ML20212B854
| ML20212B854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1987 |
| From: | Mclean R MARYLAND, STATE OF |
| To: | Masnik M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0683 NUDOCS 8703030657 | |
| Download: ML20212B854 (2) | |
Text
,
~
1
~ TO RREY C. BROWN.14 O.
JOHN R. GRtFFIN esens"
STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RCSOURCES ENERGY ADMINISTRATION POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 (301)269 2261 t
February 24, 1987 Dr. Michael T. Masnik-TMI Project Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE: Draft Supplement No. 2 to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Related to -Decontamination 'and ~ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Resulting from March 28, 1979 Accident Three Mile Island -Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NUREG - 0683)
Dear Dr. Masnik:
l The above referenced document has been reviewed by various agencies of the State of Maryland.
.This transmittal provides collective comments on the subject document and reflects the State of Maryland's position regarding disposal of the accident-generated water.
Maryland concurs that disposal by any of the nine' evaluated options would result in insignificant environmental or radiological impact given the radionuclide inventcry and. chemical constituency described. We also agree that liquid storage onsite (no-action alternative) provides no reasonable benefit and merely foresta11s the disposal-issue.
It should receive no further consideration.
With regard to t.e licensee's proposal--forced evaporation and offsite dispossi of evaporator bottoms--we have no objection to approval of this alternative by the Commission. It would appear however, that options involving bulk shipment offsite would result in a substantial savings in money and, more importantly, in time.
Adoption of one of these alternatives would seem to a
better serve the cause of expediting the TMI-2 cleanup, a desire expressed by I
consensus. The draf t supplement notes that Department of Energy (DOE) approval i
is necessary for implementation of elements within bulk shipment options or forced evaporation.
However, there is no discussion of DOE's willingness to accomodate the licensee's proposal or their preference among the alternatives.
It would seem that the next logical step would be NRC solicitation of DOE approval for options which require their participation, advisement of which would dictate the range of remaining alternatives. Only after this interaction can the Comunissioners review the licensee proposal and evaluate its merits
' relative to bulk shipment alternatives.
0703030657 070224 gC PDH ADOCK 05000320 jg 1
-S PUN
... fot Deaf. Annapolis 269 2000, Washington Metro 666-0450 lj e
e-r-
,-m--
.e----
--v-
,.w..
-v--
.r%-v4r w- - -r-e--y-w%i..--a men-,.
1----ywy
-,---er,-ww---w-w.y w-- -, -
--,-m-
~.
Although we agree with the Commission that the environmental and radiological consequences associated with disposal of the accident-generated inventory are trivial,- we are opposed to implementation of either of the two options which result in releases to the Susquehanna River.
The degree of perceived risk and public opposition to a river discharge remains high.
This
[
fact was recognized by the licensee in their proposal, and influenced their selection of another alternative.
We acknowledge the Commission's awareness of this sustained sensitivity and encourage consideration of this fact 'in the evaluation and approval of a disposal alternative.
t The State of Maryland offers no substantive comments on form or content other than those indicated above.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the document and provide these comments.
Sincerely, 1
l Richard I. McLean 1
Administrator, Radioecology
}
Power Plant Research Program Departrent of Natural Resources RIM /rva cc: David Carroll, Assistant to the Governor j'
2