ML19254C655

Submits Comments Re Des as Requested in NRC 790629 Ltr. Statement Generally Adequate But Assessment of Aquatic Impacts in Monticello Reservoir Is Unsupported by Baseline Data for New Aquatic Sys

ML19254C655
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	09/18/1979
From:	Ross H INTERIOR, DEPT. OF
To:	Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19254C653	List: ML19254C655
References
ER-79-633, NUDOCS 7910170069
Download: ML19254C655 (4)

Text

.j U . . . . . .

en - 4_.: t ,.

==.:a , i,*4.: % ,

M c srsg

%.["N. p;I LIlliECd b[Jtes Department of the Intenor y

.EJe p\ h7 '

-/7 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY EMS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

.C2 ., ..

74l

. a.x ER-7 9/ 6 3 '.,c a -

SpP_

18 1979 yg -

M'G .- .

.- . .c . . -

vs m -

r, - .-

w.d.

.4

- m.. . ., .

Mr. Ronald L. Ballard. Chief'

~

~ '

I.',"9 A -

Environmental Proiects Branch 1- ,

y i -- . . . -

Q la Division ~of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis ' .. .l.," .

' QTh hUk

. T E

I

- ~

.d ~ .a

e. -a

. Nuclear Regulatory Cc mi ssion~ 7 7

Washington, D.C.

20555 n,..-,. .

'). '

--n:n . ,

t=: '

hN

Dear Mr'. Ballard:

m@

'M The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental statement for Virgil C. Su: mer Nuclear m.a Station as requested in your June 29, 1979, letter. We have the following comments.

a .

-e M = n a, General .., .

.[17 Cur comments and concerns .are primarily with the fish ,

4 e

and wildlife resource discussions.and with the nuclear risk analysis discussions.  ;

,.. aA . . ,

5 The statement is generally adequate and addresses potential gj impacts on terrestrial systems at the project site and in ij the transmission corridors. .However, the assessnent of -

,,;ig aquatic impacts in the Monticello Reservoir is unsupported rr by baseline data for the new aquatic system. The 4 Department's Fish and Wildlife Service (F'dS) . is aware M '

that the majority of impacts on fishery resources in the - -

Ej project vicinity will occur as a result of pumped storage .

<m which will create water level fluctuations of as much as 9.m 10 feet in l'arr Reservoir and 4.5 feet- in the Monticello .

d,1 Reservoir. These unstable conditions will either severely limit or preclude the une of the affected area for spawn-n ing or nursery habitat. 'We therefore urge that every

-73 effort be made to increase the benefits of the proposed recreational subimpoundment which will not.be affected by y;

i u.m water level fluctuations. --

[. )

~? I"C W .

d -

T.',~1 ..-

ce <

+. o-

~. Afh r)

i.  ! l /

t+;c

.O)<

W ^

M.)

t .

is

• a w . .

5-910170 O &

E,

" * * - - , .. rwv.re wm= mms +w r.A3mW= .- .

..y , , . . yng - __m., -y . , m- e.-

g.3 ..

m ng.me.,-#JY,v;. ,cxnym

.,, ,,,,,,7=r r s ,'.-. 52wp.- s 1. ,,

~ ex n ~ _ .

IFEMCi3$7dD5M;ve~;w nme u. .n.w.m" Ms'1 *-pc ;e i . ! r.g'"twi'aga MSfMIN.

win?!?TiniWaM24S&MM%s@w.

1 m e.. m_ u_n__u. m.__s.y .

mm ~. e .m m ~- . o. - mM9;Mi,

u. ~m.~m._.,,~, . .MmM.W@M?..xw%g

~.juaw.m.u_yw3uu3 m m. . -u m.,w,, m. .:w. v . _ ,

.]

7.A . .

M , , ~., . '

~

$ The FWS concurs with the NRC staff recommendations regarding g modification of the proposed aquatic and terrestrial bio-M . logical monitoring program. .Any new data generated from the .',

1. 1 monitoring siiudy.should be-incorporated into.the. final state s~ ,

1. ll . ment. . Although' baseline conditions will not be representative:

~

@ .. r.of;1ater seral ~ stages in the reservoir .the data collected

~ ~

., j '

. will enhance predic^tive capabilities.of..entrainment, impinge- . m -. s -

">;2

.h .

