ML20107A826
Text
..
()
.)
i j
MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDL' CATION, AND WELFARE orricE or Ti!E SECRETARY l
.To
- Daniel R. Mdiar DATL Aggggjg73 j
-Assistant Director for Ihvironmental Projects i
Directorate of Licensing 50-219 l
f U.S. Atanic Energy Q:nmission
}
FROM :. Acting Olief.
Office of Envirmmental Affairs
'{
l susjEcT: Draft Environmental Inpact Statement m the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station A
We have reviewed the draft Environnental Inpact Statsnent on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station with interest. We have several ocarents which should be given consideration in the develop-
- ~
Rent of the final EnvirQtmental Statement:
1 1.
A thorough analysis of the effects of the action cm the local ocmuunity would include the effects of an increase in population upcn the depend for human services. What effect will 100 plant employees and their families have on odtcation, transportation, housing and' health hilities, etc. in the local arca?
i I-2.
'Ihe deterioraticn of the estuarine functicn of Oyster Creek and the South Branch Ebrked River seems to be a major l
environment.al effect for which no safeguani is provided. It would be helpful if the analysis of possible alternatives to the proposed actica specifically addressed this effect.
Comnents cn the radiological effects of station operation 3.
I are attached.
4 t
2 i
Attachment m.
.... u.. Gi..,
, ; f. -],., ' Q'.\\,
(',; \\z. \\ _.E '.$.,
l GQ.I Y
6580
~
9604150144 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
[
y s
DEPAIGN OF HEACMI, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
'" - rMEMORANDUM PUBl.lO fil'.ALTil SLRVICE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DATE: AUC 9 1973 To Mr. Paul Cromwell Acting Director Office of Environmedtal Affairs, DllEW Assistant' Director for Speela1. Projects rROM :
Bureau of Radiological llealth
' susjEcri Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement for'0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey The above documents were transmitted on July 19, 1973, from Dr. K. E.
Taylor,.0ffice of Environrnental Quality, to the Bureau for review.
A member of the Bureau's' technical staff reviewed the AEC's Draft Environmental Statement.
The statements made in these reports were assumed to be correct representations of the matter.-
Based on the statements and representations presented within this document, it appears that operation of the subject facility can continue without undue radiological impact on the environment. The subjcet draft 1 caves something to be desired in that very 11ttic data from tho'3-4_ years operating experience are given in the subject statement.
1.
General Comments 1.
I should think that complete data would have been recorded during plant operation since 1969, i.e. tritium releases as well as the other radionuclides.
As the plant has aircady been operating for 3-4 years, recorded radioactivity data for fluid nuclide releases, new fuel received, spent fuel shipped and other radioactive disposals are needed in order to make comparison with the original estimates for making projections of the proposed power increase.
'2.
The statement below (item 2) indicates that the applicant has not applied available technology in releasing the gaseous radio-cffluent.
Nor does the subject statement indicate to what degree the applicant plans to meet the "as low as practicable" guidance relative to the existing or increased power Icvels.
Efforts toward correcting'this discrepancy should be carefully considered before granting permission for an increase in power icvel.
O 4
e
l e
- s
'Page 2 - }!r.- Paul Cromwell II.
Specific Comments 1.
(Sec. 3.5.1.5) Liquid radwaste evaluation: Enti-'tes of 5 C1/y-less tritium and 20 C1/y fer tritium are given. -Table 3.3 presents recorded values of actual releanco during operation. The 5 C1/y has been exceeded f rom 1970 Lhrough 1972 and _no actual release value
-for tritium is given. The text states that "no tritium release-Ostimate was made." No explanation is given as to the constraints of recording actual release values for tritium or making estimates of these releases.
P 2.
(Sec. 3.5.2.3) Gascous waste evaluation: The last paragraph states: "Since available technology has not been applied to reduce the radioactivity Icyc1 of the~ air ejector, the gaseous radwaste system does not meet our 'as low as practicable' guidelines."
Also the sentence innediately following is not cicar.
3.
(Sec. 3.5.3.1)
Solid radwaste evaluation:
Subject report concludes "that the solid radwaste handling system is adequate and acceptabic."
4.
(Sec. 5.4.3)
Radiological impact on man: The annual doses _
presented in Tables 3.3 and 5.4 were determined from calculated values given in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Since data based on operating experien?c are given in Tabics 3.3 and 3.7, such operational ~ data should'also have becn presented in order to comparc calculated and actual recorded values.
Factors of 2-5 can be noted between calcu-Inted and recorded values for liquid and gaseous releases. The degree to which the man rem doses would be affected by using the actual recorded values is not given.
5.
(Sec. 5.7) TransportJtion of radioactive materials:
Apparently none of the 3-4 years operating experience is reficcted in this section.
Arc fuel assemblics-still being supplied by Exxon Corp. in Richland, Washington?
Are the dose values, numbers and classifications of persons given in Tabic 5.8 still applicabic? The summary and recommendations of the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Bio-logical Effects of lonizing Radiations, November 1972 do not support the recommended limit of 500 mrem /y for members of the general public.
Where is the fuel reprocessli.d plant located? After 3-4 years of operation, some of these items have been determined.
6.
(Sec. 6.2.4)
Environmental radiation: Page 6-6, line 1, the following statement is made:
" Data from this program indicate that no radiological environmental problems have resulted from releases of radionuclides from'the Oyuter Creek plant." What is the definition for a " radiological environnental problem?" llave complete and adequate data been recorded which would Indicate the existence of a " radiological environmental problem"?
e
1 c
t Page 3 - !!r. Paul Cromwell What was Environmental radiation, paragraph 3:
(Sec. 6.3.2) the cause of the 10 mrem dose for the second calendar quarter 7.
c;n.n d b; radioactivity frum Apparently LL was not la P,1ven that "No of 19707 the plant since later in paragraph 8 itradioactivity.ittributab been detected in well water, surface water from Oyster Creek,
- fruita, the bay or Tori;ed Itiver, or in air, soll, vegetation, or vegetables."
llave any events occarred during (Sec. 7.1)
Plant accidents:
bic 7.17 operation since 1969 which can be classifjed per ta 8.
)
(~5 h-.
.-.m
(,
sQs E. C. Anderson ec:
Dr. Taylor (CS-30) o-I l
.