ML19220C006
| ML19220C006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1976 |
| From: | Arnold R Metropolitan Edison Co |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GQL-1473, NUDOCS 7904280058 | |
| Download: ML19220C006 (14) | |
Text
.
bN. " bL-f ]
/
,pg s*G99f t M Mf55 METHOPOLil AN EDISON COMPANY PCST OFelCE BOX 542 REACING, PENNSYLV ANI A 19t.,03 TE t.E PHCN E 215 - 929-26c1 n_,.
. e.,..:,, c, i -4 h "1.1 gS;I fg
- aT 7
uw
,e
-b&
/
-6
/
/s/
' cl/cy
/ \\
Direetcr cf :iuc ear neacter Regulatica Ci20 7973 sY.
Attn: Yr. ~41111a= E. Regan, Jr., Chief g
80cs: %
Cca=Q Entironmental Frejects Sranch !c. 3 kQ ea U. S. :;uclear Eegulatcry Cc=issien 3
v
..aashingicn, s,.
20 p_ _ )_
?
r
=
v.
\\U g,/llg\\
Cear yr. Regan:
c u s e.c...
..r.r 2. y r.,
-c.,.,
m....,,..., c,,. n s.
.,I; 2
vv 2.
..x v..
u.
DCCIC:' iDSEE 50-320 Enclosed please find three (3) signed criginals and ferty (h0) copies of the Applicant's respenses to cc=ents made by 1ccal, State, and Federal agencies concerning the Cer=ission's Oraft Supplement to the Final Envircnnental Statement for S.ree Mile Island :Tuclear Stati:n Unit 2.
Generally, we cc=end the Cc=ission and believe that the number and tcne of mcst of the cc=ents received is indicative of a job well done in your independent analyses.
"his cubmittal contains respenses tc cc=ents transmitted to c: in your letter of October 1, ic76. Should there be any questiens regarding this informatien, please contact me 1:=ediately.
Very truly ycurs,
I
/
'/
E. C. Arnold
' lice.: resident 7
T9042800'
..Cn..
Enclosures ec:
Mr. J. 3. 'lasca110, Chief l
Light ~4ater Reactors 3 ranch h U. 3. :iuclear Regulatcry Cc=ission
/.
-,.u..,.,
,, &c:
N -a.
5 +.a,
n.
v.
mwsss
)
e 10 617
\\ 0 I I lif),
t
+-
/
n[C{gyE0
/
n
- 1..a C C.
..., I
.r.e v-,, c.c.. eA.Iv.
ra. w v
Ies DCs 20 ~o70 u : ::.., v.s.: ~
--.,u &
..-.,,c.
- ~..f
- un
. a c..
v s.,
~
g,p~
y r.
..a v
Ig % asew,3,2,q, m...e..f. 7m.....
_-r. -.a Lc C,., g.g.ry
%anime,,
r
+o 1 IC\\
_: c.u,.:
ic a.m.;
3-
, rr.
.l.,,. _a. -a c.4..u.4--.,... L I., 9 e
Application For Class 1 Chb Utilization Facility Operating license DCC E 50. 50-320 Applicant herewith sub=its forty (LC) ccpies of responses to ec==ents =ade by Lccal, State, and Federal agencies in connection vith the Cc ission's Draft Supplement to the Final Fnvirannental Statement for Three Mile Island Nuclear Statien Unit 2.
.s.m...c e n t.,.,r m.w.w v.,4
- w. v
.A
. rem Lw..em-e.f ci.
.,... w 2.
I
/
_'T M.
J#
/
3:7_
Assistant Secretary Vice fresiden:
d 19 ~ day of Svern to and subscr. bed before me *.his o, s ?.
e/
ac:a.,,31x NCTARY :U c. i..-
h f
e9 g
Ik #wC M IE CG l.I;ttg8 Ncv. 9. 15,'S 8 5 ".'.7 7 10DLs
Rect <f0 O'
/
CCT 201975 Q G
Ns@D nelswee
\\v0 ev
}
Q APFLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CCMMEiTS ECEIVED on the NUCT.FAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S l
l Draft Sunole=ent to the Final Environ = ental Statement 4
j REIATED TO TE OPERATION OF i
THREE MILE ISLAND SUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 i
?
I I
October 18, 1976 i
I S5 ' c?28 10617 i
?
