ML20215M422

Comments on Draft Suppl 2 to Programmatic EIS Re Decontamination & Disposal of Radwastes Resulting from 790328 Accident at TMI-2.Suggests That Analysis Should Also Discuss Plans for Mitigation Measures to Be Undertaken

ML20215M422
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/03/1987
From:	Blanchard B INTERIOR, DEPT. OF
To:	Travers W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20215L984	List: ML20215M111 ML20215M129 ML20215M161 ML20215M188 ML20215M210 ML20215M227 ML20215M236 ML20215M264 ML20215M273 ML20215M287 ML20215M389 ML20215M422 ML20215M475 ML20215M495 ML20215M498 ML20215M505 ML20215M514
References
NUDOCS 8705130228
Download: ML20215M422 (1)

Text

-

Tf31 mum E i m-6 United States Department of the Interior

\

-(

~

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 m:

IEEE::::::::

T, ER 87/66 l/AR 1987 William D. Travers, Director TMI-2 Cleanup Project Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Travers:

The Department of the Interior has reviewed draft supplement 2 to the programmati environmental statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28,1979 Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and has the following comment. accident at Thr The draft supplement to the programmatic environmental statement indicates plans monitor ground water, both upgradient and downgradient from possible sources of contamination.

We suggest that the analysis should also discuss plans for mitigatiori measures detected. to be undertaken in the event that movement of pollutants in ground water is Sincerely,

,6

/ h 'g! /

,_ P11ce Blanch ,' irector Environmental Project Review l

t h

l li l

l 8705130228 870507 0 l PDR ADOCK 0500 P

J

:*N ~~

.-# GOA

.m 1.

.2 "rq -7Q2 kh:

Jo+ w a c a o.

tomatvc.Sacwas "O **""'85****"

• • '*"*** STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTf4ENT OF N ATUR AL RESOURCES I

E*.EFGY2CM.%STRAT @:

- POWER PLANT SITING PROGhM T AWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANN APOLIS 21401 t30D 269 2261 February 24, 1987 y.

Dr. Michael T. Masnik TMI Project Directurate 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 f rom March 28, 1979 Accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NUREG - 0683)

Dear Dr. Masnik:

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 inventory and chemical constituency described. We also agree that liquid storage onsite (no-action alternative) provides no reasonable benefit and merely forestalls the disposal issue. It should receive no - further consideration.

With regard to the licensee's proposal--forced evaporation and offsite disposal 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 t better serve the cause of expediting the TMI-2 cleanup, a desire expressed by consensus. The draft supplement notes that Department of Energy (DOE) approval 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 Commissioners review the licensee proposal and evaluate its merits relative to bulk shipment alternatives.

,,3709050657-870224 \ O CO paa S

nooCn osoooa20 PDR VT

. . . fot Deaf Annapolis 269 2SCO. Washington Metro S65 0450 l

.- . . _ . _ _ . . - - _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . -

a'.,

^^

Although we agree with the Commission that the envirorrer.tal and radiological consequences associated with disposal of the accide.ut ' generated inventory are trivial, we are opposed to implementation of either of the two options which result < in releases to the Susquehanna Riv er. 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 Commissibn's awareness of this sustained sensitivity and encourage consideration of this fact in the evaluation and approval of a disposal alternative.

The Sute 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, Richard I. McLean Admicistrator, Radioecology Power Plant Research Program Department of Natural Resources RIM /rva ec: David Carroll, Assistant to the Governor

=

2

- - . _.. _- -