ML20062H402: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:,
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL                                          ,e                              ASSISTAW ATIVRNEYS OENERAL g OREGOttY !!. SMITil                              .            ,.
JOHN T. PAPPAS
                                                                -1        x                    E. TUPPER KINDER
                                                            /.b
                                                              '    #                            JAMES E. TOWNSEND MARK H. PUFFER DErtTTY ATTORNEY OENERAL                                    f              s DEBORAH J. COOPER                                  '
i      /            p                ANNE R. CLARKE
* MARC R. SCHEER
                                                          'h.                  El              DONALD J. PERRAULT ATTORNEYe                                              %        , j@7                    RICHARD C. NELSON PAUL BARBADORO                                            e ~      f'e V                  JEFFREY R. COHEN LoRETTAS.PLATT                                              ' - - - ~
PAUL W. HODES DANIEL J. MULLEN                                                                          MARTIN R. JENKINS JAMES D. CAHILI.111                                                                        PETER W. MOSSEAU RONALD F. RODGERS                          THE ATTORNEY GENERAL                          BETSY S. WESTOATE JEFFREY R. HoWARD                                                                          MARTHA V. GoRDON O. DANA BISBEE                                    STATE HOUSE ANNEX                      PETER C. SCOTT OREGoRY W. SWOPE                                    25 CAPITOL STREET                    EDWARD L CROSS. JR PETER T. FOLEY                                                                            MICitAEL A. PIGNATELLI CONCORD. NEW II. AMPS!!!RE 03301 63 "          BRIAN T. TUCKER August 10, 1982 Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Div is ion of L icen s in g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mm is s io n Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:        State o f New Hampshire's Comments on Draft Environmental Statement - Seabrook Station, Un it s 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-443, 50-444
 
==Dear Mr. Miraglia:==
 
I recently received a copy of your letter to Mr. Tallman dated July 30, 1982 which purported to contain the comments re c e ive d by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to the Draft Environmental S t a t emeri t .                        I note that you neglected to include a copy of the State of New Hampshire's comments which were submitted on June 30, 1982.                          I have enclosed a copy of the State's comments for your reference. Please correct your record to include the State's comments. Please feel free to contact me
;        if you have any questions.
Very truly yours, E. Tupper Kinder Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division ETK/tlr                                                                                                    {QD Enclosure 8208160036 820810 PDR ADOCK 05000443 D                            PDR                                                        Caumn Proteuon            (603) 271 364i c,, ,,,,3 3 ,no,          t 033 37i.3e7:
Wal Counsel            (803W71N                                                      Eminent Domain            (603) 271 3675 Charitable Trust        (PXI)r/13681                                                  Environmental Protechon    (603) 271W Anutrust Secuon        (803)371 3840                                                  Unemployment Compensauon (603) 2713712 (803)f713805
 
      \
TIIE STATE OP NEW HAMPSIIIRE
  *h,* * , "sitonNsy oENanAL AnzitTANT ATrORNEYS OENERAL
#                                                                  ,#                                  JOIIN T. PAPPAS OREGOltY II. SMITH                                                ~ '
    /                                              ''          *
                                                                    /M k                              E. TUPPER KINDEft JAMES E. TOWNSEND
                                                                          #                            MAltK IL PUFFER
                                                                  'e 4f 'y' ourtrry ATronssy orNanAL                                                      .
DEBOf tali J. COOPEft lj*            1                      ANNER. CLARKE
                                                                              *      ,;  I          MAItC Tt. SCIIEER
                                                                        #N                              DONALD J. PERitAULT ATTQnNEYS                                                \                * ,'
RICllARD C. NELSON PAUI, D AIUIADORO LORE 1TA S. PLNIT
                                                                      'x''~        ./                  JEFFREY 11. COHEN PAUL W. IIODES DANIEL J. MULLEN                                                                              MARTIN R.JENKINS JAMES D. CAlllLla III                                                                        PETER W. MOSSEAU 110NALD F. RODGE!LS                            TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL                        DETSY S. WESTGATE JEFFREY lt. IIOWAltD                                                                          MARTIIA V. GORDON O. DANA HIST 3EE                                      STATEItOUSE ANNEX                      PETER C. SCOTT OREGOltY W. SWOPE                                      a5 CAPITOL S17tEET                    EDWAltD L. CROSS. JR
                                                                                                          '          ^
CONCOltD. NEW !!AMPSH!!tE 0330163V7          g[t y 7 7{jC E t June 30, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.              20555 ATTENTION:            Director, Division of Licensing RE:        State of New IIampshire's Comments on Draft Environmental Statement-Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-443, 50-444 Gentlemen:
By this letter the State of New Ilampshire submits the following comments on the Draft Environmental Statement related to.the operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.
: 1.        Assessment of Radioactive Releases Through the Groundwater Although the Draft Environmental Statement recognizes that the groundwater is a possible pathway for release of radioactivity into the environment, the Draft Environmental Statement contains little information concerning the impact of such a release.                Information concerning the nature of groundwater on the site and its movement appears sketchy.
The principle direction of' movement is apparently-toward the estuary. Ilowever, the relationship between the ground-water and the surface waters in the marsh and estuary does not appear to be analyzed. Further, the extent to which bedrock fracturation may affect the direction and speed of movement of the contaminants in the groundwater has not toen v            considered. The statement admits that groundwater hydrol.gy
-]"I f                  at the site is highly complex and that preoperational grot.ndwater r
900[0
* Consumer Protecuon Crtmanat Justice (603$ 273 3641 (603) 278 3671 tagal Couneet            (coams.3nsa                                                        Emment Domaan              (603) 271 3675 Charitable Trust        (coag 73 33gt                                                      Env6ronmental Protectaon  (tX)3)278 3679 e Antitrust Secuen        (s03 ert.as40                                                      Unemployment Compensauon (603) 2713712 (Guagtt.angs
 