1.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATICN, AND WELFARE i
CC.'oE r
":n discussi.ng the radiologic:.:L i.~pcot cn man of this fccility, there is no daic presented on the urinun ecycsure to an individuct living in the imedicte vi.cinity of the site cr in the surrounding regic1."
RESPONSE
j On Jtme 4,1976, Metropolitan Edison Company sub=itted an analysis entitled'
" Evaluation of the Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to De=enstrate Confer =ance to the Design Obj ectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I".
Included j
in this analysis were calculations of the max 1=us individual doses from exposurer to both liquid and gaseous effluents. Quite naturally, the exposures take place in close proximity to the facility. The i
=azd -
results of these calculaticus indicate that the exposures to these indi -
i viduals are well within the lhits set forth in 10 C7R 50 Appendix I.
ii e!
I i
R I
,i 3i i.
65 '.?:!S s
S E
l.
2.
SUSOUEHAMIA RI7ER BASIN COMMISSICN_
i mmr The SEBC is ccncerned virh the adepacy of ficed p-atection. The ratiencie for the ficcd protection scheme seems somevhat ceak in that the statements referring to the infrepent affect that hurricer.es and trcpical storms ecuid have cn the pro.lect sits. Ccnsidering that five hurricanes have passed thrcugh Southcentra' Pennsylvania during the past eighty years, each cculd have affecter' the site.
Regardlcss of the probcMZity of occurrence of hurricanes cr frepency of flocds of certain magnitude, the EIS should ccntain more detait on the ficod protection scheme, the waterprcofing syste=, and shutdcun precedures in the event of a r:'a,icr ficod.
RES70NSE The Applicant has covered the flood protection questice in Section 2.4 of 1,
the FSAR. In addition, certain operating procedures will be utilized to
'l safely shutdcwn the plant in the event of a major flood. The operational procedures and actions to be taken preceeding to and during a fleod will be based on precipitation reports and river stages, both upstream and at the plant site.
These proceduzes and actions (sb.un $n graphical form on Figure 1) are on both the plant cupervisory level and the executive canagenent level.
l These procedures are outlined as follows:
I a.
Flood ATET situation is affected by the ocevrrence of four to five inches of rain at Harrisburg in any twelve hours.
b.
ALERT confir=ed by:
1.
Five inches of rain at Wilkes-Barre in twelve hours.
2.
Seven inches of rain at Lewisburg in twelve hours, ALERT procedures will be initiated by the occurrence of any two of the c.
above indications. ALERT procedure is to start =oving step Jogs to placement position, clearing of slots for stop logs, and general
=cbilisation of =anpower. This step will be ordered by the plant superintendent.
d.
CLOSURE will begin at hour eighteet. if any two of the folicwing have occurred:
1.
Six inches, or more, of rain at Earrisburg in 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />.
2.
Eight inches, er nore, of rain at Wilkes-Barre in 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />.
3.
Nine inches, or = ore, of rain at Lewisburg in 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />.
This step will be ordered by the plant superintendent, vith the place-ment of stop-logs to begin. An inpending flood situ. den slert will be given to executive level persennel.
@l) 9g l
= - - -.. ---
DERGINCY CLOSURE will call for extra personnel on an overti=e basis.
e.
This step is indicated by:
1.
Seven inches, or more, of rain in Harrisburg in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
2.
Nine inches, or more, of rain in Wilkes-Barre in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
l 3.
Eleven inches, or more, of rain in Lewisburg in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, cr by the stage at Sunbury indicating a discharge of approx 1=atcly 500,000 cfs and the scage at plant site indicating a discharge of approx 1=ately 530,000 cfs.
The executive level person =el will be notified of the presence of a major flood en the river.
i f.
SHETDOWN AIIC
\\'
1.
When the stage at the plant site indicates a discharge of approx-i=ately 950,000 efs, the station superintendent will notify the Metropolitan Edisen Cocpany executive level that the station will i
go into hot shutdown when the discharge reaches 1,000,000 cfs, as j
determinec-by atage.
4 These stages are illustrated on Figura 1.
i i
I, J
t b
1 i
I s
6 SG !M1 4
. - ~.
e I
g.
..i,.
. l.
p.
,s
.a.
-l...
.l,
..r.
.l.
. s,....
.l.
..p.
r.
.g.
.....-.-.{
i
.... l,,.
..... [
.a..).1...
.l..
. y,,.
y i
./ /
(
9....i
.......,,...g.
.l.
.s.i
...........l..
.l.
