ML20212D385

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Public Health & Safety Impact Associated W/ Proposed Alternatives for Disposal of Water Contaminated as Result of Facility 790328 Accident,Per Suppl 2 to NUREG-0683
ML20212D385
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/25/1987
From: Villforth J
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, DEPT. OF, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH
To: Masnik M
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0683, RTR-NUREG-683 NUDOCS 8703040106
Download: ML20212D385 (2)


Text

c

< (****%

! T. . DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 8L HUM AN SERVICES Public Health Service

% Food and Drug Administration Flockville MD 20857 FEB 2 51987 Dr. Michael T. Masnik Acting Director

  • 2ree Mile Island-2 Cleanup Project' Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Masnik:

%e Center for Devices and Radiological Health staff has reviewed the Draft Supplement 2 to the Programatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decomtamination and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from the March 28, 1979, accident at the t ree Mile Island nuclear station Unit 2 (NUR E 0683, Supplement No. 2, dated December 1986) . Our efforts were directed to an evaluation of the public health and safety impacts associated with the proposed alternatives for disposal of water which was contaminated as a result of the accident. We have the following coments to offer:

1. % e discussion in Chapter 3 has adequately assessed the alternatives for disposition of the accident-generated water together with the principal environmental impacts for each alternative. It appears that these impacts would involve minimum offsite individual and population dose and occupational dose from releases of tritium, cesium-137 and strontium-90 as a function of the alternative selected.
2. %e environmental pathways identified for each alternative covers the possible emission pathways that could impact on the population in the environs of iMI and at potential waste disposal sites. %e radiation dose calculation methods and assumptions presented in Appendix B have provided reasonable estimates of the doses to the maximally exposed individual and the population within the 50-mile (80 kilometer) radius of the site. %e range of impacts from the alternatives considered are shown in Table 6.1 and indicate that the doses are minimal and well within current radiation protection standards.
3. %e discussion in Section 5.2 has adequately assessd the radiological impacts and health effects to the workforce population, the maximally exposed individual, and the offsite population within 50 miles (80 kilmaters) from exposure to radioactive effluents. We unequivocally concur with the statement in Section 5.2, page 5.5, paragraph 2, that states "% ese risks are very small in comparison to cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the disposal of the accident-generated water."

P g)-

do

Dr. Michael T. Masnik, NRC -.Page 2

4. Some of the alternatives for disposal of accident-generated waste involve offsite truck shipnents. Consequently, 'it:is possible to estimate the number
  • of non-radiological fatalities and injuries that are likely to occur. We-agree absolutely with the conclusion in Chapter 6 that the most significant potential impact associated with any disposal alternative is the risk of-physical injury as a result of a transportation accident.

%ank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely rs, yohn C. Villfor irector nter for Devices and Radiological Health