ML20096C983

Forwards Duplicate Copy of State of Nj,Dept of Public Advocate Comments on Des

ML20096C983
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/28/1984
From:	Remis S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8409050468
Download: ML20096C983 (7)

Text

' -

. : ,WN

~Q

. "'d 8 tate of Netu ilerseg DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CN 850 JOSEPH H RODRIGUEZ TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625 RICHARD E. SHAPIRO PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIRECTOR TEL: 600-292-1693 August 28, 1984 Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room 144a Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Enclosed is a duplicate copy of the Department of the Public Advocate's comments on the draft environmental statement relating to Hope Creek. Although we placed these comments in federal express mail on August 21, 1984 for delivery to your office on August 22nd, David Wagner of your office first informed me today -

that you never received our comments.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this delay.

Sincerely, S ~%i Susan Remis Assistant Deputy Public Advocate SR/ sal 8409050468 840828 PDR ADOCK 05000354 D paa ,

@ g,

\

New Jersey is An Equal Opportunity Employer

e

. .. 7 :y, 11,

.I m-State of New Ilcrsey DEPARTME!JT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF FUEL!C INTEREST ADVOCACY CN tEO

.0 ! i" - -: 20::GUEZ TRENTON, NEW JEASEY 0$E25 A'0HAD E 5" AF'EO 3;E 0 i:CA1E O~dC~CR

. TEL CL* G .103 August 21, 1984 Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room 144a Bethesda, MD. 20555 Re: Hope Creek Generating Station Docket No. 50-354

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

We are writing to provide the comments of the Department of the Public Advocate on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station. Our principal overall concern is that the DES fails to evaluate the cumulative risks and environmental impacts of the Hope Creek Generating Station and the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, which is already located on Artificial Island. Since the two facilities are in close proximity to each other, there will obviously be cumulative risks and impacts that will be greater than the individual risks and impact of the Hope Creek Gener-ating Station. As a consequence, these cumulative risks and impacts must be carefully determined and assessed by the staff prior to any FES on the Hope Creek Generating Station. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, 414 n. 26, 96 S. Ct. 2718, 2730, 2732 n. 26 (1976).

In addition to this overarching problem with the DES, the Public Advocate also submits the following comments on specific provisions of the DES: i Section 4.2.3.2:

The DES recognizes that the applicant is required to

" develop plans for a supplemental water storage reservoir to compensate for consumptive water use from the Del-aware River" under certain circumstances. While an application has been filed with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and is under review, the DES can-not measure surface water use until that application has been ruled upon. Therefore, the surface water use section is deficient in the absence of a final DRBC disposition.

. - m - New Jerse; 1s An Eqi.at Or,~ortunity Employer

.1

Mr. . A. Schwencer, Chief August 21, 1984 Section 4.2.5: -

Obviously, intervenors are in no' position to comment on the NRC's view of the radioactive waste manage-ment system until the staff's detailed evaluation is presented in the SER, which is to be issued in October 19S4. We will defer any comments until the ,

release of the report except to note that the DES is inadequate at the present time without this in-dispensable assessment.

Section 4.3.5.1:

The DES states that the Hope Creek Station should not affect the success of the reintroduction of endangered species through artificial nesting. Yet, the DES states this as a conclusion and provides no reason or explanation why Hope Creek will not affect this activity.

Additionally, the DES should demonstrate that Hope Creek will not adversely affect the osprey. The DES's conclusory statements in this regard do not provide a reasoned explanation.

Section 5.3.1.1:

See comment above relating to Section 4.2.3.2.

Section 5.3.2.1:

The intervenor seriously questions whether any informed determination relating to surface water quality can be reached prior to completion of the applicant's chlorination study' The biofouling experienced at the Salem Generating Station necessitates an overall reevaluation of chlorination procedures to insure that surface water quality is preserved.

The staff should have this information prior to drafting the FES.

Section 5.3.3:

The staff's conclusions that considerations of alternative locations for any structures identified as being in the floodplains is neither required nor practicable is un-explained, and not evident from the DES.

