ML19290C688

Requests Response to Encl Citizen Ltrs Re Proposed Plant Site

ML19290C688
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/08/1980
From:	Schweiker R SENATE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8002050091
Download: ML19290C688 (2)

Text

.

~ ' .

$Cn5{ch E{c{cs E CnC{C was .=orow, o.c. aosso e

-i 4

Januarf 6, *980 o

DOCKET NUf.13ER L-

- A ut noo. s, uw.ne..O:-:&.UCL 54% \6 i Nuclea: ?cquiaterf Cm....ission "O:

1"7 D . Stree ., U.W.

3 D

c*[/- ,

Washine:On, O. C. 295c5

,., s,,

.e

.s 1

/

??.ox: richard S. Schweike-United States senator .

T 5ecause of the desire of this office to be responsive to all ing.:iries and cc=unica:icns, four censidera-icn of the a- ached is requested.

_ __ . .e :. . . _ . - _ v- : __::C .m.

'. 1 . r. . . : e v. ?_ _..i. s cv . _'c ". . r. . .e. __ : .

. e. r.

s. .::.. . . , . .

v a .- ,a. _-..,...a

,,r, ... .._ .

v - :. .. . a , -. , . . . . _ _,....,.._w...-

, -- -..=.. : . . .- s . ~. : c ,. - =. . .n. vv. .::- :. ,

s .e. -.-..u

-~ c =- u 2..v. . :__ ,,

. 2, . . -

3..--~.-_,...*.,a.

.'.an v thanks.

.. \'

3223030001 5.SS : c s 8002050 h/

h_Jw t o. /99 9 1919 t "e y'"'~A I~a 'Pil 4: e e \ta Nx/A 4 4LJ g EN - dd22 4, d Wh

• L- G 2 4 x.be s i.,, e

} pes.ys#g, a

1 yi! 6

• j # .s f' J A>!II M@_hl;[ }A}

O ID M _./Gz.A ; J_ lo .

L r;s./

/$ch, <-.4 - a cyy y w & 3-

~%~ 2h && y r4 7: . se. c wu &

du a /.

p y w .- c6 p,.,c. <L .- < . e '

.Y.au, k. .  % -fz M -& <-> ~ -- g &

t/, '

Z- e My

.- 7_ 7s w ..%. .y f .y 4 + ,/ k 4,.&. ~=4 w m .~ 4~ ,

wx . - .

~ =<-. w y -wc-a a 4*p & - J J'-

/ p) $ .* 77L i cd ,&-^-- y

~7' ~~**

g A<

//

.st ym s Ad- '5f % fy 6 n- 7<%

3.- ,

v,1 JM , z .d.w J -. - . ' .c , .f a' cz a 7. - <

rA .

-y/' ,% ~y t M' a~'

• d' '~' -- e, 4

2 J__

w i e'

• Y w

- nu~ c' 2:a~s a n.- na,, J -, C/

l4 c~. ,6' /.- / f i ' :.' '

.; n- s i .- &e: :

• a Lecember 10, 1979 WI %

d'

.r. Harold Denton Director 9 $ T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations - - "I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc::xsission E w 2 L'ashington, D. C. 20555 -

6v.& e

Dear Mr. Denton,

9 Co 3, \ ~

I have been reviewing che Draft Environmental o .e ent and F Ea1 Invironmental Statement for Li:nerick Units 16 2, U. S. NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, the Report of the Siting Policy Task Force - NURIC-0625 and the Report of the Presiden:'s Co:::ct:sien en the Accident a Three Mile Island. There are several areas that are very disturbing to me - both the 19 70 and 1980 projected populations in the surrounding Limerick, the response of the Department of Environmental Resources regarding the seis:nology of the area surrounding Limerick - in the Final Environmental Statement, and several responses regarding the water supply and diversion of water from the Delnware River.

I have read of the recent testimony of Mr. Rober: Ryan regarding the siting of the Indian Point plant in New York, the Zion plant in Illinois and also the concern regarding six other plants in the United States. Limerick is nu=ber three on this list and echoes concerns that I have had since the accident at Three Mile Island since I live in close proximity to this site. It is a der.sely populated area within a radius of 10 =iles of Limerick and is mainly a suburban-rural area with roads that are no: =uch more than macada= iced potholed, cowpaths.

I have recently received a reply to an inquiry that was made on my behalf by Senator Richard Schweiker. It is from Mr. Lee V. Gossick of the NRC. Inclosed is a copy of this letter and a chart that I have prepared cf the population density f or this area free the DES on Limerick. There is one point that is disturbing to me - the population density guide from NUREG-0625, Sectica 2.1.2.7

" Population Density - Practice" and Mr. Gossick's cc:=sent, "These criteria have not been retroactively applied to previously approved sites such as Limerick."

The LPZ for Limerick is 1.28 =iles and the neares population center, Po::stown, Pa., is 1. 7 =iles. In addition to Fot: stow . with 25,500 popula: ion (1970) North Coventry Township with a current population of 7,600 lies parallel to Pet:s:own, separated only by the Schuylkill River. The LP: at TM1 is stated as 2 miles in the "Reper: of the President's Co:==ission to Investigate the Accident at Three Mile Island." k'hy is the LPZ for Limerick smaller when the megawat capacity is greater than ~'MI? These figures do not include transient pepulatien, peo;:le who would be. at their places of employment in the area. According to Mr. Cossick's letter there were additional safety features incorporated in the Limerick plan to " mitigate consequences of a design basis accident." The simple fact is that if any accident would occur, design basis or other, that would result in large a:-ounts of radia-icn being released, the number of people that would have := be notifiec and evacuated are extremely large.