a a    <                                    .
    .i        United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 June 30, 1982 measurements may no longer be valid. However, the statement goes oa to make predictions and presumptions concerning the rate and direction of groundwater flow. Based upon the lack of reliable data, the State cannot accept these predictions and presumptions and can certainly not accept the categoriza-tion of them as " conservative" by the staff.
The staff implies that groundwater interdictive measures would be necessary and advisable if a release to the groundwater occurred. However, the statement admits that the path which contaminated groundwater would follow is very diffi-cult to determine. The staff apparently relies on its " con-servative" estimate of travel time from the reactors to the marsh of 170 days as a sufficient time to develop an interdictive plan. The State does not feel that the 170 days provides a sufficient amount of time to develop the highly complex informa-tion which would be required for the development of a successful interdictive plan.__If one considers that access to the site could be limited for an extended period of time in the event of a major accident, that extensive field work in the charting of groundwater movement would be required, and that design and construction of an interdictive measure would be complex and time consuming, the 170 days is unlikely to provide sufficient time to prevent perhaps a large concentration of radioactivity from being released to the marsh.
The Draf t Environmental S tatement gives no con-sideration to the environmental impact of a major radioactive release on the extremely valuable salt water marsh environment.
l Further, there is no assessment of the impact of a release to the marsh on surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the l              Hampton-Seabrook Estuary is an important area to the State from an economic point of view. The possibility of limitation of the use of this area must be viewed as an extremely serious I              matter.
In summary, the Draft Environmental Statement does not adequately assess the impact, from an environmental and j
economic point of view, of a release of radioactive material i              to the groundwater. Further, the statement fails to provide an adequate analysis of mitigation measures which might be feasible in the event of such a release.
l l
l l
I l
 
e, d'  #
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 June 30, 1982
: 2. Accident Risk and Impact Assessment The Draft Environmental Statement does not adequately assess accident riski and their consequent impact since it fails to assess worst case conditions. Similarly, the Draft Environ-mental Statement (at 5-46) calculates population exposure based on two hour radiation doses. Given existing information con-cerning population densities in the area of the Seabrook plant and their evacuation time frames, the selection of a two hour period is neither conservative nor reasonable. The Draft En-vironmental Statement does not use an evacuation model which takes into account factors unique to the Seabrook site (see Appendix F). Several evacuation time estimates have been developed for the Seabrook site which would have provided more accurato data than the model used in the Draft Environmental Statement.
The Draf t Environmental Statement is required to address socio-economic and biological impacts by the provisions of 45 Federal Register 40102, 40103. However, the Draft En-vironmental Statement fails to adequately consider the socio-economic impact of the loss of use of portions of New Hampshire's ceacoast area in the event of a serious accident. Simila 'v, no analysis is presented for the impact of a serious accident on the valuable salt marsh eco-system which comprisgs a significant portion of the scacoast area.
Finally, although the provisions of 45 Federal Register 40103 require that "the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents," the staff in conclusory fashion has stated that no special or unique circumstances about the Seabrook site would requirc such action. The Draf t Environmental Statement does not adequately consider the emergency response capabilities, or lack thereof, for the Seabrook site to support this conclusion.
Very truly yours, G. T'89sf Y W            l$
E. Tupper Kinder Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division ETK/ der 9
a}}

