ML20037A429
| ML20037A429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1970 |
| From: | Quarles J INTERIOR, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140850 | |
| Download: ML20037A429 (4) | |
Text
FRO 2:
DATE C F DOCUMENT DATE RECIIVE3 NO.
~
)
U.S. W -
3 of the Interior 4 70 9-30-10 3128 m an,inston, n. c. 20240
,, g, m,,,
Jotun 7 Quarles, Jr.
TO:
ORIO.s CCa OTH EKa h
O CONCURRENCE O
DATE ANSWERED Harold L. Price a
arczas^av O
comuENT O
evi NO A N NECESSARY Cl ASSIFs POST OFFICE FILE CC%
j 4 50-269 50-270 50-287 U
REo. NO, CEsCRIPTION: (Must Be Unclassi6ed)
REFERRED TO DATE I RECEIVED BY DATE g
Ltr re our 7-22-70 ltr... submitting
{
Ccas::ents on Duke's Enviro Statement b[,
jsn ACTION in for MATSMorig to be __
for oconee UnitJ 1, 2 & 3......**
re' turned to 016)
N DT:MTMFf' TON-g p aesulatory File (p)(1 es docket)
Mr Enh)h en docketi ccmpliance(2)(av)
- w. a i
Felton l
I)h (
E Y
din n.,a
.. 3y De oung F _ Me., ern a
N. Dube P. Howe (2) a Le M,v 1, h e b.o ta e,-
fod u.s. Atomic cNERoy co'WISSION MAIL CONTROL FORM roaa ^EC:sses E 5 60 s
@ u.s. oovynnisant painfine errvcan ass se
, x l
D W JW @_J u1 A e 8001140 [ O
[]
,_,d 4.nn
~
p10 T"ol A I?
' f W.a *:
iug/4.;% ~ IJmted btates Department of the Inteno
,%m>q1 m
q
- \\.
g-D (g,i.1\\li% x
-.M.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY t
MA
- I 7"E WASHINGTON, D.C.
20240 6-(
d September 28, 1970 h
h,,
h q*
t?, r. ;,,;; p" -
a/
1 a
A U "'. t 4/
Dear Air. Price:
Fila O y 8! <
d Regulatory d
This is in response to your Ictter of July 22, transmitting the
-(
y draft enviromaental statement prepared by the Duke Power Company for tne Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, M
AEC Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287. We have reviewed the statement and other material available on the project and offer the follovring comments for.your consideration, i
s We are aware of Duke Power Company's efforts to maintain
. the quality of the environment and their close cooperative work v71th several of the field offices of this Department. The Com-pany's many studies, consultations and past monitoring programs and the establishment of its Departments of Water Resources Research and Public Health and Sanitation indicate their willing-ness to promote efforts to prevent or climinate damage to the environment. However, the environmental statement should contain pertinent information regarding impacts, both short term and long range, of the proposed plant on the site emirans.
Such a statement should reasonably contain information on pre-s dictable and possible detrimental effects, investigations planned 1
or taking place to determine unknown effects, and the back-grcunds and capabilities of organizations retained to conduct
'b the investigations. Most important, the statement should be
[d sufficiently comprehensive to permit regulatory and other y
revicw agencies to evaluate the environmentalimpact in light
\\
of their own areas of competence. We think Duke Power Com-(
pony's documnnts provide a very broad brush treatment of envi2 cnmental impact and summarize only the applicant's r
appraisal of the project's potential impact. Thus, we cannot provide a meaningful appraisal of project environmental impact until the docunients are substantially cypanded.
n\\ Nsl s i
V
%N 1
T 0
D d,,,,,D C U g a g' -
bb t,
C y
e T ni w o
,J
"(b] " Mrd a
% gBQ v
312a
/
\\
5
\\
Ig \\
T;t,
, ~,
A J 4
(-
w x,
Nya
.s q,~,
.y.
t k,
Q
\\
~
\\
S s'.,m,-
s,
- < n s
t
~
,mm s
s, g
y bv
'(
3 a
2
- 8 ~, a.
