ML19262C548
| ML19262C548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Angstadt K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262C549 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002140417 | |
| Download: ML19262C548 (2) | |
Text
!proMg UNITED STATES w
8]g h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g.
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
%.v /
.o.
FEB 6 1980 Mrs. Kathy Angstadt 2855 E. High Street Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
Dear Mrs. Angstadt:
Your letter of January 7,1980 to Mr. Harold R. Denton has been referred to me for reply.
In your letter you raise two points; namely, the need for an evacu-ation plan and the adequacy of the water supply. Before responding to your specific concerns, I want to point out that the Limerick Generating Station will be subject to a thorough review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to making a decision on whether or not to issue an operating license. This review will be initiated when the owner, Philadelphia Electric Company, submits their Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Currently, we expect the FSAR to be submitted in the summer of 1980.
In regard to your concern about evacuation plans, present NRC requirements place particular emphasis on emergency planning within the low population zone sur-rounding the facility, which for the Limerick facility is 1.27 miles. However efforts are underway within the NRC to review all aspects of emergency planning including the adequacy of present planning and the need for coordination with and participation of other agencies in developing emergency planning. As a result, the NRC has recently initiated a proceeding to change the current
' requirements for emergency planning. The proposed rule changes are discussed in the Enclosure. The proposed requirements place emphasis on (1) a plume expo-sure emergency planning zone consisting of the area within ten miles of a nuclear facility, (2) an ingestion pathway emergency planning zone consisting of the area within 50 miles of a nuclear facility, and (3) NRC concurrence of the state and local emergency plans. Any changes adopted for emergency planning requirements will be implemented during the operating license review of the Limerick facility.
In responding to your concern about the adequacy of the water supply, I would like to point out that the cooling water required to safely shutdown the nuclear reactors in the event of an emergency or an accident will not depend on water from the Schuylkill River or water diverted from the Delaware River. The NRC requires that a plant's design include a reserved supply of water (called the ultimate heat sink) which can cool the plant for 30 days without the addition of water from other sources. The proposed ultimate heat sink for the Limerick facility is a spray pond. The embankments which form the pond, and the pipes and pumps which bring the water into the Limerick facility, are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes. Loss of the normal water supply, be it water f rom the Schuyl-kill or Delaware River, will not prevent safe shutdown of the facility's reactors.
8002140
.2 irs. Kathy Angstadt FEB 6 1980 During most of the year, the Limerick facility will obtain makeup water for the cooling towers from the Schuylkill River. The cooling towers cool the water from the main condensers; a main condenser n turn, condenses the steam dis-i charged by a main turbine. The facility aid not generate electricity if there were prolonged periods when makeup water is not available. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has established when the Limerick facility can obtain water from the Schuylkil? River. The DRBC requires that the flow in the Schuylkill River at the facil;ty be greater than 550 cubic feet per second and that the temperature of the water be below 59 degrees Fahrenheit. With these limits, based on historical data for the Schuylkill River, we calculated that the Limerick facility would not be able to generate electricity for 47 days during a typical year unless an alternate source of makeup water, such as the diversion of water from the Delaware River was provided.
The interruption in electrical generation due to low flows in the Schuylkill River would also occur if the turbine generators were powered from a coal, oil, or gas-fired boiler. Prior to the issuance of the construction permits for the
. Limerick facility, the NRC evaluated alternatives to a nuclear facility at the Limerick site.
NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board concluded that all other potential sites in the region for an electrical generating station had similar operational problems concerning availability of water, therefore the shortage of makeup water at the Limerick site did not prevent the construction of nuclear units.
Furthermore, the ASLAB ruled that the environmental costs and benefits weighed in favor of constructing the Limerick facility.
We trust that this information is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, p
g, ing As t'stant Director for Light Water React s
Division of Project Man'a ment
Enclosure:
Emergency Planning - Proposed Rule (44 FR 75167)
.