ML19350B737
| ML19350B737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1981 |
| From: | Massicot P MARYLAND, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0683, RTR-NUREG-683 NUDOCS 8103230554 | |
| Download: ML19350B737 (2) | |
Text
.
t r
[
Pg@*[$
Eh D. '
suREAU oF MINES JnMES s. COULTER ENERGY OFFICE powgR PLANT SITING PROGR AM sacetf***
STATE OF MARYLANO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENERGY ADMIN 1S'.7ATION TAWES STATE OFFICE SUILDING r-fD
/
ANNAPOUS 21401
/D O
f "Q
1301) 269-2261 6
. g.
g + %' O
-p March 13, 1981
%g%,%
2')
q
't 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 41 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sirs:
Two statements in the March 1981 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (TMI Accident), published by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC), require our immediate response. These statementa refer to an investigation of the socioeconomic impacts of the release of processed accident water to the Susquehanna River. The intent of this letter is to clarify the record with respect to this issue.
The first item, appearing on pa;e 7-81, states that:
".The State of Maryland has inforrad the NRC that it will be under-taking a comprehensive study of the potential economic losses to Chesapeake Bay activities which would result from the alternative of disposing of TMI-2 processed water by dilution and controlled release to tne Susquehanna River which is expected to be completed in one year."
Although the State of Maryland, through my office, has indicated its intention to investigate various aspects of possible consumer avoidance reaction associated with the above-mentioned discharge option, such a study is not intended to be a " comprehensive study of the potential eco-nomic 1?sses to Chesapeake Bay activities.". It is expected that the FRC l
would conduct such a study and we do not intend to duplicate it.
s intentions in perf orming such a study would be to develop Maryland's independently information to supplement and complement informaton devel-oped by the NRC as background to the formulation of the State',s participa-tion in any NRC decision making process.
The above comments should not be interpreted as a lack of concern on our part relative to the impact of the discharge option.
On the con Coo g trary, our desire to initiate a study independent of the NRC is clearly indicative of our concern.
r I O 8108236 % %
D
l March 13,1981 Page two 1
l The second item, following on the same page and also expressed in the l
Summary, page xiii, indicates that:
"The NRC staff is of the opinion that at least until such a study is completed and the State of Maryland provides the results to the pub-lic and the NRC staf f, no decision should be made regarding dispo-sition of the TMI-2 processed accident water...
The NRC staff be-lieven that any such disposal actions taken in advance of completing this study would be premature and without the benefit of inf ormation l
}
on societal and socioeconomic factors important to the decision-l making process."
l The State agrees that a decision regarding alternative disposition of the accident water should be deferred until an adequate analysis has been made of the impacts upon not only Maryland, but also other affected regions. It would be inappropriate to b2se any such decision upon the results of a limited study performed solely by the State of Maryland on only one of the several disposal alternatives. We believe that it is the NRC',s responsibility to evaluate the socioeconomic reprecussions of al-ternatives in each of' the potentially affected regions prior to selecting the option to be utilized. To that end we are quite willing to share our data and findings with the NRC and other interested persons.
The NRC staff was informed of the positions taken in thi, letter by the Director of the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program (MPPSP) in January of this year.
At that time, the NRC provided the MPPSP with a draf t portion of the Impact Statement for comment.
A telephone response was given directly to the TMI Program Director elaborating the positions described above. Our response was apparently ignored.
The State may have additional commenta pending a thorough examin-l ation of the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
l Very truly yours, 0
W j
Paul Massicot l
Administrator Energy Administration l
ec: Bernard Snyder, TMI Program Director I