The roads in this area are not conducive to a safe and ef f ective evacuatien.

Nuclear accidents can occur at any time of the year including times C -n these reaes are nearly i= passable after a severe snowstor=.

1; is stated in NUT.IO-0625 that a si:e which exceeds these guidelines (55/ square =ile) "can nevertheless be se'iected anc approved." if these guidelines are not me; and an al ernative site is not available why is not ancther seurce of

,v e c c

b ) h /1/ 'I b v

Mr. Harold Denton .

~

fuel recoc= ended for the site? It is stated in the DES on Li=erick on page 10-8 that, "The above disadvantages no:vithstanding, the staff feels that a coal-fired plant is an alternative that can be considered." Why was this not e:rongly reco== ended at that ti=e7 It see=s to me that retroactive application of population guidelines should be a serious consideration at Li=erick.

Another area of concern to =e is the response of the Department of Environ = ental Resources regarding the seismology of the area around Limerick. In the DES it is stated that "the nearest approach of a fault trace to the site is 1300 feet west; it's vertical displacement is 350 fee:". In hTREG-0625 1: is s:a:ed in a footno:e (page 28) surface faulting is " identified as a curren; basis for rejection of sites." I would refer you to pages H-94 through H-95 of -he Final Environmental statement for the response of the 777 regarding the seis=clogy of the area. I de unceratand, however, that the U. L. Geological Survey will be doing some studies en this matter.

The third significan: point is the water supply to cool this plant. I would like to ref er you specifically to the response of Dr. Ruth Patrick, Chairman of the Depart =ent of Li=nology of the Acade=y of Natural Science in Philadelphia.

This can be found on page H-74 through H-78 in the Final 5:ste=ent. There are also several other co==ents regarding the diversion cf water fro = the Delaware River. The Delaware River Basin Co==1ssion has stated recently that the Schuylkill River is one they are most concerned about as far as quality and quantity at low flow periods. How can Philadelphia Electric Company taking these huge quanti:ies of water frc= the river and evaporating 35,000,000 gallons per day be justified when a fossil-fueled plant would use a significan-ly lesser amoun:7 In conclusion, there is a reco==endation in the report of the accident at TF. to site nuclear power plants in less densely populated areas. Limerick is everall less than 50*~ co=plete - Uni: 1 is 54*- and Unit 2 is 35; ec=pleted. I understand that if the plant were modified to use coal as a source of fuel, instead of uraniu=, some parts of the plant could be used and so=e =eney would be lost in the construction thus f ar completed. . This =eney can eventually be replaced, bu the large numbers of people whose lives would be disruoted and endangered if a serious accident occurred, cannot be discounted and this fac must be given grave consiceration.

I would also like to point out an inaccuracy in Mr. Oossick's letter, Po::stown, Pennsylvania is located northwest of the reactors, no- southwest as Mr. Gossick stated.

I will appreciate your response to =y concerns and questions. Thank you very

=uch.

Sincerely,

???.uLw 4' A6i Marlene C. Seid:s cc: Senater Richard Schweiker /,

/

O-c-nr P. . .;c: . Ahearne

_ -s

9. Ecbe-- Eyan l'/ v ' " ' ' ' " ' ~ '

'# V U' '

Mr. 3rian K. Crimes Ocv. Thernburg EnclCE%7e: AS E*8ted

gl i k"%

• D

'>4 d o b(W 4** b

]a y Q

[

- . s s .

v ga s c.

Y d <- ,( 0-

,..g~ x..

.~.,  !

t tt  ?, - -

=

>s n b w, Ng Y e

g o SN Ns a, }- "4" LL

$ w(-

ss eo oo o oe g > 4 '

tq m e. C *

> ca oe. o. ao o. e

% e-s s

.-. 9*

e e.

,90 ,4 ,,, ~~ o *4 M

, t 6

2. ,e 9 e-gm ~~n J9o.' >> . s. - t a q D (

d n a a m 6 q t.-

y v3

• Q o

'% v ,

't-T C '

h-I >,

= s L ,,, #

O b ){ Q M L. 6

.: er o 'l \ *

% j  % s D

% b *** h %k* k, g Q1 D *7 1 s

Q wl.

H gw cm .v4e. C 6 A

.) . 34 o% D- -a m , & t' p2

.e ,- ,

t w *

1. hs bM o y s ,,

r,, ..<

o >

?. ..

A

• 4 g < Y ***

7.

gh M 9- &.%

6 e

> e , '5 c { OI

! al h >, >%" e,,4 g , a - -

g

~

4 oo e e4 .

? "

• b 6. C' g ,; m )o

. . i s

• c N -t

>dM D- D

+ %

o s, -

i

~

s s e'  % ss % c e O- \ **.

i A h(I Q e

o e c

~ ~

e k ,

.A r** \

=

q,4 2

• i ~

s s- o D sb I' .,

u .  % m. 4. %. .~

D d y .i.

, c::

7 -- -- t d - " 5- '-

rey H e o u - -

-) ,

- N 5? { f a L

f g 2 w" W k uj

e, M  % C O

N N o. 4.

-[

t Y Y g

e -

o a, d v-

o. s ". e

~

O D w e c C C b '-

,A C "

• v

• • 6"\ m b-  % *

. = a m ~. . . .

q A '

el ; C C C C c o e c e e c, w e I a

^%

N -

'A A

P bu 4(__, I)I J 6 )h/2 /t'n b' ('C Y )