ML20031H321
| ML20031H321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Maniko R MONROE COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Snyder D MICHIGAN, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110270360 | |
| Download: ML20031H321 (5) | |
Text
.
Monroe County
- "W'$
Planning Department A
f O
nt Commission e
8 e"
=
1410 EAST FIRST STREET, MONROE. MICHIGAN 4 8161 pg
%s Telephone s (313) 243 7093 1817 October 15, 1981 A
ROYCE R. MANIKO, rl PI:nning Divoctor CERNARD J. FELDER.
Cwntn:ssion Chairin:n Southeast Michigan D4
/SSA ;3 Council of Governments
.$rg ?
1249 Washington Blvd.-Book Building B
9 Detroit, Michigan 48226
<n \\ g Attn.: Daniel R. Snyder
Subject:
Final EIS 200.2-F81-20 United Stoies Nuclear Regulatory Commission Areawide Clearinghouse Code LU 810205
Dear Mr. Snyder:
We have completed our review of the above prefaced subject matter and advise as follows:
" Moved by Mr. Weiss and seconded by Mr. Chapman that the Monroe County Planning Commission accept and place on file this Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant,thit No.2; and forward the comments outlined herein to SEMCOG ond the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Motion carried."
We further enciese a copy of staff memorandum in this regard to indicate the consideratiens which went into the resolution of this issue. In addition we enclose a list of citizens com-ments.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to respond to the subject matter os it offects areawide plans adopted by our Planning Commission.
Sincerely, cL T Yb S'W Royce R. Moniko, AICP, Director enclosures c.c.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RM:mm hPI 0
e110270360 eitois PDR ADOCK 05000341 D
l The comments outlined herein are the result of citizen input pursuant to the Final Enviroc--
mental Statement of Enrico Fermi 2,ot the regular Monroe County Planning Commission meeting, October 14, 1981.
1.
One citizen expressed his concern for the lack of information regarding fish kills; specifically in the No. I pump house.
2.
Another concern was for the high water table; its effect on the load bear capacity of the foundation, possible rupture or rusting through of underground pipes, and the' Vein of water" in the NW corner of the plant.
3.
The municipal water intake (City of Monroe) is in the " backyard" of the plant and there is no way to flush it out in the event there is on occident.
4.
What will be the effects of the cooling towers on the'btmospheric conditions" or micro climate of Berlin Township.
5.
There is no elaboration on the floodplain which encompasses the plant not enough information on the types and levels of radiation and how they may be harmful.
6.
There are no l'ndications as to what will be done with the spent radioactive wastes.
Will Edison apply for additional on site storage immediately after lincensing is granted?
7.
Who monitors quality control of the construction operations at the plant?
The comments outlined above are the concerns of Monroe County citizens and do not necessarily reflect those of the Planning Commission.
~---r
-.----v--,, - -
.n.
m.-. -,.-- --
.m--
,r-n
AMENDMENT TO A OME: A-95 REVIEW I001 Monroe County, Michigan MEMORANDUM T O: Monroe County Planning Commission DATE:
October 9, 1981 FROM: Statt
SUBJECT:
Case No. 200.2 81-20 Final Environmental Impact Statement - Regional Impact -
Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan Project Description The United States Nuclear Regulat,ory Commission has submitted a Final Environmental Statement for Areawide Clearinghouse Review. The proposed action is for the issuance of an operating license to the Detroit Edic;a Company for the startup and operation of the Enrico Fermi Power Plant 2.
The nuclear plant is located on Lake Erie in Monroe County, approximately eight miles northeast of Monroe, Michigan.
The facility will support a boiling-water reactor (BWR) to produce up to 3428 megawatts thermal.
A steam turbine generator will use this heat to produce approximately 1150 net megawatts of electrical power capacity.
The information in this statement represents the second assessment of the environmental impact associated with Enrico Fermi 2 pursuant to the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations /Part 51 (10 CF 51) of the Commission's regulations.
After an application to construct this plant was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 19G9, their staff reviewed impacts that would occur during the construction and operation of this plant.
The staff evaluation was issued as a Final Environmental State-ment (FES) in July 1972.
As a result of that environmental review, a safety review, an evaluation by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards, and public hearings in Monroe, Michigan and Washington D.C.,
the NRC issued a permit in September 1972 for the construction of Enrico Fermi 2.
As of March 1981, the construction on Enrico Fermi 2 was 80%
complete.
