ML19350A869
| ML19350A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103170272 | |
| Download: ML19350A869 (2) | |
Text
,
/
t T
7 i
i
)
}
l e
/
FEB 2 71981 l[ D.h *. 84/ -
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dixks g
l Executive Director for Operations 4
FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director l;;;p Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
C0fcISSION PAEER ON PROGRAlHATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF RACIO-ACTIVE WASTES RESULTING FROM THE MARCH 28, 1979 ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 Forwarded, herewith, for your signature, is tb subject Comission Paper, j
with enclosures, transmitting the Programatic Environmental Statement on the Cleanup of TMI-2 (PEIS) and a proposed Statement of Policy relative to the PEIS. The PEIS is being transmitted in accordance with the schedule comitted to by the staff.
In the PEIS the staff has concluded that cleanup of the plant is necessary to eliminate a continuing risk of potential uncontrolled releases of radio-activity to the environment from damaged fuel or from the radioactive materials which are distributed throughout the primary system, the reactor containment building, and the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings. The staff finds that the technology exists to conduct the cleanup in a safe manner and that anticipated releases of radioactive materials to the environ-ment can be controlled by the licensee in accordance with the staff's proposed effluent criteria to conforu to the individual dose design objective listed in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as mandatory limits. The staff also has found l
that the differential monetary costs among suitable cleanup methods are small compared to the expected total costs of the entire cleanup and therefore do not constitute sufficient concern to affect a decision as to which alternative l
should be chosen to accomplish the cleanup activities. The ovcPnding con-l siderations should be ensuring the public's health and safety and protection l
of the environment, not the cost differential among alternatives.
The environmental impacts resulting from the cleanup should be minimal, with the most significant radiological impact expected to be to the work force.
The cumulative radiation dose received by the entire work force rild be in the range of 2000 to 8000 person-rem for the whole cleanup progt It is predicded that lest than one additional cancer death attributable 'o expos #pe to radiation will occur among the work force (the death rate from cancer due to other causes among the U. S. population averages approximately 200 deaths per 1000 people). Not more than two additional genetic effects in decendents of the workers are expected to occur (among the U. S. population, approximately 60 genetic defects can be expected per 1000 people).
If the cleanup is con-ducted in cecordance with the staff's proposed effluent criteria, the total
...t.
....g.
l sac rcau mo eomacu m:
OFFICIAL RECORD CCPY m e--e
a
\\
S s cumulative dose received by the entire population within a 50-mile radius of THI-2 due to both gaseous and liquid releases would range from 10 to 30 person-rem for the entire cleanup. This is a small fraction (about 0.01%) of the annual background radiation dose received by the population dose: = 116 mrem /yr x 2.2 x l'gs from TMI (population background radiation from causes other than releas people = 260,000 person-rems).
The proposed Statement of Policy reiterates the Comission's previous position that it will not excuse the Itcensee from compliance with any order, regulation or other requirement imposed by the Comission for the purpose of protecting public health and safety or the environment.
In addition, the statement calls upon the licensee to expeditiously complete the cleanup, consistent with ensuring pmtection of public health and safety or the environment and in accordance with the staff's proposed criteria as delineated in Appendix R of the PEIS.
The PEIS was developed by the Three Mile Island Program Office, NRR, with the assistance of Waste Management Division, NMSS. ELD has provided legal review. Argonne National Laboratory, under contract to NRC, was a major participant in preparing the PEIS.
[
4 Ha'rold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Rr.gulation nclosure:
OISTRIBUTION:
Commission Paper on PEis MRA and its Enclosures
.nocket No. 50320 TMI HQ R/F l
TMI Site R/F BJSnyder I,Barrett EGCase l
MDuncan (Licensing Asst.)
l DBrinkman 0 Lynch RWeller l
l I TMIgRR l
cercrETMI
- NRR
--'>Labnch[:Aed.
..sstrger.,
.,RR0kkon.,
).
2&e/8.1,,,
.2/jf!81 2/l/81
, l..
l s:c ca ais ec macu e:o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
" ' " :- m -