ML18030A005

Forwards Comments on Draft Suppl to Draft EIS Re Operation of Facilities,Specifically Pond Hill Creek Reservoir

ML18030A005
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	05/30/1980
From:	DAVIS R S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	BAJWA S S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8006030363
Download: ML18030A005 (5)

Text

REGULATOR+INFORMATIONDISTRIBUTIONSTOEN(RIBS)Q~l~ACCESSION'<BR:8006030363DOC~DATE:80/05/30NOTARIZED!NOFACIL:-SusquehannaSteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva50388sauehannaSteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylvaAw-;~8AUTHORAFFILIATIONEROSEEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRECI~~NAMERECIPIENTAFFILTATIONAssistantDirectorforEnvironmentalTechnologyHAJAAES~STAssistantDirectorforEnvironmentalTechnology

SUBJECT:

ForwardscommentsondraftsuopltodraftEISre'perationoffacilitiesEspecificallyPondHillCreekReservoir,DISTRIBUTIONCODE:C0028COPIESRECEIVED:LTRQENCLSIZE:TITLE:Environ,Comments'nTES:4~0<F~>CY~C~~4-~~~5~DOCKET¹0500038705000388ACTION:RECIPIENTIOCODE/NAME05Ph,P.mac@18IAMS+'LCOPIESRECIPIENTLTTRENCLIDCODE/NAME1117BCO'BWWADmoog.~COPIES.LTTRENCL>110INTERNAL:1~E.G0u,E10CSTBNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTRTSYS19DIROSE40SITEANALY1221.11111111002NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR1<ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONiTECHOELD1111111111010EXTERNAL:03IPOR20NATLLAB110<1NSIC55ACRSI+.110aoL&9.~~L~aduNgtgO3'ITOTALHUMHEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR~ENCL

,<qf0Sly'cmac<+UNlTEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII6THANDWALNUTSTREETSPHILADELPHIA.PENNSYLVANIA19106IMAY301980Director,DivisionofSiteSafety&EnvironmentalAnalysisAttn:Mr.S.SinghBajwaOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555

DearMr.Bagwa:

Thankyouforgrantingusashortextensiononthedeadlineforsub-mittingcommentsontheDraftSupplementtotheDraftETSrelatedtooperationofSSES,Units1and2,specificallythePondHillCreekReservoir.OurcommentsareattachedandifanyquestionsariseinrelationtothempleasecontactusonFTS597-7188.Sincerelyyours,RobertS.DavisAttachmentQ~cV80060808~

BelowarecommentsonDraftSupplementEISSSESforthePondHillReservoirpumpedstoragefacility.WebelieveanER-2ratingisjustifiedrelativetothisdocument.PleasefindattachedacopyofoursystemforcommentingonEIS's.TheERstandsforEnvironmentalReservationsandthe2indicatesInsufficientInformation.Informationregardingfloodsandfloodingissparse.Inaddition,themaponpage2-7doesnotadequatelydepictthePondHillCreekfloodplainnortheSusquehannaRiverFloodplain.Nodoubtsomechangeswilltakeplaceintheseareasasaresultoftheprojectandsuchchangesshouldbeaddressed.Withregardtoflooding,ourinformationdoesnotagreewitheithertheapplicant'sortheNRC's.Calculationsbaseduponthemaximumstormofrecentyears,i.e.hurricanceAgnes,indicatesa686mmprecipitationevent.Itisourbeliefthatthisimpoundmentwouldbetoppedinsuchastormand,dependingupondamconstruction,maywashoutandcompoundthedownstreamdamagesduetoflooding.Inaddition,thoroughinformationshouldbepresentedregardingothereffectsofstormsoflesserintensitysothatacompleteanalysiscanbemade.Thefloodingimpactpotentialsaswellasthefloodplaineffectsmayinthemselvesindicatethattheimpoundmentshouldnotbebuilt;however,oneotherpointshouldbemorethoroughlypresented.Thisisthefrequencyanalysisoflowflowsthatwouldinterrupttheoperationofthepowersta-tion.Inthiscontext,theuseofsuchterminologyas"...insomeyears..."and"...requireseveralshutdowns..."istooinspecificforade-quateevaluation.Thereasonsfornotusingtheriverfollowalternative,then,baseduponinformationhere,areinadequate.Aroundthesaddlefromthe"topoftheridge"~whereadikeistobeplaced>isanothersaddle.Thissecondsaddleappearstobewithinthesamecontourlinesasthe"saddle"tobedikedyetnomentionismadeeitherofitspotentialasan"accidental"spillwayintimesofseverefloodingorofthenecessityofadikeinthisarea.(Re.fig.3.2,p3-3).Furthermore,nomentionismadeoftheseverefloodingpotentialassociatedwiththeLilyLake'averylowsaddlebetweenthesetwositesindicatesapossiblespilloverintoPondRunwatershedduringseverestormperiods.Thediscussionsonwildliferesourcesisacceptable,butshowssomedefi-ciencieswithregardtoperiodicitiesexhibitedbysomeanimals.Forexam-ple,itisstatedwithfartoomuchassurancethattheeasterncottontailisofminorimportance.However,thisanimaliscurrentlynearoratthelowpointinitssevenyearcycle.(p2-11).Asthecottontailisamajorcom-ponentofthefoodwebfurtherdecreasesinitspopulationmaybesignifi-cant.Theoperationalparametersdiscussedonpages3-4and4-10&11failtodes-cribeadequatelythefrequencyofintakesandreleasesandtheireffectsonthereservoiritselfandupontheSusquehannaRiver.Forexample,this reservoirmayhavemultipleusesamongthembeingrecreation.Theworstpossiblecaseshouldbedescribedwhenthelevelisdroppedtoanextremewheresuchactivitiesarecurtailed.Also,duringtheselowlevelswhatwilltheeffectsbeupontheSusquehannaatthepointwherereducedflowsintheriverareaugmentedbythemaintenancefromthereservoirsDuringlowflowperiods,whenthereservoirintakecannotbeused,andtherivermustbeaugmentedbyflowsfromtheimpoundment,willevaporativelossesbesignificant'vaporativelossesduringhotweatherarelarge.Theselossescoupledwithdrawdownmayindicateashorterusefulstoragecapacitythanisindicatedinthedocument.Insum,thissupplementarydocumentdoesnotadequatelydiscussalternativemeasuresotherthanprovidingflowsfromtheriveritselforotherreser-voirs.Alternativesitestotheonepresentedherearegivenonlycursoryattention.UnderthenewCEQguidelines,suchdocunentsasthisaresup-posedtodescribethedecisionmakingprocessandnotmerelyrepresentthemostfavorableargumentsforchoosingthisalternative.

