ML20094S263

Recommends That Groundwater Monitoring During Plant Operation Be Addressed More Thoroughly,Per Review of Des Transmitted on 840629.Statement Should Indicate Which Aquifers Monitored at Wells Listed

ML20094S263
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/15/1984
From:	Blanchard B INTERIOR, DEPT. OF
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ER-84-884, NUDOCS 8408210213
Download: ML20094S263 (1)

Text

r r ...

g United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 1 ER 84/884 AUG 15 1984 l

A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Thank you for your letter of June 29, 1984, transmitting copies of the draft environmental statement related to the operation of Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey. We have the following comments.

We recommend ground-water monitoring during operation should be addressed more thoroughly. For example, the statement should indicate which aquifers are monitored at the wells listed on page 5-104, Table 5.11. It is unclear whether key chemical constituents in the potable ground-water supply will be monitored periodically. 'lhe analysis of possible releases of radionuclides to ground water demonstrates careful consideration oflateral migration of contaminants on pages 4-45 through 5-48. However, the ecnfining layers that separate the major aquifers of the area are leaky, that is, they have appreciable permeability (Environmental Report p. 2.4-10, 2.4-15, 2.4-16, 2.4-17);

thus the analysis should also address vertical or downwatxl migration of radionuclides from a core-melt accident and should consider mitigation. We note that abrupt large rises in chloride ard total dissolved solids concentrations occurred in 1980 and early 1981 in the water from PWS, an tpper Raritan well about 1,200 feet from Hope Creek well hcl (Environmental Report p. 2.4-22 and table 2.4-12). The concentrations dropped just as abruptly later in 1981. 'Ihis suggests the possibility of vertical or downward migration as head differentials developed, rather than tp-dip migration of salines. This event should be considered in the context of our concerns.

We find the statement adequately addresses fish and wildlife concerns.

We hope these comments will be helpful to you in the preparation of a final statement.

Sincerely, yff /01 c ' ""

ruce Blanchard, Director Environmental Project Review 8408210213 840815 PDR ADOCK 05000354 A pyg QgQR ll6