,.. q -....s.........i...
L, 5.
....m.T..
_.6
./
.l...,...
,.... -,.... 4...,
..... /.. i ; /....f..
.l'...
j.
9
-.+.+.{...I....,.
.k 4.
s.
A 4.
- 6. e.--.....
... pp..
6
. s.) L.-
.s 6...
.l
.l.
.l.
l.
.}.
}
.l.
.l
...l..
4........,..
6
.&.6
,6...
.g.
H 6
6e.
e
.g.
l
-6 4
....l.
./.,..
.e.
9
....-..4 f
. j.
.l.
.,.g
...l
.,. 4.l.g
.g.
..)-.....l..,.,
...,s.
....,,...,.4,.
p
+1.
..,....... j l.
../. /'.f.
I l...,
.l.
,)....... -.
.g.6
..e l
..p.
J
.,/..
.........e..
... j.,.. [. ]...
-I-p.
.s.....
4
.p.
t
....iw...s...
1
. 6
..,...,.f,.,..A.
. I.
6..d....
. I.
.a.
6..-
.+.46
.L-.-...
9..
l.
.Ip~
.A
)'
...f.
.,4..l........,.........
J e
f.
..+.e.9.......r..p.,.~.. _..,
6
.......3
...k..~
4...,. g ;.,.../...f.(...7.._,
4.
.,s... i...
i g.
i
~
...,t...
g
... A.
.a..
4
..,.............p...
........+..
- . y..
..e...
4 /...
l..
..,.4 4.............
....,.....~..g...s...j..
2. &..
..e..
_. g g.
l.
.s.
p,I
.g
.e
.o
- e. -. L.........../...,......... _ __.
....=t
.....~...
4,....
,.. l.
..p...
~.. 3..
-.....t. -..f.f.....
.4
... -... ~.- '......
e..J.
..}.
.,.....[....,
.,...f.~.........,.......$......
....s..+.....,..,g.,...
t....
--...ai..t, 5_ f._.+.
-.. i. f.
.........1_..ie...
. g !. =..
.1..f.........
g,
. j..
.3.,/ ~.
.....,e......
-g.
g 8,. s...,y. -........,s...-.f.s..,.
g
./...
.g j37./,...
ag, 8
f.4.f........ { g W.
f,..
.........l,.
n.......
....t
.4....
- 7....
-..,/..
s
.. f.. e... g.g
. y.
~.f b
,.4..p.
4
..+.,,.........
..._...I..,.
a..
.I..
.L..
. l....A.
,...).
e
...p.-.
..,...4..
e.
...+
1 3
y 6.
- 2 p
.. - F..
4 g
.+-..6..4.
. }............,...,...
]
e
. 6
.6--.-.
E-
.....-"g 3
+
g O 3**
- M
m O$
.4.....
3
\\,
\\
.a..I.........g.L.......,.,..-,..,.....
k-
.A-
.~
.s*~*"""*g s
6--+---*-*'*-
4 x
g i s
sr N
\\
Q..
2 4 x
.....-4 x,
.e Z 9.
,...-...w...........
....-4.
6...
x
'-N
._.6..o.~_-
...V.......,.
l
....... 4 g
'h
'_ 3 j
~..\\......s...A._...
QM31e'.031.socm.se sons.,.- p m
'q.... -.....
+
g......*-.....q.-.........r..f.:..
,3 i.
d, m.
w...~
w.
g gm%x..w.._..4..-...
. -u..
.l.....
g S
I.
- y 3 3 99 4 O f. Sur'CN S a '. -. -
-s m~.
...1..-
a.-
(SNINWVM NdT hS OMQ AM) S73 NVe CQQ14 AM 9t Ag 3 A yan 3 3V9 g ?
-**,7**
f
-.L e
9 l
._ w -. ~..
2 4%.
w.~..
,a
- g......
+ _
x
..L.,.-
.m
-T w
m u
3--~
2
^
u f
l 23T74CASWflOM I'~~~T'"-
a (SNINM TM NQia valel3 E Mel S*13 NVd CCQ74 AMSl&W3&Tu33T74 i
1 3.
si 1,
1s_
.l
.. m m..
.n..
1
.I I
.I
.I I
a.
g 3
I Id 2 M 8. M d 85,?i2 FIGURE 1 l
a 4
FI.00D HYDROGRA?HS i
I.
3.
