ML20077J682

Comments on June 1983 Des (NUREG-0974),incorporating Fish & Wildlife Svc to State of PA

ML20077J682
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/12/1983
From:	Zitzer P LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-0974, RTR-NUREG-974 NUDOCS 8308180107
Download: ML20077J682 (7)

Text

.

limerick ecology action (215) 326-9122 POTTSTOWN, PA.19464 BOX 761 1

L O

N O

O Ld a

C C

O C

COMMENTS ON NUREG 0974, June 1983

,0

.e Draft Environmental Statement for

""g*

Limerick Generating Station O

Units 1 and 2, Dockets 50-352,353 g

3 w

Submitted by Phyllis Zitzer, C

U President of Limerick Ecology Action August 12, 1983 h

C 2

5 C

O O

.C u

6 O

L O

Q b

O E

e CP G o\\

8308190107 030812 PDR ADOCK 05000352 D

PDR

limerick ecology action (215) 326-9122 POTTSTOWN, PA 19464 BOX 761 L

O N

"The environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents will O

be provided in a supplement to this statement." (1)

Q "The plant specific review of the Limerick probabilistic risk b

assessment analysis of severe accidents is not ccmplete." (2) h O

U Yet despite this obvious lack of completion of NRC Staff reviews O

of the Limerick PRA and SARA, the resulting action called for by the NRC Staff in this document is, g

" issuance of operating licenses for Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2." (3) g C

Furthermore, the only discussion of emergency planning impacts

• O is ludicrous. "The Staff believes the only noteworthy potential source of impacts to the public from emergency planning wquid be d

associated with the testing of the early notification system." (4)

OO The next sentence discusses noise levels from existing alert sys-tems and concludes that noise impacts will be " infrequent and in-significant". (5)

Cd w

C Most of the rest of this document attempts to justify continued O

construction and operation of the Point Pleasant water diversion h

plan for use at Limerick, g

O For the record, Limerick Ecology Action wishes to bring to your L

attention the attached letter from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, dated July 20, 1983 that discusses alternatives to the g

construction of the Point Picasant water diversion and the Merrill O

Creek Reservoir.

Of In view of the conclusion already recommended by the NRC Staff in regards to the issuance of an operating license, members of LEA question whather the NRC intends to objectively review the revised contentions, testimony and litigation yet to be filed in this proceeding by intervenors in this case.

L O

Q 6

(1) Abstract 111, DES (2) Summary & Conclusions viii, DES b

(3) Abstract lii, DES d

(4) (5) p.5-91, DES

q

,,i."

i

,,s e,f. s :~ _n,

'j UNIT ED Sl A1LS

'i DEPARTMENT OF THE IN TERIOR

_'O FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE v.

c.~, u,...

..e NEWTOtJ COHNE A. tA ASS ACHUSE11S O2158 Jul. 2 0 1983 M r.

R. Timothy Venton Deputy Annistant Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Honou rces P.O. Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dear M r.

Weuton:

This respondo to you r June 1,

1 9 8.3, l e t t e r t o I> i r e c t o r Jantzen requenting the S e r v i c o 's commenta on three alternativen to supply water to the Limerick Nuclear Genera ting Station, Ches to r and K o n t co m e ry Countico, Pennsylvania.

~

Alternative 1 (red u c tion o f Schuyl kill Eiver flowc/uce of Bluc harsh atorage).,

DRBC Docket No.69-310 CF p3need two rectrictions on water withdrawn from the Schuylkill River at Limerick: a) flow n

a. t the Pot ts tow n ga ge muut exceed 530 era with one unit opera ting and 560 cfn with two unita operating; cnd b) there muut be no O

withdrawala when water t e n ].e ra t u rea below Limerick exceed I S C,

except du ring April, May, and June when the flows as measurea at the Pottutown cugo exceed 1,791 e ra.

Use of thin alternative would not require relaxation of the 530/560 cro flow reatriction e s ta l.li s he d by the DRDC.

It would require only that attentien be given to identifying and u t i l i a i r.g t ). e potential for utoring nafficier.t makeup water in Blue March heservoir (noe diceuanlon of B)uu Marnh under Alternative 2 ).

