ML17037C327
| ML17037C327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1973 |
| From: | Cromwell P US Dept of Health, Education & Welfare |
| To: | Muller D US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| Download: ML17037C327 (8) | |
Text
AEC DIS UTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET IfATE L
(TEMPORARY FORM)
CONTROL NO:
6450 FILE:
FROM:
Dept. of Health, Ed.
and Welfare Washington, D.C. 20201 Actin Chief P.Cromwell TO:
D. R. Muller DATE OF DOC 8-17-73 ORIG 1 signed DATE REC'D LTR 8-23-73 CC OTHER OTHER SENT AEC PDR X
SENT LOCAL PDR X
CLASS UNCLASS XX PROP INFO INPUT NO S REC'D DOCKET NO:
50-220 DESCRIPTION:
Ltr furnishing comments on the draft enviro impacttstatementffcir Nine Mile Point Unit l....
PLANT NAME:
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 ENCLOSURES:
A'CENO',KDG~<D
, DQ NOT aZXOVZ FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 8-24-73 GC BUTLER(L)
W/ 'Copies CLARK(L)
W/
Copies GOLLER(L)
W/
Copies KNIEL(L)
W/
Copies SCHWENCER(L)
W/
Copies STOLZ(L)
W/
Copies VASSALLO(L) '
W/
Copies SCHEMEL(L)
W/
Copies NIEMANN(L)
W/1 Copies DICKER(E)
W/
Copies KNIGHTON(E)
W/
Copies YOUNGBLOOD(E)
W/
Copies
~GAN(E)
W/ 4 Copies W/
Copies W/
Copies W/
Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION G FILE
~TZING/STAFF CASE GIAMBUSSO BOYD
"-rIOORE (L) (BWR)
QEYOUNG (L) (PWR)
<SKOVHOLT (L)
P, COLLINS
~G OPR PILE & REGION(3)
, MORRIS STEELE TECH REVIEW HENDRIE SCHROEDER MACCARY KNIGHT PAWLICKI SHAO STELLO HOUSTON NOVAK ROSS IPPOLITO TEDESCO LONG LAINAS WENAROYA-VOLufER DENTON GRIMES GAMMILL KASTNER MALLARD SPANGLER ENVIRO MULLER DICKER KNIGHTON YOUNGBLOOD REGAN PROJECT LDR RLESS LIC ASST HIGGS (L)
GEARIN (L)
GOULBOURNE (L)
LEE (L)
MAIGRET (L)
SERVICE (L)
SHEPPARD (E)
SMITH (L)
.TEETS (L)
WADE (E)
WILLIAMS (E)
WILSON (L)
A/T IND BRAI'IMAN S ALLAN PLANS'CDONALD DUBE INFO C. MILES n.
- LOCAL PDR Oswe o
N Y DTIE(ABERNATHY) 1 - NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1 - ASLB(YORE/SAYRE/
WOODARD/"H" ST.
16 -
CYS ACRS HOLDING EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION Y(1)CM)-NATIONALLAB S~AN 1-'R.Schoonmaker,OC,GT,D-323" W-R. CATLINP E-256-GT 1-CONSULTANT' NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN 1-GERALD ULRIKSON. ~ ~ ORNL 1-PDR-SAN/LA/
1-GERALD LELLOUCHE BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER HM-C-427-GT 1-RD..MULLER..F-309 GT
0 0
( 1
)
~
~
A ~
I' F
'Regulatory Doclre
'le
~~ggANgU~
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDITION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assis tant Direc tor for Environmental Pro) ects Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 8 6 2'o I 50-220
.! Q UG17 1973 MCREfN UsNO 1
AU888 1973 ~
FROM
SUBJECT:
Acting Chief Office of Environmental Affairs MAlLSSN MHHF
/I The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Nuclear Station Unit 1 6
Nine Mile Point Thank you for forwarding the draft environmental impact statement on the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 for review.
The following comments on the draft are based on suggestions by officials within the Public Health Service, H.E.W. Regional II Office and the H.E.W. Office of Environmental Affairs.
Our primary observation concerns the fact that the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 is gust one of three plants which are to operate essentially side by side on the southern shore of Lake Ontario.
As stated in the introduction to the draft EIS, the applicant plans to construct a Unit 2 station adjacent to the Unit 1 site which will produce almost twice the amount of Unit 1's electrical power.
In addition, the Power Authority of the State of New York is building the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant 3300 feet east of the Unit 1 Station'.
All three'lants are to utilize once-through cooling systems with lake water; It is therefore necessary that cumulative thermal effects be addressed.
Likewise other cumulative effects of the three plants must be considered.
While the draft indicates that separate environmental'statements have been prepared for these additional facilities, we have not received copies of them for review and have no way of knowing their content.
We are unable therefore,to assess the environmental effects the proposed action will bring about in its actual operational context.
It ~zould appear that a thorough analysis of the environmental impact of the Unit 1 Station requires consideration of the cumulative effects of all three nuclear plants including the effects of thermal discharges, gasious effluents, liquid effluents, releases of radioactive materials, fish impingement, transmission
- lines, as well as the effects of increased populations on human services.
This may, for reasons unknown to us, be unnecessary,
r V
I
'1
~
'Pf 1
4 1 ~
but, if so, the present limited approach should be )ustified in the statement.
Our more the Unit specific comments on the content of the draft HIS for 1 Station are as follows:
It is suggested that the upgraded liquid waste systems referenced in Sections 3.5.1.2.,
3.F 1.4.,
and 3.5.1.6.,
and the gasious waste treatment system referenced in Section 3.5.2.2.,
should be operational before a full-term license is granted the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for the Nine EH.le Point Nuclear Station Unit 1.
2)
In Section 2.7.1., describing the Terrestrial Ecology of the site, it is stated that the southern shore of Lake Ontario is a major migration route used by many birds including the American osprey and the bald eagle.
Subsequently it is said that a terrestrial survey of the site found that'o rare or endangered species of plants or animals were present.
There seems to be an inconsistency here as the American osprey and the bald eagle are both listed as endangered species and as the site of the Unit 1 Station makes up part of the southern shore.
3)
The information provided on the operational effects of the Unit 1 Station on acquatic biota is lacking. It does not allow for a thorough assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed action and therefore, offsets the environmental effects to be weighed in the decision-making process.
4)
He note that the once-through cooling system utilized by the Unit 1 Station fails to meet the current New York State thermal criteria.
These criteria "limit the rise in surface temperature to 3oF over the ambient temperature within 300-feet radius or equivalent area from the point of discharge".
(5.2.2.)
Studies of the thermal effects of the Unit 1 Station have shown that at times "even at a depth of 5 feet, approximately one and a quarter of shoreline had temperatures greater than 5oF above ambient".
~ (5.2.2.)
Further information should be provided as to the effects, including health effects, of this rise in temperature above the standard.
It would a3;so be useful to address legal ramifications of failing to meet the criteria.
F J
h
'E I
P 4
V
5)
Given the information provided in the draft, me find that the Unit 1 Station fails to consistently meet the minimum Pederal Hater Quality Criteria for phosphorus concentrations.
More precise information on phosphorus effects and the legal considerations of failing to meet the criteria sho Paul Crormrell cc:
Dr. Zan Mitchell Mr. William Matuszeski
< ~
~
P
"~
I'
\\
W W