ML19289C221
| ML19289C221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1978 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Case C SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812200346 | |
| Download: ML19289C221 (6) | |
Text
O O
M UNITED STATES
, 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hI WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.Od./
Gg/22pf.7M DEC 0 S 1978 Docket flo. 50-363 T e Honorable Clifford P. Case nited States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Case:
I am pleased to respond to your inquiry of flovember.9,1978, regarding the concerns of f4s. Joan Kievit, over the Forked River Nuclear Station in Ocean County, New Jersey.
~
The fluclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in discharging its refoonsibility '
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the mandate of the National-Environmental Policy Act (fiEPA) of 1969 conducts, as part of the licensing process, comprehensive safety and environmental reviews of each nuclear power plant prior to issuance of a construction permit or an operating license.
In this regard, for each application, the staff thoroughly evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed plant, prepees a draft environmental impact statement, and solicits comments ftom appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies and the public. All comments received are considered in detail and appropriate revisions are reflected in a final environmental statement which is submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the general public.
The NRC's (at that time it was the Atomic Energy Commission) review of Jersey Central Power and Light Company's application for Forked River fluclear Plant was initiated in June 1970. A Draft Environmental Statement (DES) was issued in October 1972 and the Final Environmental Statement (FES) was issued in February 1973. An evidentiary public hearing on environmental matters was held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in Waretown, flew Jersey, on April 17 and 18, 1973. The ASLB's Initial Decision dated July 9, 1973, authorized issuance of a construction permit for the Forked River plant. The construction permit was issued on July 10, 1973.
During the environmental review of the Forked River facility, special attention was focused on the potential impacts associated with salt
- particulates (called drift) issuing from the cooling iower. The results of the review were contained in the FES, a copy of which is enclosed. As discussed on pages V-1 through V-5, V-9, V-10, XII-14, and XII-15 of the FES, the impacts of salt drift are expected to be minimC, since the deposition of salt from a properly designed and W
287
h The Honorable Clifford P. Case maintained tower will constitute a maximum of 11;' of that resulting from natural sea salt de;osition. This small increase is not expected to result in any significan' incremental effects on terrestrial biota, land use, or manmade structures. However, these judgments are founded on the premise that the tower will meet, throughout its lifetime, the predicted drift rate of 0.0025%. The construction permit for the Forked River facility was conditioned to require further confirmatory studies of the ability to achieve and maintain this drift rate over the lifetime of the plant. The results of these studies will be evaluated during another environmental review which will take place prior to issutnce of an operating license, and any license issued will require that drift rates which will not significantly affect the environment be maintained during operation of the facility.
I trust that this letter is responsive to your request. Please advise us if we can be of any further assistance. Per your request, enclosed is Ms. Kievit's letter.
-Sincerely, t-L s.
?
i
Enclosures:
- 1. Forked. River FES
- 2. J. Kievit ltr dtd 10/19/78.
e e
e a
O I
I I
m i ii I
ii iibdM m
i i i ed i
hii M
i E