TRI-CCCT"! PS.GIONAL PLANNTNG COMMISSION CCSE9: A A concern of the comisakn is the protcchicn frcm accidents relati~:g to radiccative materiate i.n ::cneycrtaticn and in use cr stc cge.
I
RESPONSE
The Applicant has addressed the transportation of radioactive wastes in Sections 3.6.4.4, 3.6.4.5, and 3.6.4.6 of the Environnental Peport Operating l
In additien, the Applicant will use and store all radio-License Stage.
active caterial in accordance with applicable porticus of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, the Special Nuclear Material License, the By Product haterial License, the Operating License, and t.he Technical Speci-fications.
I CCbO2.72 2 Another concern of the cw....:ssion is the p ctection of the picnt f cm ficcding.
RESPOSE I
See Applicant's response to the Susquehanna River Basin Cec =ission's com=ent relating to the same subject.
i l
1 i
I i
5 A
i
-s-
4.
U.S. 2NERGY RESL RCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION CCMer "Tne fin L statement shculd include a discussicn of the mahds and intent to nrini.~ize retecse of globatty-distributed icng-lived radioactive effluents,.
such as krjpton-85, carbcn-14, or tritium. "
PISPONSE i
The Applicant has described the methods to be used to mind-4ve the release
- of radioactive material in Section 11 of the TXI-2 Final Safety Analysis i
6 Report. In addition, on June 4,1976, Metropolitan Edison Cc=pany subsitted an analysis entitled " Evaluation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station i
Unit 2 to Demonstrate Confor:ance to the Desi;;n Objectives of 10 CFR 50 l
Appendix I".
This analysis showed that the Radwaste Syste=s, as presenely designed, are adequate to =eet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I.
I t
i f
ii i
t I
l I
ii I
i 0$5.7*;}
. j
5.
THE FOLLCtTP;G PARAGRAPES ARE CUO'"ED FRCM A LETTER FROM CHAUNCEY KEPFORD TO W. H. REGAN, JR., OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1976 CCB!?5T7 "The almat ridiculous lengths the XEC~ staff vill go to cover and protect its bungling kd:istry is e:emplified in Tchte 8.2 and Figure 8.2.
The i
costs for the plant are all given in dollars for ecch installed kitcucht for a years operation. But an kstatted kitcuctt produces nothina unless the picnt operates, and the data fwm the tchie plotted k the figure suggests tFat the cheapest cperating costs for the ccal and nuclear pcuer.
picnts are chtched uhen both cre kcperative. The nRC has seemingly
\\
fcrgotten that some very uith :he production frcm the plants. Ecr a nuclear plant, the biggest varichte cost is the inveswent cost, and it cannot be '
treated as a ficed prcducticn cost, as is shcun in the tchie and figure.
s I
For a ecci plant the bigges' varichte cost is fust, as is prcperly shcun.
Vnen the inveskent costs are trected cs they shculd for both plants, as costs per unit of electricci producticn, as cents per kiicucht hour, a very different picture emerges. In the tchie belco are listed, for the coal and nuclear picnts, scme of the data frcm Tchte 8.2, adjusted to represent electricity generation ecsts in cents per kitcuctt hour. Only corrected nu~hers are given. The only correcticn is mcdc by multiply kg both the " Investment Cost" cr.d the " Total Operating Cost" by 2004 per $ +
8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> per year : capital facter for the " Investment Cost", and by l
the sc=e factcr withcut the capacity factcr for the " Total Cperating Costs".
The capacity factcr % left out of the later factor since it is already 1
haluded in the tchte.
TA3G 8.2 (CCRREC'"ED)
Nuciccr Coal Cc ccitu Factcr Cavacitu Facter Costa, 4/ku hr 50 60 70 80 SO GO 70 80 l
Investment Cost 2.45 2.05 1.75 1.53 1.S9 1.33 1.14 1.00 t
Total Cperating Cos b
.38
.40
.45
.49 1.01 1.19 1.37 1.Se SUM 2.81 2.45 2.20 2.02 2.60
- 2. 52 2.51 2.56 "Clectly, c differant picture emerges when the rect cost of capital is l
considered. At a capacity factcr of 50';, which is cbcut the average for the large neu nuclect pccer plants, a ccci plant is better if only these s
i costs are ccnsidered. ?cv hs Final Ehvircnmental Statements in the xst i
the 22C has used genercting costs in cents or mills per kitcuct: hour' (see,
{
for instance, page 2-7 of this Draft). Cne conclusion that can be drcun frcm this data is that the prchlen of nuciecr pcuer econccics F:s de:erio-mted so far that the DEC must cid the utilities in mhrepresenting their data to justify building nuclect pcuer plants.
h "htrthemore, this cralysis **gnores tuo ir:pcrtant items - the direction g
and =cgnhude of the listed var'chte cperating and maintenance costs in d"A f(9
=;5 '
I
Table 8.2.
