ML20052B726
| ML20052B726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1982 |
| From: | Blanchard B INTERIOR, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ER-82-528, NUDOCS 8205030505 | |
| Download: ML20052B726 (2) | |
Text
..
United States Department of the Interior H,
1 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
[
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20240 ER 82/528 g 7g g gg s
9 s
f
,c3 U
~ ' ' ' '
A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 f
+M' 3 0198F E Division of Licensing
~
} uggj{?jQf[
/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m
//
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
4
()
Thank you for your letter of March 19,1982, transmitting copies of the draf t environmental impact statement related to the operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2, Lake County, Ohio. Our comments are presented according to the format of the statement or by subject.
Fish and Wildlife Resources in several areas of concern the draf t statement referenced supporting dato but did not supply sufficient dato in the text. In the Ichthyoplankton part of Section 4.3.6.2, o summary (e.g., the mean concentration of each species or taxa of larvae for each depth contour sompted in the opplicant's 1974 ichthyoplankton survey) should be provided.
Likewise, in Section 5.5.l.3, the monitoring by Jackson and Temme of bird impaction at the Davis-Besse cooling tower is referenced but dato are not provided. It would be helpful if the overage annual number of birds and species killed was provided in the text along with the dominant species of birds involved.
Overall, the document provided sufficient accurate information for our review of potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of the operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and we ogree with your conclusions.
_Rodiological Monitoring Plans for monitoring apparently do not include ground water, since this sample media is not shown on Table 5.5. We suggest that the shallow ground water, which is used as a source of domestic supply by those living in the vicinity as noted on page 4-15, should be included in the monitoring program--both to establish background Information and to guard against the possibility of unforeseen contamination.
Internal Inconsistencies in addition, we believe the statement contains a number of discrepancies that should be resolved prior to issuance of the final environmer..al impact statement. Section 4.2.4.1 Indicates that the intake structures are located 2,550 feet from shore in 21 feet of water, but Section 4.3.3 indicates that the intakes are 3,500 feet offshore in 26 feet of water.
The discharge structure is indicated as being 1,650 feet from shore in 19 feet of water in Section 4.2.4.2, but 2,500 feet offshore in 22 feet of water in Section 4.3.3. Sections (pol B
l 00503 0 gu g
I i
A. Schwencer, Chief 2
,l 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.1, and Tables 4.1 and 5.1 provide information on water withdrawal rates, discharge rates, evoporation rates, makeup rates, blowdown rates, and drif t rates that do appear to be totally consistent.
We hope these comments will be helpful to you in the preparation of a final statement.
Sincerely, lf(fA., f/MO t'l fBruce Blanchord, Director Environmental Project Review s
l "l
5 i
w
-~- -.., -
y+
.e.
,e
.~%
s T
ewe.
,e
--+-
-m--
,y--
em-r-