With a proposed fuel loading date of November 1982, Detroit Edison has applied for a license to operate the plant and submitted (in October 1974) the required satety and environmental reports to support this application.
This Final Environmental Statcment (EIS) presents the activities associated with the proposed operation of the plant, and potential impacts as viewed by NRC staff.
Comments / Analysis Staff reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement in June of 1981 and forwarded comments to SEMCOG and the NRC.
The comments were based on questions raised by staff as well as those that were brought out at a meeting with Detroit Edison and several other governmental agencies that serve the County.
Below is the list of questions that were erought out ir. A-95 Review of the Draft Environmental Statement.
These assues are followed by staff's interpretation of the NRC's response to our original queries.
200.2-5-81-20 Fermi 2 page 2 1.
In the portion of the document that summarizes Regional Water Use (pg 2-6) NRC staff suggested the "by State standards, the water (Lake Erie) is considered to be polluted to the extent that sports involving total body contact with the water should be avoided."
Although this statement may have been true several years ago, staff feels it is errraeous at this time.
This opinion has been verified by the Director of the Monroe County Euvironmental Health Division.
This statement has been deleted in the Final Enviromnental State-ment (pg 2-6).
2.
Under the title Environmental Impacts (4.4)(4.4.1.1) it is stated that three endangered or threatened species exist on the site, the l
American Lotus (endangered), the Swamp-Rose Hibiscus (threatened),
l and the Eastern Fox Snake (threatened), and further "because station operation wi t' not involve destruction of habitat beyond that which has alreacj occurred during construction, the staff believes that these species w121 not be effected."
planning staff feels tnat this is insufficient in terms of what has happened.
NRC stafi does not mention whether or not all, or a IIftle, or a substantial amount of habitat has already been destroyed.
In the following paragraph the same argument was used for acceptable levels of noise.
They just state that noise levels after construction will be more acceptable than those during construction with no explana-tion of what the noise levels during construction affected.
In response to this NRC stated that this Environmental Statement is related to the operation of EF2 and not the construction.
They further stated that this issue was brought our in the Environmental Statement relating to the construction of the plant; staff investi-gated this and concurs with NRC's findings.
3.
Section 4.5.4 Radiological Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans; in the beginning of this Section NRC staff reports that " terrestrial and aquatic biota will receive doses approximately the same of some-what higher than humans receive", while in the last sentence of the section they state "other living organisms (other than humans) are not much more radiosensitive than humans."
This suggests to Planning staff that on one hand biota will receive thc same or more radiation than humans and on the other, that living organisms are more radiosensitive (however small) than humans.
Staff interprets this to mean that other livin organisms will oe affected to a s
greater extent than humans while at the sEme time having less pro-tection and resistance.
iGC staff responded to this by stating: "While the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible, and while increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental inter-actions with other stresses (heat biocides, etc.) no biota have yet been discovered that show a sensitivity (in terms of increased morbidity of mortality) to radiation exposures as low as those expected in the area surrouncting Fermi 2."
They further stated that: "Although guidelines have not been established for acceptable limits for radiation exposure to-these species, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species.
_. ~. _ _ _ - _
d 200.2-5-81-20 Fermi 2 phge 3 4.
In Section 6.1.2 Accident Experience and Observed Impacts, NRC staff discusses the impacts of an accident on the public.
They state that no significant impacts (due to accider.ts) are likely to occur over time periods of a few decades (Enrico Fermi 2 reactor life - 40 years).
They further state that "This experience base is not large enough to permit a reliable quantitive statistical infer-ence."
planning staff feels that if their experience base is not extensive enough to permita reliable quantitive statistical inference, they should not state that no significant impacts are likely to i
occur due to accidents.
In response to this question NRC staff stated that: "As of mid-1980, there were 60 commercial nuclear power reactor units......The com-bined experience with these units represents approximately 500 l
reactor years of operation over an elapsed time of about 20 years.
This suggests that significant environmental impacts due to acci-dents are very unlikely to occur over time periods of a few decades'.'
1 5.
Lastly, staff, in reviewing the document observed numerous statements l
and sets of data that were dated and
.0 lor.ger correct.
Detroit Edison personnel concurred with staff's concerns in these areas and are forwarding their comments to the NRC.
planning staff observed that all of the data in question has been updated and/or corrected.
i
.R_ecommenda t ion That the Monroe County planning Commission accept and place on file this Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic power Plant, Unit No. 2; and forward the comments outlined herein to SEMCOG and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2 i
i i
i l
4
..