Given a recurrence of the 1965 dro2cht, approxima tely 8,000 acre-feet of stored water would be required to meet DR h C 's _ flow restriction of 530 cra with one u r. i t operating at maximun. <atput.

T !. e r e are f$, 0 0 0 acre-feet of uterage currently in blue Maran R e s e rv oi r for induutria)

. nd municipal use and another 6,600 acre-feet for water quality control downstream.

We believe that the Philadelphia Electric Company could operate Unit 1 using the Blue Maruh Runervoi r as an interim cource of make-up water until environmentally-oound storage facilities could be develoIed.

Initiation of operation of' Unit 2 and continued long-term operation of Unit 1 shoule be con tingent upon either expanding esieting atorage reservoira or developing new sources of atorage in the Schuylkill drainage. In any event, we do not reccomend that the required flown of $30 und $60 cfs be reduced in any alternative plan.

4

s

~

f We believe that the n e e. n a r-t r i c t i es:

culd Le r e l ri z e d without d e c r is d i n c water quality a c e r.

tr,nn.

The re;triction vnn originnily ri e s tcned ie p at et

v..1 e r qun)iLy end finhezy resources and n p; t a:s wei.hnt con rsativ-in tcht of resulin of the 1976 C O P /. M } Jtudy for th.

.c h uy ) t i ] ] hiver.

For

<1: ":le, the w n ter quality model decoloped for the study predicted very few violstionn of Uthte, t.. a d a r d :

'er diunclveJ oxygen in the Pnilndelphin a ren a t a flow e f P') O e f i andn wat~r tempernture of 2 9 C.

The ntudy ulno predicted th water quality wou;d i n. t r o v e in the future nn :r. e r e newnce t r e n t ra e n :. planta were operaded.

The bepartment of the Interior *u l ') L c.

Enter Qunlity Ce. trol Stu!y for blue F. a r s h Renervoir c.ade 91nila:

bnerwntiona, i n : i e n t i r.c that dinsolved oxygen levels in the l o.c er Schuylkil. L;ver

20 not drop below 4.0 ::. c / l unti' flew:

wee Icau tnnn WO c r a.

I. r. y prepoun1 or plan to ralnx t r. "

.( eend construint on w11- ; r t s. t -

uhould be baned upon n thoroach

.ne.

tication of the relniirnrhip between consumptive w i thd ra w n):

nt h,inerick and roeuttant autor quality alteratienn downctre n,

particularly t l. c o e invelving water t e m pe rn t u re and disnelved oxy rer..

1. ! t e r n n t i v e 2 (Pon:.t ru c t i on of the Del Creek Rene rs el r).

In !ettern dnt.a r' - b r u a r y l ', 'l i,

and J u n t-

'S, l '; '.;,

he 4

De;nrtment of t h 'c Inte-i r recon.c r.ded the Licenroe eennider cnke-up wtter.: e are "ite

.n

t. h i

' e ' a y l k i.1 )

P2..r E. c. r..

Ftre rt etntly, the Dt partment'a vetoter I tiPP, le t ti : on t t.

<i r a f t Environmental Im;act S t a t i.t en t fe

he Merrii) c reel het r < ci r Project r e c o n ra e n d e 1 the r e - e v a ; a t

t on rf otornec rocerve.rn n r.

the Schuy!Li l 1 River na feaa <evarerut atally oacac.r.c '.

r.

• .e F.orrill Creek eite.

During i nu.truening of n?ternttive etten for the L i n. e r i c h huelent C'nerniir.c "tation e n k t - u i' wnter sc re.,

the Red Creek site snu eliminatea pri m 'a r i ly beenuui of porr water quality and the hjue Marsh uite beenuuo

.t would net be c o tt ;; t e t e d i n t i ci i..

However, delnyn in co: atructing the Linerick h; clear Genern tinc U tn tie n b :i v e c h a '.c e d the otntaa of these two si t et.

Peenure of redacea r i r. i r r effer?

nn' the v u e e e e t.

er rec i nrat.:en projecto upstrean of the

.ec C rt e i.

