ML20005B659
| ML20005B659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1981 |
| From: | Backley B ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 81-060-703, 81-60-703, NUDOCS 8107080505 | |
| Download: ML20005B659 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:h 70s%, UNITED STATES 1
- Ov ENVIRONMENTA L 8'"OTECTION AGENCY 230 SOU EADRO N St.
[ CH' CACO. IL'rolS FC'Od Q. 4Md' PEPLY To ATTENTION oF: 81 2 6 JU" E81 s s / JL 9} i-{ jul 07 58* F (.%f""g' 7 Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief .' M. g/ Licensing Branch N..! ,,, 3 ~ Division of Licensing Nuclear Regulator Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: 81-060-703 D-NRC-F060ll-MI
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
We have.'ompleted our review of the Draft Environmen+al Impact Statement (EIS,) for the Enrico Fermi Unit 2 Operating License. It is planned that fuel-load-Ing of the Fermi plant will begin in tbvember of 1982. The impacts associated with the application for an operating license are + hose related to the genera-tion of electricity at this facility and not from construction activities. Our comments on this EIS deal with the impacts related to the plant's normal opera-tion. Based upen our review of the Draft Environmental impact Statement, we have rated the prcject as LO (Lack of Objection) and classified the EIS as Category I (Suf fIcient information). The date and ciassifIcation of our comments wiii be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on other agencies' projects. We apprecta+e the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. When the Final EIS is available, please forward three copies to us. If you or your staff has any questions in regard to cur comments, please contact Bill Franz at 886-6687 or comma clally at 312/886-6687. Sincerely yours, b / ) Barbara Taylor Backley, C f Environmental Impact Review Staff Office of Environmental Review Attachment ^107080505 810626 fg l P'DR ADOCK 05000341 D PDR
4 Of fico of Environmentcl RIvicu, U.S. Environmental Protsction Ag:ncy Region V's Comments on tho Drsft Environmental impact Statement for the Enrico Fermi Unit 2 Operating License This Draf t Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been written to assess the affects fuel-loading and power generation at this nuclear plant will hcve upon the environment. Enrico Fermi Unit 2 is a 3,428 megawatt thermal, Il50 megawatt electric bollIng - water reactor. Exhaust steam wllI be con-densed by circulating water through wet natural draft cooling towers; makeup water for the coolying system will be withdrawn from Lake Erle. Water Quality impacts One of the most significant areas of potential environmental Impaci related to the operation of a power plant is the design and location of the intake structure. The intake structure for the Enrico Fermi plant is composed of an intake canal and flat traveling screens outside the pumphouse. The design of the intake structure has been approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pending additional fish studies. These studies are to determine the fish. loses at Fermi Unit 2 once the plant begins operation. The intake canal is a dike which extends into Lake Erie with its mouth open to the lake. The Final EIS should discuss whether or not consideration has ever been given to closing the mouth opening to the lake with a porous dike. A porous dike would act as a filter to aquatic organisms while p'srmiting water to pass through the opening. The Final EIS should assess tha benefits which could result from such a Intake design modification and whether or not this modification is feasble. The EIS has Indicated the intake canal must be dredged periodically to maintalh optimal depth within the canal. There is a need to determine the pollutional characterization of these sediments. The pollutional characterization will deter-mine if special handling is required for alsposal. The applicant should evaluate the sediments, using the E.P. Toxicity method described in the May 19, 1980 Federal Register, to determine if the material is hazardous, and a bulk sediment analysis snould also be provided. From Information in the Draft EIS, it appears that dredgl'ig has taken place periodically in the intake canal. The Final EIS should Indicate the frequency of dredging, quantity of material, past pollutional characterization, and an environmental description of disposal site location. Information on previous dredging operations can provide an Indication of future needs at the Fermi site. Our Agency has recently published Effluent Guidelines for Steam Electric Generat-Ing Stations. These guidelines require the minimization of chlorine levels in the cooling water to control condenser fouling. Information should be provided on the ability of Detroit Edison to comply with these new Effluent Guidelines, and the levels of chierine expected in the discharge. The EIS has indicated that there is the potential to have zero chlorine discharge. The Final EIS should indicate whether or not Detroit Edison will implement this program of zero discharge of chlorine. l l
. The discussion on chlorination also Indicates that the use of sodlum sulfite as a dechlorinating agent has a tendency to reduce oxygen levels in the dis-charge water. To minimize this impact, consideration should be given to aerating the discharge prior to release to Lake Erie. The discussion on dechlorination Indicated another agent (sodlum thlosulfate) could be substituted for sodium sulfite. Sodium thlosulf ate has a longer re-action time, and does Impart odors and tastes to the water._ ff sodlum thiosulfate is used as a dechlorination agent, the discharge should be con-tained until the reaction has been completod. The Michigan Water Quality Standards has established a mixing zone for the cooling tower blowdown as the area within the 1.67 C Isotherm. This is discussed in Section 4.3.1.4 and Table 4.2. of the Draft EIS. Table 4.2 provides Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Detroit Edison Staff predictions on the size of the heated effluent plune. The plume sizes provided in Table 4.2 all exceed the State of Michigan's maximum plume size 1.67 C isotherm. However, the conclusion In the text Indicates that the estimated plunes will be from 2 to 50 times smaller in area than the State Water Quality limits, and therefore, the impacts should not be adverse. We concur with your conclusion but find the text in Section 4.3.l.4 to be in error. Our calculations Indicate the size of the 1.67 C isotherm to be 2,9x10 square meters not 2.91x10 square meters. Radiation impacts The Draft EIS Indicates the Enrico Fermi Unit 2 Nuclear Reactor meets the require-ments of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1. The annual dose commitment to the general public in the unrestricted area for IIquid effluent does not exceed 5 millirem to the whole body. Radiation dose commitment to ihe popula+1on from release of radio-activity to the blosphere Is minimal and within ostablished limits. Reference was made to Table S-3 with regard to transportation dose to workers and the public, and for low-level waste disposal at land burial facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Indicates there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment." It should be noted that 3 of 6 commercial low-level nuclear waste disposal sites have been closed because of serious seepage of radioactive contaminants from those sites. The impact of the additional waste disposal that will be imposed on the three remaining sites need to be addressed in terms of land use and the effect on the environment.}}