In the original 25, contained in the Draft as Appendi,r B, the total lifetime 0 and M costs are cver twice as for a ccal fired plant as for a nuclear plant (page 3-70 of the Draft).
In the tert of the Draft,-
a factor of three is used. Zet to the best of my kncutedge, erper *ence in the in&astry has shcun that 0 and M costs are at least as high, if not ccnsiderably higher, for a nuclear plant because of the radiaticn hazard for repair ucrkers.
"In add ticn, fcr any pir.: cpe.vting at a high capacity factcr, var *able 0 and M costs should be smaller than for one operating at a icuer factor since, for base leaded plants, a reduced capacity factor is often related to increased :c: anticipated malf.a.ations, leading to increased variable 0 and M costs. This is the reverse of the.EC trends in Table 8.2. "
RESPONSE
I Mr. Kepford's analysis of Figure 8.2 in the draf t FES is entireif correct, since the variable costs in a pcwer plant, such as fuel and variable O&M decrease with decreased generation. Mini:num total costs per year for i
i the plant (not the customer) occur vben the generation in the plant is zero.
I Mr. Kepford has =1sinterpreted Table 8.2 of the draft FES. All values j
given in thin table are in total cost per year per kilowatt at a given capacity factor. It should be noted that the investment cost is a fixed, not a variable a= cunt, which re=ains constant regardless of the a cunt cf j
generation produced by the plant. Those values which can realistically be I
called variable are the expenditures for fuel and for that C&M associated with variable arounts of generation. These include, for exa=ple, such things as: ash handling equipment at a coal plant and periodic inspection, repair and refueling of a nuclear plcnt. Explicitly. lines 3 and 4 are
=
obtained by r*%g the cost per =egawatt hour of generation tines the a=ount of generation associated with a given capacity factor. Thereforo, Mr. Kapford's elf 4" tion of the capacity factor when obta***"g the oper-ating cost in cents per kilowatt hour is an error. Perhaps this is best
[
shcwn if we utilize Mr. Kepford's calculated values.
If, for exanple, we i
use his value of 2.81 cents per kilowatt hour for a nuclear unit at a 50 l
capacity factor, and we cultiply this by the expected output of the unit, we would have 2.81 x 8760 x.5 + 100 = $123.08 per hW per year. This value is quite a bit less than the stated annuni cost of $138.65.
In this case, l
Mr. Kepford's error vas in taking the costs to generate 4380 kWh and allocating them to 8760 kWh (100% capicity facter). This same general i
error appears in all colu=ns of his revised Table 8.2 Listed below is a i
corrected revision of Table 8.2, giving the values in cents per kilowatt hour.
Nu clen_r_
Coal Capacity Factor Capacftr Factor Costs, c/kW hr.
50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80 Invest =ent Cost 2.45 2.05 1.75 1.53 1.59 1.33 1.14 1.00 Total Operating Cost
.71
.67
.64
.61 2.01 1.98 1.96 1.95 I
SUM 3.16 2.72 2.39 2.14 3.60 3.31 3.10 2.95 SI
?"S
-G-I
Mr. Kepferd states that c= page 3-70 of the draft FIS, the O&M costs are over twice as much for a ccal fired plant as they are for a nuclear fired plant. We believe Mr. Kepford is referring to Table 2h for the values
=arked "eperating".
I, should be noted that these values included fuel costs, as well as O&M. His reference to experience in the industry ic probably correct regarding CSM but it should be noted that most presently cperating coal plants do not have sulfur renoval equip =ent installed and that the coal plant (by necessity) analyzed in the report includes sulfur re= oval equipment. The additien of such equipment essentially doubler, the C&M costs for a ccal fired plant.
Mr. Kepford refers to an average capacity factor for nuclear plants of approxinately 50%. Referring to the IEI Publication No. 75-50, issued in Neve=ber, 1975, covering the 10 year period, 1965-1974, the average l
capacity factor for nuclear units, covering 123 unit years of operation, is apprcxi=ately 6C5. It should also be noted that the GpU experience is above this national aversge.
k$)),k' ll/
6.