.ite, water qun ity i: the i

r e n u y '. L 2 l l his huo sirnificant')

i t. p r o v e. d 12.

the J

t

: 7 y e u ra.

The hed C re ek aite enu!d tew withernw r e u s e r... i ' y cord qunlity waterfran the Jehuylki)1 hiver wi th ph in the r a r. r e of 6 - 7 u r. i t e.

We now bt !1<

.e bat wn: r.i u n l i t y 2ne rtet r;

.ron hed Creek would su; port n good warnwnter fishery.

Furtns :: c r t,

dicchurcea fro:

the reuerveir would berefit uguntic o r e n t.1 e r a in the Schuylkill River durinc low fjo= periods.

The:efore, ine i. e d Creek uite appenra weli nuited for fulfilling the nuee for additional utorace in the "chuyliall River Hsnin (n2though perhaps not uniquely n).

The blue F. a r a h Re ervoir to new co: p'e t ed und ope ntional.

The neconcury additional ente-ur water atorace cupneity fer

'ne Li n c ri ck Nue)thr Gene ra t i nc "t a t i en c o t.1 d b e trde avails!.e Ly raininc the pool level in the t !ue ?. t r u h H e a e r v e i r 6 f e e t f or one

t. r; i t und 9 feet for two unita.

1Lia w eu ld pe re n ne n tly flerc e.n j

u_______._-__-_._.________-------------

,y r

'e additional 300 nnd 450 neren of

'L a n d,

recpectively.

L'i t h e r alternative reservoir si*e on t !. e Schuy3k111 River would eliminate the nerd for building the Point Pleanant Diversion project, Bradshaw henervoir, and peuuibly the Merrill Creek Reservoir.

Sites on the Schuylkill Hiver would benefit water quality by p r o v i d i n g n a d i t i o t. a 1 flows during low water in the ri v e r.

Alternstive 3 ( h r t: d r h n w 1: e n e r v e l r / et r:. d :.a w P u c. ; Ptntion (Feint Pleasant)J.

The Service has advised acainst cor.utructinC the Feint Pleonant Diversion project for numerous rea u e n n.

Our March 11, 1980, and December 16, 1960, letters to the URhC i dentified and dic c anced at least 12 specific ndverne e n v i r o r. n e n t a l impnets that could result from constructinc nnd opernting the Point Pleasant

(

project.

Our le t t ern of June 19, 1961, and March 26, Ju3y 12, and September 14,

1982, to the Corps of Encineers pre <,ented additional reservationa about the p r o l. o u e d project.

We su r ma ri zed oar concerns acnin in our ;etter of October 18,

1982, w hi ch re com m end ed d enit:1 of the De pa r t e. en t of the Army pernit for the project.

Throuchout all of our o w rw u n i c a t i o n. tith it '.C und the

Corpn, we naintained t h ts t there were e n v i r o n u e r. t a l ly preferrnble alterrgiiven to the l'oi n t l'!eauant p r o j s. c t.

In s u m a n ry,

f r e r.,

1 fi c h e ri en couaervation and e n ta. c e m e ta t perspective, of the three alternntiven that you propened we would prefer Alternative 2.

If we can be of further anuictance, please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely yours, 4

0 Q7, am, Regient.1 I)i re c t o r m

De tiercary, WAtJtawa. f 3 - 1SerDg3f. Ag(hat g, !$L8 South Coventry refuses to accept PE evacuation plan

r. m = r hauth Casessry Teeenhap affscials thes week refsned to take part an evacga#ame pesem fur the auctear power peast e I,asserwk and sa.d shey eeugd approve as plass emed semeene other than tae seemaksp "I obsect vehemeesty that mader the draft plas resadents of South pays let a mervey ei monacapalemergeery resources Ceveetry Toweskap wouw have le he evacuated te twe d6fferent flee raras Chester Ceemsy seesehse dectened se fdl to the beamas"en locatases." Whaloch said. He added the plas called for se percent of a drah plas Phadadetphaa E, usa.as. pan.y's cone =haat, pre.seete.d