Revision as of 23:33, 31 March 2020

Requests Inclusion of State of Nh 820630 Comments on Des in Record of Comments Received.Comments Omitted from NRC 820730 Ltr
ML20062H402
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/10/1982
From: Kinder E
NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To: Miraglia F
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8208160036
Download: ML20062H402 (1)
v • d • e


Text

,

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL ,e ASSISTAW ATIVRNEYS OENERAL g OREGOttY !!. SMITil . ,.

JOHN T. PAPPAS

-1 x E. TUPPER KINDER

/.b

' # JAMES E. TOWNSEND MARK H. PUFFER DErtTTY ATTORNEY OENERAL f s DEBORAH J. COOPER '

i / p ANNE R. CLARKE

  • MARC R. SCHEER

'h. El DONALD J. PERRAULT ATTORNEYe  % , j@7 RICHARD C. NELSON PAUL BARBADORO e ~ f'e V JEFFREY R. COHEN LoRETTAS.PLATT ' - - - ~

PAUL W. HODES DANIEL J. MULLEN MARTIN R. JENKINS JAMES D. CAHILI.111 PETER W. MOSSEAU RONALD F. RODGERS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BETSY S. WESTOATE JEFFREY R. HoWARD MARTHA V. GoRDON O. DANA BISBEE STATE HOUSE ANNEX PETER C. SCOTT OREGoRY W. SWOPE 25 CAPITOL STREET EDWARD L CROSS. JR PETER T. FOLEY MICitAEL A. PIGNATELLI CONCORD. NEW II. AMPS!!!RE 03301 63 " BRIAN T. TUCKER August 10, 1982 Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Div is ion of L icen s in g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mm is s io n Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: State o f New Hampshire's Comments on Draft Environmental Statement - Seabrook Station, Un it s 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-443, 50-444

Dear Mr. Miraglia:

I recently received a copy of your letter to Mr. Tallman dated July 30, 1982 which purported to contain the comments re c e ive d by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to the Draft Environmental S t a t emeri t . I note that you neglected to include a copy of the State of New Hampshire's comments which were submitted on June 30, 1982. I have enclosed a copy of the State's comments for your reference. Please correct your record to include the State's comments. Please feel free to contact me

if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, E. Tupper Kinder Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division ETK/tlr {QD Enclosure 8208160036 820810 PDR ADOCK 05000443 D PDR Caumn Proteuon (603) 271 364i c,, ,,,,3 3 ,no, t 033 37i.3e7:

Wal Counsel (803W71N Eminent Domain (603) 271 3675 Charitable Trust (PXI)r/13681 Environmental Protechon (603) 271W Anutrust Secuon (803)371 3840 Unemployment Compensauon (603) 2713712 (803)f713805

\

TIIE STATE OP NEW HAMPSIIIRE

  • h,* * , "sitonNsy oENanAL AnzitTANT ATrORNEYS OENERAL
  1. ,# JOIIN T. PAPPAS OREGOltY II. SMITH ~ '

/ *

/M k E. TUPPER KINDEft JAMES E. TOWNSEND

  1. MAltK IL PUFFER

'e 4f 'y' ourtrry ATronssy orNanAL .

DEBOf tali J. COOPEft lj* 1 ANNER. CLARKE

  • ,; I MAItC Tt. SCIIEER
  1. N DONALD J. PERitAULT ATTQnNEYS \ * ,'

RICllARD C. NELSON PAUI, D AIUIADORO LORE 1TA S. PLNIT

'x~ ./ JEFFREY 11. COHEN PAUL W. IIODES DANIEL J. MULLEN MARTIN R.JENKINS JAMES D. CAlllLla III PETER W. MOSSEAU 110NALD F. RODGE!LS TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETSY S. WESTGATE JEFFREY lt. IIOWAltD MARTIIA V. GORDON O. DANA HIST 3EE STATEItOUSE ANNEX PETER C. SCOTT OREGOltY W. SWOPE a5 CAPITOL S17tEET EDWAltD L. CROSS. JR

' ^

CONCOltD. NEW !!AMPSH!!tE 0330163V7 g[t y 7 7{jC E t June 30, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Director, Division of Licensing RE: State of New IIampshire's Comments on Draft Environmental Statement-Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-443, 50-444 Gentlemen:

By this letter the State of New Ilampshire submits the following comments on the Draft Environmental Statement related to.the operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.