-We offer the follgving comments for use in completing the
-5 a Environmental In.pdet Statement:
g
,y
%3 s
k 1.Qnformation should be presented on the proposed and alterf 1t
, native facilities and anticipated environmental concentrations of radionuclides in the Keowee River. The concentrations in the' Keoy,aa Rjver, ihoujh below those required by 10CFR20, appear
.to be Abstantially' higher than are normally experienced. Levels shoulc' be,idemified b)th for the proposed and alternative control s
[3 CTF.cilipes. Although indicated radioactive wastes in the tailrace may'be only 2(percent offthe maximum permissable limit, this could b(todnigh when a'dddd40-other sources of radiation in the t
irba. ' Tat capphility a'tlu ecpt of ektipment which is and which y
. dould b,e provMed to limit annual avbglge and short-term radio-actiirity;in theMpper reachej ;o[Hartwell Reservoir and especially s
3 s
,at the C1dmson water in~ake should bc identified as a basis for
.h
' affirming whether app'165riate control h3s been provided.
}.
'a '
V L2, Information should be plescoted on the efforts the applicant e
\\
~is making to study thermal effects and prevent negative impact not only in the Reservoir but downstream',' Previous studies by s
,,Dr. C. J. Velz and afubs'equent letter 4.f April 7,1966, from a.
<the then Secretary of Interior Uddu,to'the'rederal Power Com-
,,, mission concluded tliat thermal effects of the' proposed Oconce -
c
-.,[% fishery resowccesi" The establishment of the Water Quality Act
$ qucilear Station,woulli " provide no det$Emental effects upon,the
/
ggy,
4 41,1965 and the publication of the National Tecimical Committee hipbrt on Water Quality Criteria madentrecessary to review
"~
s th'bse previous comments."Nor is it cleaitin the present mate $Qi'
{
\\:
,.whe'ther Dr. Velz"s 1966 report concerned 'itself.with the entire,,
~ iucicar megawatt capacity presently planned for the project. ^ W s
'Thei'efore, the environmental statement should contain informatioM
'7 that thermal efmtent.s will ha re no adverse effects on fish,. wildlife i
,or other aquatic organisms.' The' statement should include the possible interact! orts of several ndelear stations and additional A
units on the reservoirs undeb the proposed and alternative wastes
. heat disposal system.
g e) 3.
Information should be presented %n proposed an,d alternative; p
,?
facilities to prevent the mechanical and/or thermal destruction or damage 'of fi:sh and"other aquaticfrganisms drawn to or pass-ing through the cooling ws.ter intakey.V
[
D y%
F 2
.s s
s
(
g w -
,{,. "
uk!
% i}
. S
_ JL(f r
~ Q
~ T 3!26-Qn 7
o 3
s.
'[(
si
_.2 -
1-
~
l o'
u.~
x.
~
s
- 4.
Include a section'on proposed and alternative chemical treat -
ment for condensergleaning and other uses of chemicals which may be used.,The section should include a. statement,on the -
anticipated effects of the chemicals on the biota and provide assur-ances.that they will not be toxic to the aquatic environment.
c 5.
Present information on the pre-and post-operational water quality monitoring programs now under way or planned for the plant and an evaluation of their effectiveness in appraising the impact of the lant on the environment, particularly as it p
relates to subsequent recreational and water supply use.
6.
Present information on anticipated requirements for waste control facilities as additional units are placed on line.
7.
Present information on the visual impact of the Oconee Nucled
' Station and other construction and plans to minimize this impact.-
r In summary, we think the environmental statement is incomplete and should be revised to include the material indicated abpve.
The environmental statement should be a self-contained document.
4
. We appreciate the opportunity of commenting upon this statement.
Sincerely yours, m
7f-ps...bw
^
sistant to the Secretary.
sfor Policy Planning and Research Mr. Harold L. Price y
Director of Regulation Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 D'
L m'
^Q I
A 3
D sal D
vze
v =
% J:.6,~
'~)
United State.s Department of the Interior e
+
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.
20240 September 28, 1970
Dear Mr. Price:
This is in response to your letter of July 22, transmitting the draft environmental statement prepared by the Duke Power Company for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, AEC Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287. We have reviewed the statement and other material available on the project and offer the following comments for your consideration.