Section 5.6.1:

The assumption that the osprey will not be adversely affected by the Hope Creek operation is not sufficiently

g ,

l 31r. A. Schwencer, Chief August 21, 1984 documented. Assessing the impact resulting from the

. operation of Salem alone does not provide an evaluation ,.

of the cumulative impact on'the osprey.

Section 5.9.3.2:

The intervenor is concerned about any evaluation of the operation of the radioactive waste treatment systems until the detailed evaluation of the system is presented in the SER. The capability of the system to meet the requirements of Appendix I will not be evaluated until the October 1984 report and a proper assessment of the radiological impact of the plant on humans must await that inf6rmation.

Pages 5-46:

The basis for the staff s reliance on a generic study involving PWRs for the probabilities relating to a Hope Creek BWR is not adequately explained. The assumption that "it is unlikely that . . . [the] core-melt liquid path-way release for the BWRs would exceed that conservatively estimated for the LPGS" is not documented, and the reasons supporting this assumption are not discussed.

Section 5.14.2:

The intervenor questions the appropriateness of the NRC's reliance on the State of New Jersey for the protection of water quality and aquatic biota. Intervenor submits that this ecological monitoring should still be part of NRC oversight of the operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station and should not be delegated to a state agency.

Section 5.14.3:

The FES cannot be prepared until the applicant has submitted the additional information required by the staff (5-62).

Section 6.4.2:

In calculating the benefits of the Hope Creek Station, the DES assumes that the unit will operate at an annual average capacity factor of 55%. However, experience with the applicant's operation of the Salem reactors demonstrates that the projected annual average capacity is substantially greater than the actual average annual operating capacity of these two plants. Realistic projections based on part experience of the applicant with similarly situated facilities should be utilized rather than assumptions that are incon-sistent with this experience.

., _ z

. .s l

Mr. A. Schsencer, Chief August 21, 1984 Appendix F: -

The DES is. deficient in that.neither the staff nor the .

licensee conducted a probabilistic risk ~ assessment-(PRA) for Hope Creek. We submit that such a PRA must be-conducted and that'the extrapolation of. data is inappro-priate in these' circumstances.

Thank you' for.your. consideration of the'above comments. If you have any questions, please contact either of the undersigned.

Sincerely yours,

~ JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ Public Advocate, State of New Jersey By: N tt h?A~

R4 CHARD E. SHAPIRO Director

> Division of Public Interest Advocacy r W -

SUSAN REMIS Assistant Deputy Public Advocate

n -

3-

. .b ,g.-

I

~

.. UNITED: STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY CO GIISSION

'BSfore the Atomic: Safety and Licensing. Board ,,

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC  :

' AND GAS COMPANY (HOPE  : Docket No. 503540L GENERATING STATIONT  :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'I hereby certify- that copies of Intervenor's Comments to' the Draft

. Environmental' Statement Related to the Operation _of the Hope Creek Generating Station" dated August 21, 1984, in the abovecaptioned matter, have been served upon the following.by deposit in the. United States mail on this 21st. day of August,1984:

Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 -

Division of Licensing United -States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Honorable Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Honorable Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Honorable David- R. Schink Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 2 J

%, . m v

lll

.Theketing and -Service Section 0;'fice of the' Secretary U._ ' S. Nuclear . Regulatory Commission.

' Washington, DC 20555 -

Lee Scott Dewey; Esquire

Office of-the Executive Legal Director

._ U. S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington', . DC' 20555 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire

Associate ~ General ' Counsel

.Public Service Electric' &. Gas' Company P.l0. Box 570 (T5E)

Newark', l NJ . 07101

' Troy B . Conner, -Jr.= , Esquire .

Conner & Wetterhahn'-

1747 Pennsylvania. Avenue, -N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Carol Delaney, Esquire

- Deputy Attorney _ General Department of Justice State Office Building - 8th Floor 820 North French Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 k' Chrh / Q

- Richard G. Shapiro, Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy

^ cE C .

Susan C. Remis Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Dated: August 21, 1984 l

l c.