UNITED STATES DEPA rME'iT OF THE IMTERIOR I
l CCMNT A I
e i
"To undete ccmoticr.ca uith the 3ctional Eis crk Prese~;ction Act of 1986 i
and ?$ ecutive ' Order 11693, the State Histcrk Preser::cticn Officer should be requested *h furnish an evaluaticn as to whether any sites nou cn cr currently eligible for inclusion on the Sctional Register of Historie l
Places uCL be affected by the prcycsed project. "
I 8
RESPCMSE In response to the above con =ent, the Applicant has recently requested I
the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer to furnish an up-to-date evaluation as to whether Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Station will have an adverse effect on any historic sites on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for inclusion. The Applicant will furnish the hTt0 a i
copy of this evaluatien upon its receipt.
t CC E NT 3 "As a follcu-up to the reccmerdathna made, the regicnct office of the Burecu of Cutdcor Recreation ocntacted the applicant to kquire abcut the c:crent status of the proposed recreaticn develcyment plans for Three MCe Island. It 'xs learned that ccnstructicn of the pcuer facility is scheduled for ccmpletion by the erd of 1977, at chich the recreation development will cc m ence. The need ucs erpressed to the appikant to begin initiating cocrdination with all interested parties in crier to facilitate thely implementaticn of the recreation picn."
RESPONSE
The area of IMI reserved for recreational use and access is a part of Project Nu=ber 1888, as licensed by the Federal Power Co=rission. The application, filed February 27, 1970, with the Federal Power Co=21ssion to supple =ent an application for a new license for Project Nunber 1888, included Exhibit R, Recreation, in which there appeared the folicwing-
"Consulta :icn Develop =ent of the recreation resources of this project has been reviewed with the following:
Ecuard A. Miller, M-histrative Assistant, Pennsylvania Fish Co=tission Dr. Maurice Goddard, Secretary of Forests and k'aters Conrad R. Lickel, Director, Bureau of State Parks Burl Gries, Planner, York County Planning Cc==ission gg s
i 1
-lo-I
Oliver Fanning and Mr. Cotter, Planners, Tri-County Planning Co==ission Albert Reese, 'lanner, Lancaster City / County Planning 3 card" Subsequently, contact was =ade, and continues, with the Dauphin Cornty Parks and Recreation Board.
CCM23T C
"... fish kills occurred durkg the sprkg of 1974 and 1975 alcng the vestern side of Three Mile Island det:nstrean frcm the plant. "
RESPONSE
Ihe Applicant's consultant, Ichthyological Associates, Inc., under the direction of Dr. Edward C. Raney, has been engaged since February,1974, in conducting aquatic biological =cnitoring progra=s to evaluate possible i= pacts of TMI-l as required by its Environr. ental Technical Specifications.
To data, no " fish kills" have been observed. The Applicant has contacted the Depart =ent of the Interior in order to identify the source of this infor=ation, which is still unclear. The Applicant wishes to point out that fro = ti=e to time, like any other water body, some dead fish can be observed in Lake Frederic due to any nu=ber of natural occurrences (cid age, disease, parasites, etc.). However, no dead fish have have observed that could suggest they were attributable to the TMI-1 discharge, nor is it expected that the additional discharge volu=e that will result fro = the operation of SI-2 vill have a significa:r. adverse ef fect on aquatic life in the vicinity of DIINS. The Applicant Jill continue to Investigate the source of the Depart =ent.cf the Interior's infor=ation and n17 identify i
the results to the NRC.
e f
I CCMENT D The ccment concerns the lack of substantial plans for the eventuct deccdssioning of TMT-2.
A medcr ccncern is the potential burial of rad **ccative materials cn Three Mile Island after deccmissicning takes place.
i l
RESPCNSE I
j Since ve do not anticipate having to decoc=ission TMI-2 until the year 2010, it is difficult to forecast regulatory require =ents which cay be i= posed at that ti=e.
There vill be =any changes in technology and social concerns between 1976 and 2010 which will influence piens fer deco==issiening.
g The Applicant is convinced that when the ti=e ce=es to decce=1ssion TMI-2, this activity v111 be acce=plished in a socially, environ =entally, and econe=1cally acceptable canner consistent with the regulatory require =ents in effect at that ti=e.
c w o.
{
CO
! !