..inent..and thermal impacts... Aquati c impacts,from actual

~

._. .._u f n,_

g L

-e -

. .s s station operation will center ewound- entrcunment, u p u s e a n t ,. - w . -

. 'E.Tand..ther"M ~ effluent. - Location..of the; cooling water intake.<7 iaf g

• ~ ^ v --will have a direct effect on entrainment and . impingement. -f-:- -w w-p ." fAlso, secondary effects regarding water.qua2.ity impacts may yry 9 '.' .'

" stem from alteration of circulation in the reservoir. A'. '* -'

h 0-

. Escries of alternative _ depths for the cooling water intake

^' should be discussed. - Advantanes to locations 'below both th-7.d

~ ~

hypolimnion and photic zone,which includes reduction in .

M '- -

phytoplankton entrainment and the use of cooler, less - i d oxygenated water for plant cooling should also be discussed.

m.

p Our comment on the environmental statement for the construction ' -

d~7 permit stage about the lack of evaluation of a class 9 (core melt) accident was answered-by reference to the-low probability Q of such accidents (page H-109, item 13). Since then, NRC's Reactor Safety. Study has shown'the~ probability of such '

y$ accidents to be much higher.than had been assumed previously.

Q The review of this study, organized by NRC,'was unable to '

y determine whether these probabilities were high or low, but Ifh concluded that the error bands were understated (page 6-2, q

E

. item 1), or that the confidence placed in these probabilities was'rather low. How much confidence can then be placed in .._-

L . the conclusion,. continued in the present environmental state-E] ,:

ment, that the probability of class 9 accident is.s6 small sj ,,,

that.their environmental risk is extremely low (page 6-2, .

g ....,  ; paragraph 1)?.,We continue to believe that'. environmental analys&s'of. nuclear reactor sites are not complete without .

14 "~ <

N.-

~ due consideration of the consequences of class 9 accidents. '

d a

C The section on In-plant Accidents enumerates sc=e of the more -

ID significant findings of the Lewis Report (pages 6-2 to 6-3).

i'. $ The three findings that are enumerated exclude the final M finding of the Lewis Report. - .- -

m 4 .- .

ID m -

2

• 41 g I h _

l _- f00$ 0Yfb -

U' np Q . -

~.,

, j L

1. w p '

s

,a..,. -

e. -

m -

~.0 m .

fh. .W. E? 'h- .

^

"hb *lk$ (, j' Kl.kh lkkff ' . fkh' -

5 k_ r

%ZC3%?(%.WkMll* p m urwFm.7 .7 WF.WW~MM g:.

'r Q wrMf s m m@ . M&if!yEd p t.w.W Zi~Bi?

%mW

% iM+f.D:.c.. [ Md6BEJ . :s r.t,

%Ws M i'% y. 2@GL5 x.@ 3%V =Nlg5f!

OAw@M3w. 5@; %994W @s@ :f

2

.. : a m

..e 5r. c. - . - . - ,

s. - _. .. . .

kh

^ '

4

~

There have.been instances in which WASH-1400 has been

. misused.as a vehicle to judge the acceptability of '

rt! -.

reactor risks'.' In other cases it may have been used.

S'l ~. t -

~

prematurely as an estimate of the absolute risk of . ' _-. . ~; ^ . .

5,3 reactor accidents without_ full'_realication of.the 3 -

• - ~

~'

wide band of uncertainties.

be discouraged. (NUREG/CR-0400; page 2).;;,..,.,, Q . involved. ,-Such use should .

,l '.. '1 i

23. ~~

a >, .

.,....u.~

..=

.n n,z.w z- ...7 -

w . . z.. o ; .... . . ;.

- A Icctnote Ic tar.:.c t,.2  ::::= r,22. ~ ' - --- - - - - - - - - , .