-e...hde ~ rest.euw est a4ces Route 23 as the.eu,e to. town lectrw Com the 84a4 resedenta la head w Hergae

.u as

-do ne

,e

,st me

.o.a.es.,o, a mm.ie,s.es a um bym e, m

e,..a t south a.r mte

.e4..h.

oo.a me.e

"."," ""3.L,.n.. - pu..ete n sho.s es.e g,u ;a_ g,,;,; i - =-',=aaa sa5==c-e-rr

,umg to,ay

, d

.d..haa.uuh. ch,m.a e, ihe

.,e m,.,,,,,,,,s.,,,,,,,m,,e,,e,

,,,,e,me,,,,,,,e,,,,

.,h e,u.p.n':'"'T C.I," L ~ f,,.rm aa..b.y n...a

• = ===* ~ ~ *~*~~=-~--~~e'

'*";.t2a'.

• ~~c"**""-

~

,,a.,u

,,ese ad a.n ha. p,eposa ts.te mat.e m.p a. =e e,-u.-

--~ ~ ~ - **a'a - -a - * *- =

sao a

a ~~~a

~- e--

-e

.. ne

- ~, ;a *--* * =*-== = ~ ~~a=ee o -

-..s.,

sa.d

,re,ml

..a a s.mp.e w. gma to a

, e m,

me

.po.t.se.. ann.,,em f.a _

ne,e

= me m.muy -sp ques m.s,a,e - ma., ga,e m. -ma su a ius a.ma.

ed

.a e-m-~~.f as me. sa.ie w a m.

e,..mme,um,,

.hstwh

.e,e.ot -.,p.e.e sommh.ng.

a,u. couw - med ente sm.h them t Emergy Censumaats to send to the NRC iNeclear Regulatory C#ventry esthoed the approval of the localoffsetals C.m.m a, -

.,,.o.e sa.g CO.e.8,y e. a one, m.a

.p dechmag to tde part to evacuassoa plana and that ensay downships and buteughs throughout the ameen are ho6deg huh sold erweeng g,_ Qg Mgrggry,70t!51093, Pam WedatSdaMU{tSt IJM3 caear eut methods ai fundsag for the preparations He cited a recent savestigatase by the General Accounteng Office.

g Ceegress' ansessigatsoe arm. ohach leveled heavy crescasm at the h

hh l

NRC for accessing e,womme pasas that mere defacient. The w

gy n

w w a

wW w gy awn investigat ce saul there are ao maasmem plaamaag standards for evacmassues and me follow-se precedures la recent months the NRC has encountered dafficult emergency W A53flNCTCfi t Uf*ll-Eanergency evacuatsoe procedures et nuclear planmas prebdems oath two r.eacters near dessely pupislated New poeer plaats may be serinesty denceent because the goverannent has as g

g l

Yerb CMy - ledsaa Fems se estchesaer Couesy and bboreham os atenemum peaan6mg saandards and me tra6seing requirements, the General I

Imag Island ta the eare of Shureham. Suffo4h County sisthorsses have Acceesaslag Othee chargd Tieceday refused te cooperMe as settsag up evacuateos plaas, and are The G AO. Congress' investigaHve arpe, leveled the heavy crtisciasm at Jeopardssang the start apet the plant the Nuclear Iterstatory Cosnessame and the Federal Emergency Managemee6 Agenry during a llouse talettur subcommittee hearing on em,, gem, prepnedness for she sauun s remmerc6a1 reuters.

1 Commentee ( hatreme Df eard Madey. D Mass, saed sts intesalgallem t

shoes sieseher agency has a regulallee "deflaang the edaestally

- Plans for train 6ag federat. adale and local gewermaneet offweals have acceptable reedesions necessary te pesHfy the operaDos of a nuclest ant brea lmpleniented As a residt. it 6s encertale ehether public officials i

plane weib respert teemergesey preparedersa and emergency merkers atil koom how te hest respond ia a neericar poner l