1. Assessment of Radioactive Releases Through the Groundwater Although the Draft Environmental Statement recognizes that the groundwater is a possible pathway for release of radioactivity into the environment, the Draft Environmental Statement contains little information concerning the impact of such a release. Information concerning the nature of groundwater on the site and its movement appears sketchy.

The principle direction of' movement is apparently-toward the estuary. Ilowever, the relationship between the ground-water and the surface waters in the marsh and estuary does not appear to be analyzed. Further, the extent to which bedrock fracturation may affect the direction and speed of movement of the contaminants in the groundwater has not toen v considered. The statement admits that groundwater hydrol.gy

-]"I f at the site is highly complex and that preoperational grot.ndwater r

900[0

  • Consumer Protecuon Crtmanat Justice (603$ 273 3641 (603) 278 3671 tagal Couneet (coams.3nsa Emment Domaan (603) 271 3675 Charitable Trust (coag 73 33gt Env6ronmental Protectaon (tX)3)278 3679 e Antitrust Secuen (s03 ert.as40 Unemployment Compensauon (603) 2713712 (Guagtt.angs

a a < .

.i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 June 30, 1982 measurements may no longer be valid. However, the statement goes oa to make predictions and presumptions concerning the rate and direction of groundwater flow. Based upon the lack of reliable data, the State cannot accept these predictions and presumptions and can certainly not accept the categoriza-tion of them as " conservative" by the staff.

The staff implies that groundwater interdictive measures would be necessary and advisable if a release to the groundwater occurred. However, the statement admits that the path which contaminated groundwater would follow is very diffi-cult to determine. The staff apparently relies on its " con-servative" estimate of travel time from the reactors to the marsh of 170 days as a sufficient time to develop an interdictive plan. The State does not feel that the 170 days provides a sufficient amount of time to develop the highly complex informa-tion which would be required for the development of a successful interdictive plan.__If one considers that access to the site could be limited for an extended period of time in the event of a major accident, that extensive field work in the charting of groundwater movement would be required, and that design and construction of an interdictive measure would be complex and time consuming, the 170 days is unlikely to provide sufficient time to prevent perhaps a large concentration of radioactivity from being released to the marsh.

The Draf t Environmental S tatement gives no con-sideration to the environmental impact of a major radioactive release on the extremely valuable salt water marsh environment.

l Further, there is no assessment of the impact of a release to the marsh on surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the l Hampton-Seabrook Estuary is an important area to the State from an economic point of view. The possibility of limitation of the use of this area must be viewed as an extremely serious I matter.

In summary, the Draft Environmental Statement does not adequately assess the impact, from an environmental and j

economic point of view, of a release of radioactive material i to the groundwater. Further, the statement fails to provide an adequate analysis of mitigation measures which might be feasible in the event of such a release.

l l

l l

I l

e, d' #

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 June 30, 1982

2. Accident Risk and Impact Assessment The Draft Environmental Statement does not adequately assess accident riski and their consequent impact since it fails to assess worst case conditions. Similarly, the Draft Environ-mental Statement (at 5-46) calculates population exposure based on two hour radiation doses. Given existing information con-cerning population densities in the area of the Seabrook plant and their evacuation time frames, the selection of a two hour period is neither conservative nor reasonable. The Draft En-vironmental Statement does not use an evacuation model which takes into account factors unique to the Seabrook site (see Appendix F). Several evacuation time estimates have been developed for the Seabrook site which would have provided more accurato data than the model used in the Draft Environmental Statement.

The Draf t Environmental Statement is required to address socio-economic and biological impacts by the provisions of 45 Federal Register 40102, 40103. However, the Draft En-vironmental Statement fails to adequately consider the socio-economic impact of the loss of use of portions of New Hampshire's ceacoast area in the event of a serious accident. Simila 'v, no analysis is presented for the impact of a serious accident on the valuable salt marsh eco-system which comprisgs a significant portion of the scacoast area.

Finally, although the provisions of 45 Federal Register 40103 require that "the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents," the staff in conclusory fashion has stated that no special or unique circumstances about the Seabrook site would requirc such action. The Draf t Environmental Statement does not adequately consider the emergency response capabilities, or lack thereof, for the Seabrook site to support this conclusion.

Very truly yours, G. T'89sf Y W l$

E. Tupper Kinder Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division ETK/ der 9

a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20062H402&oldid=2727884"