V!" take into consideration the enperience from the incident at . 7 * :-

M .. .- J the Tnree Mile Island site..on.W_rch' 2 3, 15 7 3 .(p' age 1 G-3 .'..'. , ..f . ) .Z footnote b) .- Howe'ver,'-this provides no gdidance on the q ~

'possible magnitude or even the direction of the errors that

.'..'.~ ,

M LW may exist in the radioP.;ogical consequences that are shown 2.n

~

Eid 7I the table.' The largest estimated dose to population in a 50- .

' '~ mile radius from any accident shown in the tr.ble is 212 man--

"~

'7*7

M= 1; rem...Until s'uch time as the table can be revised, it might be helpful to note tha.t the estimated dose to the populat on .,

q '

within a 50-mile radius of.the Three Mile Island site was -

• calculated to be'3,300 man-ren.(NUREG-0558, page 2, paragraph T '

2). Although the. populations within that radius.are not .

-3 -

closely comparable for the two sites,'being 2,154,000 people 7.q in the case of the Three Mile Island site, a large number of

$ people, 810,000 are projected to be within 50 miles of -

J'Q h Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 in the year q

a.,

1979 (page 2-3). ,-

ca.

x.c We note'an apparent attempt in this statement to downgrade

, the occurrence at Three Mile Island. This occurrence was .

l$ referred to as an " accident" in NRC's previous statement M ',' for.New England Power Company Units 1'and 2 (page 7-4, foot-

~

7C note a), while in this document it is referred to as an .

3 " incident" (page 6-3, footnote b). By the NRC staff's own 3

eq

' terminology used in tables S.1 and 6.2, the occurrence would

'elearly rank as an accident,' inasmuch as the. estimated dose '.

Eh _ . .

- , to the population within a 50-mile radius was more than air M-W times greater (adjusted for population. differences) than the most serious accident shown on table 8.2. . .

~

.:3 N.j As far as.we are aware, thisisthiefirstinstanceinwhich geology and closely-related impacts have been completely

,N; 7.

^

omitted from the draft environmental statement for a nuclear

.d powerplant. However, the applicant's environmental report D contains the information that " microseismic events could result from initial filling and rer rvoir loading fluctuations

-ti A

m, --

of Monticello Reservoir (ER, page t.5-2, paragraph 2). Even

's t ?n M,

2 1 1 .

{ ,l - ..

m

( . , . - . ,. .

!, ~ * -*

Y '" ..

, r

• ~

.y ,- . . r -

+

- g g

%~.ww9p -- n=

s g :----:-- e=T; w: -. ;g =. =

m. .

. a = r .= =.3 -. . - .

m, kr .~:f-r.=m.&'ae&e.-Y

~z c- n M T W s-e,- s Q;s &h:;r ,y?

> > W< f y M-m:t-.v' # 7.; -*

TQPe.%* %T#.k ,,! & MM .,y.,,.i %_ .E+}.~. 5 6- ?y-f ,., Rm2 m.,.._".-

Q l Q f.dv v,:.:.4.,.s C-a M

• m. 2tr-',;' +x +-a .n,.,.p, ._M-f l h.Q

.m.ansen4 PL . m"e.

s c.A.i.L - = "* -

"d,.aMaa.u.f.,.1,'I.W.Lhassa6.A a i -

,_.._,,..w.,,__.,,..,

A'h .JiahQQ 4M CQ&,;W M.G.G M wa9,,,h,-

c

d .4 ,

.-.e, - , ...

r 4;ca ..

._3_

,.-7 . ..

,e_

y

. ~

~though they may have an insignificant im?cct, the :csnitud3 ~

and impact of such events should be summarized in the environ- . . . _ ' .

mental. statement for the benefit of concerned readers and yC M reviewers. . Moreover, in accord with the NRC staff's philoso-58S -

phy that geology will notionger'be discussed in environmental..-'~';.. .