The NRC and she emcegenry management ancary have struggled for punt emergency *

{

pears le develop slandards that lural and stale governorats and edelsly N ogency " dues ont always require that all plan elensents are tesapanses tan ete le het up emergency evacmallen preredures fut lhe l

tesled.or verify that ~y are complyleg eith federalerderla "

sentresundead populaisse in Ibc twent of as stem 6e reacter affident that releases deselly radtaflue

-It "does noe have folle=1sp precedures for ensurnag that artsrecat6cs le recces smanths. the ageertes have encountered the meest efferuit frere previous esercises are terrected.. la some anstantes tN hast tumcluded that preparedness 6e adequate ette though II has no ethleere emnergeary plane &ng probicans at.too reactars near densely papelated that denr6earles frost earlier esercises have heco corrected "

New Yash ray -ledsan reint in estchester County and Shercham em Carlene feed the panel emergency plano 6ag arewad U S reactor sites "T.'tl:""se., si e.,em...ed h, um, Isou ogi t g C

' ;,r-d *> '-* d ~--~d * '-d<

- ~'~

...su Co.at,..tl r.oes b..e,ef.-

c pe, ate m.co

.p ev ua,elb m.

plans. shk h 6s jeopardireeg the start op et the new punt As a result. local commundles that meet to preveal er delay the la lesHuecer le the subreesidtee. G A0 offwtal Raisih Carlone said the start op of a reacter, he noted. ese "the6r refusal to partir6 pace in the i

study uncovered several majur problems e-ish the federal government's m.gwy plaan6ag procm te sch6m dwir ehjnHws "

evalusiasm and approvalef reacieremergenry plans:

- The Federal Emergency Management Agency has not estabhshed rum".esas standards that tiesti encercises meest nicet." and has approved esercises that "dsd not provide amsele opportunity le demon-strale respnose eapabilders " p

10 Thursday. Aug. I 6,1983_ Philadelphie Dolly News Limerick Foes Ask:Is This Nuke Necessary?

~m

- ' '~

" ~~"'

19M2 PUC order that PE sc rap or d(lay By ALEXANDER REID -

gency plans.

I' nit !! until the first reactor is (om.

Daity News Staff Writer in spite of the opposition - oud ggWe Certain beh* eve that both un/IS are in picted ihe sim uitaneous construc.

lack of independent support for the In the farmlands and meadows of lion of both reactors, it said. poses western Montgomery County, a le-e eS ereS O OUTCUS OInerS.yf nnanciat consequences for ratepay.

project - PE is determmed to com.

plete umerick.

gion of craftsmen and technicians ers end sto( k holders.

I)uring the primary election cam.

works feverishly in the shadow of Neil McDermott, iater inis 3 car. as n,ey comph ic two S70 foot concave cooling towers' paign in Ducks County last May$ sue.

the work on Unit I. a wori force of about utility poured 5823 000 into un ui ianUca"'"IdIles IlYe'"i nccri.En'I' cenfui cfron to inHuence wiers in Philadelphia Electric Co. spokesman. 2nn cransmen and engincus wouid pass a non Nneng referendum con.

Munw woQ on h mnd nactor.

3 struction ithe Point Pleasant water-in the rate base and the company's "We certainly believe Ihat both which today is 3n percent complete.

surrounding Philadelphia Electric's diversion project. Water from the financial condition improves. The units are in the best interest of our l'y 1985. whch the first reactor is,

Co.'s nuclear plant in 'I.imerick project is nceded for I.imerick.

utility, bled by I.imerick costs our customers." said Neil hfcDermott, a scheduled to go on line,150 worb Township, near Pottstown. As the On July 22. In response the state the years. currently has a bond cred-company spolresman. "We have given ers wi!! be cr.gagul in construction scheduftd spring 1985 start-up nears PuWe UtHHy Commission's m2 11 rating of Iluilminus from Stan-the (ommission a plan that we feel is on Unit 11 and i E will have spent $5al for the first of two reactors on the 587-acre site the debate over the plant's necessity and dangers is heat f order urging PE to cancel or suspend dard & Poor's Corp. and llan3 from workable to the completion of both, mittion on the rextor.

construction of Unit il at IJmerick, Moody's Investor Service, (The rat-and we are looliing to complete both. PE says construction on both units Foes argue that the twin reactor, the utility announced a plan to com-ings are considered the lowest for reactors."

is fea4bic now because the plan Ingup hurdles the financial obstacles f actd plete both units within five years.

