ML20054M146
| ML20054M146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1982 |
| From: | Jeffery Wood COMMERCE, DEPT. OF, NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC |
| To: | Larry Wheeler Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207120009 | |
| Download: ML20054M146 (4) | |
Text
'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Nati:n:1 Ocnnic and Atmr:ph ric Administr:ti:n s
/
Washington. D C. 20230 OFFICE OF THE ADM!NISTDATOR July 6, 1982 Mr. Louis L. Wheeler Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
This is in reference to your draf t environmental impact statement entitled "Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2."
The enclosed connents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving three copies of the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely, lV%1 f.h Joyce M. Wood Director Office of Ecology and Conservation
Enclosure:
Memo from :
Andrew Robertson Office of Marine Pollution Assessment Ruth Rehfus National Marine Fisheries Service 8207120009 820706 PDR ADOCK 05000443 D
\\
/
UZlTE] CTATE] EEPARTMENT CF CZMMEZCE j
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SFRVICE Services Division Habitat Protection Branch 7 Pleasant Street Gloucester, MA 01930 June 30, 1982 TO:
PP/EC - Joyce M. Wood, Director Office of Ecolo and Conservation
, M
'~fus F/NER54 - Ruth Re FROM:
SUBJECT:
NMFS's Review of the DES related to the Operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 - DEIS Control No. #8205.13 Attached is our response as requested in your memo of May 27, 1982, concerning our review of the above subject.
Background Information This Draft Environmental Statement (#8205.13) is an updated assess-ment of environmental impacts associated with the operation of the Seabrook Station 1 and 2.
We commented on the first assessment in DEIS #7404.54 on June 28, 1974.
Since that time, changes in plant design and operation have been instituted which will minimize impacts on fisheries resources and associated habitats. Therefore, we have no comments.
Attachment e
i l
1 i
9 l
\\
~
UNITED OTATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
- f
~
N ti n:1 C:::nis cnd Atm:cph ria Admini tr:ti:n
- .... v 'j 0FFICE OF MARINE POLLUTIJN ASSESSMENT Rockville, Maryland 20852 Da te:
June 30, 1982 To:
PP/EC - Joyce Wood lAl$
From:
D/MP - Andrew Robertson
Subject:
Draf t Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2 Subject draft environmental statement has been reviewed. The following review comments are restricted to matters pertaining only to the marine environment, and only those that have not been addressed in earlier documents (such as Final Environmental Statement -- Construction Phase):
1.
The applicant should provide the reference minimum detectable oxidant residual (page 4-11).
2.
There appears to be some confusion between the DES and the pre-liminary draft NPDES Pennit as regards specification of the form of the biocide to be used:
the DES indicates sodium hypochlorite solution (page 4-10), while the preliminary draft NPDES Permit just states chlorine (page H-2).
3.
The " Chemicals added to discharge," Table 4.3 (page 4-10) should be included in the monitoring program.
4.
Figure 4.8 (page 4-20) is confusing in that the mean temperatures don't " match up," one end with the other (December and January).
They should be approximately the same, unless the mode of plotting is accomplished in a manner not readily understood.
5.
"The addition of chlorine to the station cooling waters will likely result in several organic and inorganic halogenated compounds being discharged to the waters of the Gulf of Maine" (page 52).
Initial studies of chlorination (at several levels) effects on waters that are to be used for cooling, as a function of season, temperature, anmonia content, pH, etc. should be conducted. The resulting data should be used to answer the questions and points raised (about the kind and amounts of chlorination products) on pages 5-2 through 5-5, obviating the need to extrapolate other data.
i i
6.
The approach of 5. above could also be used to provide "a more precise estimate" of residual oxidant concentration (addressed I
on page 5-4).
7.
The reasons for the many of the differences in parameters for l
monitoring requirements for outfalls (pages H-9 and beyond) aren't readily apparent. For those discharging similar wastes, the requirements should be similar.
I 8.
Monitoring parameter requirements should be based, at least in part, on the results of actions associated vf th 3., 5. and 6.
aboVO.
1 1
i i
L i
t a
- l i
l l
___..__.-._,.-.-.-...m___,
__