REVIEWOPFEDERALACTIONSIKPACTINGTHEBPIRONHENTCHAPTER3PREPARATION,APPROVALANDDISTRIBUTIONOFCONHENTSONFEDERALACTIONSEnvironmentalImpactoftheActionLo-LackofObjectionsEPAhasnoobjectionstotheproposedactionasdescribedinthedraftimpactstatementorsuggestsonlyminorchangesintheproposedaction.ER-EnvironmentalReservationsEPAhasreservationsconcerningtheenvironmentaleffectsofcertainaspectsoftheproposedaction.EPAbelievesthatfurtherstudyofsuggestedalternativesormodifica-tionsisrequ'redandhasaskedtheoriginatingFederalagencytoreassesstheseaspects.EU-EnvironmentallyUnsatisfactoryEPAbelievesthat.theproposedactionisunsatisfactorybecauseofitspotentiallyharmfuleffectontheenviron-ment.Furthermore,theAgencybelievesthatthepotentialsafeguardswhichmightbeutilizedmaynotadequatelypro-tect,theenvironmentfromhazardsarisingfromthisaction.TheAgencyrecommendsthatalternativestotheactionbeanalyzedfurther{includingthepossibilityofnoactionatall).Category1-AdequateThedraftimpactstatementadequatelysetsforththeenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedprojectoractionaswellasalternativesreasonablyavailabletotheprojectoraction.Category2-ZnsufficientinformationEPAbelievesthatthedraftimpactstatementdoesnotcontainsufficientinformationtoassessfullytheenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedprojectoraction.However,fromtheinformationsubmitted,theAgencyisabletomakeapreliminarydeterminationoftheimpactontheenvironment.EPAhasrequestedthattheoriginatorprovidetheinformationthatwasnotincludedinthedraftstatement.Category3-ZnadequateEPAbelievesthatthedraft.impactstatementdoesnotadequatelyassesstheenvironmentalimpactofthe"pro-posedprojectoraction,orthatthestatementinadequatelyanalyzesreasonablyavailablealternatives.TheAgencyhasrequestedmoreinformationandanalysisconcerningthepotentialenvironmentalhazardsandhasaskedthatsub-stantialrevisionbemadetothedraftstatement.ZfadraftimpactstatementisassignedaCategory3,~rdinarilynoratingwillbemadeoftheprojectoraction,sinceabasisdoesnotgenerallyexistonwhichtomakesuchadetermination.CHAP3Figure3-1.NotificationofEPA'sClassificationofCommentsPage2of23]-)S