the Metropolitan Edison and Pennsylvania Electric Company rate bases.
As a re-sult, their customers will be free of all maintenance, interest, and capital cost expenses associated with Unit 1.
Should Unit 1 be returned to service, costs associated with its operation would, of course, become part of the rate structure.
or.eC s >
e o m r..
-s.--%
=m oars
- Forms AECd ts (Rev. 9 SD AECM 02 40 W u.,. *sov s== =e sat P e=tema or r ec s: s.74.saa.e..
1 9
' y l
. e.. n -,v~ n u m m n.= mm -
e-
~~~
e 4
Ilrs. Toni Crink '
4 e mr 97 While we are, of course, concerned about financial impacts on consumers, the
!!RC's primary responsibility is the assurance of public health and safety.
i State public utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have primary responsibility regarding the rates that consumers pay for elec-tricity. They should be able to provide information for your use.
i With respect to alternative methods of energy production, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, the Department of Energy is the federal agency responsible for their research and development. flRC considers these alternative methods of energy production in its assessment of the environmental impact of each nuclear power plant as part of the agency's overall review of each utility's application for a construction pemit or an operating license. To date, we have detemined that alternative methods of energy production are neither technically nor eco-nomically feasible to provide the required amount of power at the time it is needed.
I appreciate your concerns and assure you that every effort is being made to ensure the continued protection of the health and safety of the public, not j
only at Three Mile Island, but also at all nuclear power plants.
i Sincerely, 4
De lard J. Snyder, Program Director Three Mile Island Program Office 4
Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation 1
Enclosures:
1.
PEIS i
2.
NUREG-0662, vols.1 & 2 3.
Order for Temporary !!odifi;ation of License of June 12, 1930 l
4 Memorandum and Order of June 12, 1980 5.
Summary of ?!UREG-0663 G.
Summary of fl0 REG-0553 7.
Press release DISTRIBUTION Docket 50-289 NRR r/f BSnyder PDR TMI P0 r/f JCollins LPDR TMI Site r/f DBrinkman TERA W0liu (r
3 i,mI g(L TMI/TFM TMI[y0f j
o,,,,,,
W0liu:taf DBrinkman BSnyd e,r o47E *
.?
~ - -.
Ferns AT.C.)l3 (Rev. 9 5)) AECM 0240 W u. s. ooven=aient poi =Te=s orricas se,4.sae s ee
-yw_w+
,4 L. YdkM*2* Mdh ih OYf.MI*A*Tg.Ed J."N* ' 7 ~ 22N '
" ' '# 9 "
O
[' U E - EN -
A
'* #w I * ' *