" investment grade" bonds; lower I.imerick's opponents, rallied by cornplex is unnecessary, uneconomi-Using a revolving loan agreement. ratings would put the bonds in the the proposed financing plan, do not by the company last year, w hen the caland unwanted' hat the reactors arranged through a syndicate of,25 " speculative" class, raising the inter. sharc PF"s optimism. 'ihey say the PL t first issued its order.

,When the commission made that And they note t US and foreign banks includmg, est rates the company would have to utihty is embarking on a financially have a life-span of about 40 years. New York's Citibank PE would bor-pay to borrow money.)

risky course to push the nuclear ruhng they. didn I think we could row 51.1 billion for the eventual

'PPC approval of the financing plant into operation.

raise the money to build linti ff until rendering the plant useless well before the middic of tbc 21st century; c mpW n of the 1.imerick project. arrangement would represent signt!-

"Their financial agreement at.

we buttt I nit 1. said Joscph F. Pa-

"We don't think there is enougt Unit I w uld begin operation in 1995 'icant progress toward completion of tcmpts to trade claimed short tcrm qu(f te Jr, PC s sice president for UnH H in 19 a project first proposed in im kot f us for long-term burdens." said finance and acceunting. We ful.

water around here to operate the units. And Ihe power that Ihey're.

Several consumer groups are pre-When construction began on the Steic liershey a Community legni uc can consince them..that sc ran supposed to generate is not needed'k paring complaints with the commis-reactors in 1974. I'E estimated I.imer-Sersiccs lawyer who represented carry out work on both uniti said Phyllis Zitter, head of IJmeric si n on PE's plan. A decision is ex-ick would be completed by 1980 at a so crat citizens

• groups during a 1980 Frology Action.onc of a host of citi-pected late next montk cost of 515 bilhon.

PUC investigation of IJmerick.

zens' groups opposed to I.imerick.

One group, the Consumer Educa-Construction dclays and inflation

'For instance, the banks say that "With the rate hikes needed when ti n and Protective Association. have pushed the price tag for the Unit I has to go into the rate base in a this thing goes into service. It's not. chartered a bus loaded with I.imer-units up to what officials estimate timcly manner.which means by 1985 economical... Nobody wents 1.imer-Ick opponents yesterday and rnet will be nearly 56 billion whcn they - Suppose something goes wrong with ick but PECO with Citibank representatives. In. are compkted. That will be about construction or the company has IJmerick would be the closest nu.

hl nhattan to voicc itscriticisms.

half of PE's assets.

probicms working out the esacua.

clezr power plant to Philadelphia "We want the banks to take into For PF"s 1.3 million customers, the tion procedure, which they are hav-and 1131.7 million residents, a fact account the community's feeling on plant will mean hefty rate increases ing trouble doing now? Ist's say they

'thit alarms an anti nuc!cer power this" said Max %ciner, a consumer if the commission approves the fi-don't get their license within the movement gahanized by the acci-activist who heads CEPA. *lf we nancing plan P.cfore cach rextor next lear. The operatmg date could dent (t Three Mdc Island in 1979.

demonstrate enough awarcncss, we gnes into commercial operation. PE be held up and the banks could with-Philadelphia. 20 miles from IJmer-ick, is not among the 43 municipall-think,we can hase the whole dcol will seck 20 pctcent rate increases.

draw the loan, and that would be a nixed.

PE officials maintain that the 1 win disaster for PECO and obviously ties devising energency evacuation PE says the plan will allow it to units are needed to replace cosity t heir customers."

procedures. On?y the towns within a delay issuing m rigage bonds - the and stwm-tn be outmoded means of Critics of the arrangemcnt also 10 mile radius of the complex are required by thcIlS. Nuclear Regula..n rmal method for raising revenue energy production, such as oil-fired target the revised construction

- until the first reactor is included spicms.

W dnle, w hich they say violates the tory Commission to develop emt r-

-.