WM . . . . impact statements for r.uclear jowerp'. ants., the. microseismic.3 7; . , g ~

I'N .f .

monitoring program- which the applicant ~ reported as currently:- y

% being implementedd(ER, page. 2. 5;-2, mentioned either ,in the sec tion _cn: paragraph 2) has not been~2 :.Preoperation ,m.g._.,

~.3

.. r. .- Programs .(section 5. 2) oA- Operat.Avn=A non.u.vvwn.pysm , p., . .n W (section.5.3). - . - . . _ . . ...~.6._'..

.{.+>. .

• z.er..%. . .' u.. .:.. - D.

.n. v ,' . mee.~n,

.p g ~ . m m. ... . w y . . . <. c n ~y : t. ,, c w.

. . .+: -m .;, ~- y -

Specific-Cc=nents by Section M.'.":'$.1 c

- - n_- --'.. . . . .. . . . .

. y 7

. ~ --~ p.;_...

• ~*

^

^ ".% e. ' '.c;;-

~r - , 3 JC. Section'2.5.2.5. Pr'ediked 'Linn61ogy of Menticello Reservoir r,j,.-

c . ', Eince..t.h.e".nal and. disso..l.ved -- oxvren strat.ification are directly

..G . -

au -

relateduto water _ quality impaess resulting , rom plant. opera ,

" i

~ tion',' a'more- detail'ed discussion 'of: potential effects frca . .

r :: b these nhenomena is. warranted.- - . .. .. . - -. .- - - -

wg

. . .< . ~ .

3. :. _. . ~,; ;  ; ... . .a . a. x . .:..,. . .-

d nm

.w

. c.,44% .a uA~_T.,ni,A Mf d hh.2'..~.7.P ....

.. ...... :. 2 ..-."..f7

"?j '

The eff ects. of fluctuating water J.evels.. on the proposed. .

M threatened plant,"Myriophyllum lax m, in, the shallow water ,

7",J:

m. habitat should

'b..e .a.lso .. - %,m. Discussed.c , .y.7.,

. -- . ~ . . . . - . . ,

~ ~N 'Section 4.4.'2~1 Effects of Thermal Discharge: Phytcplankton

~.M The anticipated synergistic effects of increased tpPeu ture.

5% and nutrients in sewage should be discussed, especially as

M they relate to undesirable phytoplankton. This sec'lon should be expanded to include a more detailed description of

'TM

.M - '

- 'the mitiga' tion measures, and some'quantification of the

- '.?.i level of impact (thermal, entrainment, and impingement) that

~.'~r4 -, . vould justify their implementation. r a . 2% , ,

---

g, Section 5.2.5 , Aquatic Biological Monitoring ccch . ..

M This subsec O"oh should be smlar to. the . subsections dealing 3 ~ with other. proposed sap)1ing parameters. It should be -

2:.=.i devoted to the oposed methodology for sampling vascular M hydrophytes. Also, hydrophytes should be included in the , ,

first paragraph along with the proposed sampling parameters.

~~]a M,. . 'de hope these comments will be of assistance to your effort.

e ..;

.w -

. _w Sincere 3y, -

m

~

P00RORBEL "YW '

r.yuty Tssistent SECRETARY j jf/ 4 .'.

I 130 lic w .

^* O ' .* f+

4  % g .

z , . - arTh . m c, ..- s 4 .w~..s .M-.,. N' f , , , , .- t _ . . , ? [q- J, .g -,. E5 K (.*j.!* '*;".,'e;f, g ~.'%W @q.yg @ M,W. t # n GM J- ."

• weJ s

• ' %.;3'

-* --~.r*R-Q~---- g~.'W. T.% v* V , -a v ~.>:;- - 'lj"""r m *R -.m

,;?. .;LDG,.^*-

p_ r ' 'W

t 1? *-n . =~ ^ . -

, W a **' n o

w <~.

~Q%W-1..?R@)-f N:w-w- k:=WWQQNRw: . _ .-~ .vs. .pG;!;yl_Q;. .

.ays-f.x.f..*[*:+5

.*- U..1;.;; W h.il.. Q 7:. _.

MMcMm.m.k%M.%wW&m.ai.a.'.[ w mtM S?& MMgll%W5:.: www;;Dg&u p . .

wm;;rs.u;;;muy;p_W m +.m; .

c;ct;.a;x