We are aware of Duke Power Company's efforts to maintain the quality of the emironment and their close cooperative work with several of the field offices of this Department. The Com-pany's many studies, consultations and past monitoring programs and the establishment of its Departments of Watu Resources Research and Public Health and Sanitation indicate their willing-ness to promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. However, the environmental statement should contain pertinent information regarding impacts, both short term and long range, of the proposed plant on the site environs.
Such a statement should reasonably contain information on pre-dictable and possible detrimental effects, investigations planned or taking place to determine unknown effects, and the back-grounds and capabilities of organizations retained to conduct the investigations. Most important, the statement should be.
sufficiently comprehensive to permit regulatory and other l-review agencies to evaluate the environmentel impact in light of their own areas of competence. We think Duke Power Com-pany's documents provide a very broad brush treatment of i
environmental impact and summarize only the applicant's appraisal of the project's potential impact. Thus, we cannot provide a meaningful appraisal of project environmental impact until the documents are substantially expandec TH km,_S.1.na 3128 e
l..
~.
We offer the following comments for use in completing the Environmental Impact Statement:
1.
Information should be presented on the proposed and alter-native facilities and anticipated environmental concentrations of radionuclides in the Keowee River. The concentrations in the Keowee River, though below those required by 10CFR20, appear to be substantially higher than are normally experienced. Levels should be identified both for the proposed and alternative control facilities. Although indicated radioactive wastes in the tailrace may be only 24 percent of the maximum permissable limit, this could be too high when added to other sources of radiation in the area. The capability and cost of equipment which is and which could be provided to limit annual average and short-term radio-activity in the upper reaches of Hartwell Reservoir and especially at the Clemson water intake should be identified as a basis for i
affirming whether appropriate control has been provided.
2.
Information should be presented on the efforts the applicant is making to study thermal effects and prevent negative impact l
not only in the Reservoir but downstream. Previous studies by Dr. C. J. Velz and a subsequent letter of April 7,1966, from the then Secretary of Interior Udall to the. Federal Pow.r Com-mission concluded that thermal effects of the proposed Oconee Nuclear Station would " provide no detrimental effects upon the fishery resources. " The establishment of the Water Quality Act -
of 1965 and the publication of the National Technical Committee Report on Water Quality Criteria made it necessary to review these previous comments. Nor is it clear in the present material-whether Dr. Velz's 1966 report concerned itself with the entire nuclear megawatt capacity presently plann,:d for the proPct.
Therefore, the environmental statement should contain information that thermal effluents will have no adverse effects on fish,. wildlife or other aquatic organisms. The statement should include the possible interactions of several nuclear stations and additional j
units on the reservoirs under the proposed and alternative waste heat disposal system.
3.
Information should be presented on proposed ansl alternative facilities to prevent the mechanical and/or thermal destruction
'or damage of fish and other aquatic organisms drawn to or pass-
[
ing through the cooling water intakes.
2 3128' 9
.___.____.___._____________._____________U..._~'____._______________._..
._m
)
4.
Include a section on proposed and alternative chemical treat-ment for condenser cleaning and other uses of chemicals which may be used. The section should include a statement on the anticipated effects of the chemicals on the biota and provide assur-ances that they will not be toxic to the aquatic environment.
5.
Present information on the pre-and post-operational wuer quality monitoring programs now under way or planned for the plant and an evaluation of their effectiveness in appraising the impact of the plant on the environment, particularly as it relater to suusequent recreational and water supply use.
6.
Present information on anticip:.ted requirements for waste control facilities as additional units are placed on line.
7.
Present information'on the visual impact of the Oconee Nuclear Station and other construction and plans to minimize this impact.
In summary, we think the environmental statement is incomplete and should be revised to include the material indicated above.
The environmental statement should be a self-contained document.
We appreciate the opportunity of commenting upon this statement.
Sincerely yours, m
k':,- jsu.. in.
/ Assistant to the Secretary
'for Policy Planning and Research Mr. Harold L. Price Director of Regulation Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 k
I 3
3'26
.