ML20062G353

Responds to Reiterating Concerns of Kent County, MD Residents Re Possible Disposal of Waste Water from TMI Into Susquehanna River & Chesapeake Bay.Two Studies Underway to Evaluate Impacts of 27 Disposition Alternatives

ML20062G353
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	08/04/1982
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Dyson R HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20062G357	List: ML20062G353 ML20062G359 ML20063D554
References
NUDOCS 8208120351
Download: ML20062G353 (3)

Text

..

4 .. 2 V j .3 .

AUG 4 1982 The Honorable Roy P. Dyson United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Dyson:

I am pleased to respond to your letter of July 12, 1982, to Mr. John B. Martin.

You made reference to Mr. Elmer E Horsey's earlier letter and reiterated the concerns of Kent County residents about the possible disposal of waste water from TMI into the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded to Mr. Horsey on June 7,1982 with a letter from Dr. Bernard J. Snyder, Director of NRC's THI Program Office. A copy of our response is enclosed for your information. -

As Dr. Snyder indicated to Mr. Horsey we appreciate the concerns over the possible disposal of the THI-2 processed accident-generated water into the Susquehanna River. This water is currently being stored on the island, and disposition, by any means, is presently precluded as a condition of the TMI-2 license. The licensee, General Public Utilities Nuclear, has not submitted any proposal to the NRC for disposal of this water, by discharge to the river or by any other means. No proposal is expected before early 1983, if.then.

Moreover, a detailed review of any proposal, and specific approval by the NRC Commissioners is required before any of the accident-generated water can be disposed of.

In preparation for the necessary detailed technical review of any water disposal proposal, two studies under the direction of the NRC staff are now underway to evaluate the potential technical, regulatory and socio-economic impacts of-twenty-seven possible dispotition alternatives. This is an expansion of those alternatives already considered in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Cleanup of TMI-2 (PEIS) published by HRC in March 1981. Release of TMI-2 processed accident-generated water to the Susquehanna River is but one of these many alternatives. In addition, the State of Maryland is also conducting a study to ascertain any socio-economic impacts on the Chetapeake which would result from disposal of the TMI-2 water in the Susquehanna River. Ultimately, these studies are intended to serve as important input to the Commission's decision-making process on this matter. These alternatives are discussed in the enclosure to oar response to Mr. Horsey.

I would like to point out, as we indicated in the PEIS, none of the water disposal methods, including release to the river, would constitute a health hazard to the public.

8208120351 820804 PDR ADOCK 05000289 H PDR .

E I

l l

w.w/ .

i

_.a The Honorable Roy P. Dyson l We would be happy to inform you of any decisions regarding disposal. of the accident-generated water when such a proposal is made by the licensee and approved by the Commission. Your offer of assistance is appreciated.

Sincerely, '

(SignesWilliam J.Direks William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated bcc: P. Dunbar, MD DNR Docket No. 50-320 NRC PDR LPDR ED0 TMI R/F TMIS R/F LBarrett BJSnyder LChandler, ELD OCA (3)

TPoindexter WTravers PBrandenburg (ED0-12133)

DCS 0 Lynch RWeller SCavanaugh TRehm GCunningham, ELD LUnderwood SECY CA HRDenton PPAS Eisenhut Hanauer Mattson Thompson Check I

b% St,], , /( Y gh,y,,

ornce, ..MI.PQ,:[jRR ,, ,,,,Tp,I Pp z,@,R,,,

, ,N R,R, ,,,fjf gg,,,',,,, ,,, E, ,,,,,,,,g ( , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

sun ==< > .01 ochs:ap... 6x.kgr.. .. . .E.GQf g,,,,,,,, , ,H,R,Q,qn,tp.n., ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,T[, ,d., ,,,,....................

one> .7. NN2........ .{ 4/82 p.......... .Zl)4/.82..... ... .2/).8/ 82. . . ...$/4./.82......

. .. ... .... 9.>.f.k..Sk. .....................

nac ronu sse no-soi nacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-saseo

l l

l ~

f l

\

l i

The llonorable Roy P Dyson United States House o Representatives j Washington, DC 20515 l

Dear Congressman Dyson:

i I am pleased to respond to our lette:r of July 12, 1982, to Mr. John B. Martin.

You made reference to Mr. E - r E. Horsey's earlier letter and reiterated the i concerns of Kent County rest nts about the possible disposal of waste water from THI betwyWRherged into the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay.

i The Nuclear Regulatory Commissi n responded to Mr. Horsey on June 7,1982 with i a letter from Dr. Bernard J. Sny er. Director of NRC's TMI Program Office. A copy of our response is enclosed r your information.

As Dr. Snyder indicated to Mr. Hors , we appreciate the concerns over the possible disposal of the THI-2 proce ed accident-generated water ints the l

Susqueharina River. This water is cur ntly being stored on the island, and disposition, by any means, is presentl precluded as a condition of the THI-2 l license. The licensee, General Public ilities Nuclear, has not submitted any proposal to the NRC for disposal of is water, by discharge to the river or by any other means. No proposal s expected before early 1983, if then. Moreover, a detailed review of a proposal, and specific approval by the NRC Commissioners is required before ny of the accident-generated water can be disposed of.

In preparation for the necessary detailed tec!i. ical review of any water disposal proposal, two studies under the direct on of the NRC staff are l now underway to evaluate the potential technical regulatory and socio-economic impacts of twenty-seven possible disposition alt natives. This is an expansion of those alternatives already considere in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Cleanup of . I-2 (PEIS) published by NRC in March 1981. Release of TMI-2 processed acc pent-generated water to the Susquehanna River is but one of these many alternatives. In addition, the State of Maryland is also conducting a study to asedrtain any socio-economic

[

impacts on the Chesapeake which would result from disposal of the TMI-2 water l in the Susquehanna River. Ultimately, these studies re intended to serve as important input to the Commission's decision-makin)g process on this matter.

These alternatives are discussed in the enclosure to our response to Mr. Horsey.

I would like to point out, as we indicated in the PEIS, none of the water disposal methods, including release to the river, would constitute a health hazard to the public.