ML18030A005

From kanterella
Revision as of 04:39, 29 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments on Draft Suppl to Draft EIS Re Operation of Facilities,Specifically Pond Hill Creek Reservoir
ML18030A005
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
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+INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STOEN(RIBS)Q~l~ACCESSION

'<BR:8006030363 DOC~DATE:80/05/30NOTARIZED!

NOFACIL:-Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva 50388sauehanna SteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva Aw-;~8AUTHORAFFILIATIONEROSEEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyRECI~~NAMERECIPIENT AFFILTATION AssistantDirectorforEnvironmental Technology HAJAAES~STAssistant DirectorforEnvironmental Technology

SUBJECT:

ForwardscommentsondraftsuopltodraftEISre'peration offacilitiesEspecifically PondHillCreekReservoir, DISTRIBUTION CODE:C0028COPIESRECEIVED:LTR QENCLSIZE:TITLE:Environ,Comments'nTES:

4~0<F~>CY~C~~4-~~~5~DOCKET¹0500038705000388ACTION:RECIPIENTIOCODE/NAME 05Ph,P.mac@

18IAMS+'LCOPIESRECIPIENT LTTRENCLIDCODE/NAME 1117BCO'BWWADmoog.~COPIES.LTTRENCL>110INTERNAL:

1~E.G0u,E10CSTBNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTRTSYS19DIROSE40SITEANALY1221.11111111002NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR1<ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONiTECHOELD1111111111010EXTERNAL:

03IPOR20NATLLAB110<1NSIC55ACRSI+.110aoL&9.~~L~aduNgtgO3'ITOTALHUMHEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR~ENCL

,<qf0Sly'cmac<+UNlTEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGIONIII6THANDWALNUTSTREETSPHILADELPHIA.

PENNSYLVANIA 19106IMAY301980Director, DivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental AnalysisAttn:Mr.S.SinghBajwaOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555

DearMr.Bagwa:

Thankyouforgrantingusashortextension onthedeadlineforsub-mittingcommentsontheDraftSupplement totheDraftETSrelatedtooperation ofSSES,Units1and2,specifically thePondHillCreekReservoir.

Ourcommentsareattachedandifanyquestions ariseinrelationtothempleasecontactusonFTS597-7188.

Sincerely yours,RobertS.DavisAttachment Q~cV80060808~

BelowarecommentsonDraftSupplement EISSSESforthePondHillReservoir pumpedstoragefacility.

WebelieveanER-2ratingisjustified relativetothisdocument.

Pleasefindattachedacopyofoursystemforcommenting onEIS's.TheERstandsforEnvironmental Reservations andthe2indicates Insufficient Information.

Information regarding floodsandfloodingissparse.Inaddition, themaponpage2-7doesnotadequately depictthePondHillCreekfloodplain northeSusquehanna RiverFloodplain.

Nodoubtsomechangeswilltakeplaceintheseareasasaresultoftheprojectandsuchchangesshouldbeaddressed.

Withregardtoflooding, ourinformation doesnotagreewitheithertheapplicant's ortheNRC's.Calculations baseduponthemaximumstormofrecentyears,i.e.hurricance Agnes,indicates a686mmprecipitation event.Itisourbeliefthatthisimpoundment wouldbetoppedinsuchastormand,depending upondamconstruction, maywashoutandcompoundthedownstream damagesduetoflooding.

Inaddition, thoroughinformation shouldbepresented regarding othereffectsofstormsoflesserintensity sothatacompleteanalysiscanbemade.Thefloodingimpactpotentials aswellasthefloodplain effectsmayinthemselves indicatethattheimpoundment shouldnotbebuilt;however,oneotherpointshouldbemorethoroughly presented.

Thisisthefrequency analysisoflowflowsthatwouldinterrupt theoperation ofthepowersta-tion.Inthiscontext,theuseofsuchterminology as"...insomeyears..."

and"...requireseveralshutdowns..."

istooinspecific forade-quateevaluation.

Thereasonsfornotusingtheriverfollowalternative, then,baseduponinformation here,areinadequate.

Aroundthesaddlefromthe"topoftheridge"~whereadikeistobeplaced>isanothersaddle.Thissecondsaddleappearstobewithinthesamecontourlinesasthe"saddle"tobedikedyetnomentionismadeeitherofitspotential asan"accidental" spillwayintimesofseverefloodingorofthenecessity ofadikeinthisarea.(Re.fig.3.2,p3-3).Furthermore, nomentionismadeoftheseverefloodingpotential associated withtheLilyLake'averylowsaddlebetweenthesetwositesindicates apossiblespilloverintoPondRunwatershed duringseverestormperiods.Thediscussions onwildliferesources isacceptable, butshowssomedefi-ciencieswithregardtoperiodicities exhibited bysomeanimals.Forexam-ple,itisstatedwithfartoomuchassurance thattheeasterncottontail isofminorimportance.

However,thisanimaliscurrently nearoratthelowpointinitssevenyearcycle.(p2-11).Asthecottontail isamajorcom-ponentofthefoodwebfurtherdecreases initspopulation maybesignifi-cant.Theoperational parameters discussed onpages3-4and4-10&11failtodes-cribeadequately thefrequency ofintakesandreleasesandtheireffectsonthereservoir itselfandupontheSusquehanna River.Forexample,this reservoir mayhavemultipleusesamongthembeingrecreation.

Theworstpossiblecaseshouldbedescribed whenthelevelisdroppedtoanextremewheresuchactivities arecurtailed.

Also,duringtheselowlevelswhatwilltheeffectsbeupontheSusquehanna atthepointwherereducedflowsintheriverareaugmented bythemaintenance fromthereservoirs Duringlowflowperiods,whenthereservoir intakecannotbeused,andtherivermustbeaugmented byflowsfromtheimpoundment, willevaporative lossesbesignificant'vaporative lossesduringhotweatherarelarge.Theselossescoupledwithdrawdownmayindicateashorterusefulstoragecapacitythanisindicated inthedocument.

Insum,thissupplementary documentdoesnotadequately discussalternative measuresotherthanproviding flowsfromtheriveritselforotherreser-voirs.Alternative sitestotheonepresented herearegivenonlycursoryattention.

UnderthenewCEQguidelines, suchdocunents asthisaresup-posedtodescribethedecisionmaking processandnotmerelyrepresent themostfavorable arguments forchoosingthisalternative.

REVIEWOPFEDERALACTIONSIKPACTING THEBPIRONHENT CHAPTER3PREPARATION, APPROVALANDDISTRIBUTION OFCONHENTSONFEDERALACTIONSEnvironmental ImpactoftheActionLo-LackofObjections EPAhasnoobjections totheproposedactionasdescribed inthedraftimpactstatement orsuggestsonlyminorchangesintheproposedaction.ER-Environmental Reservations EPAhasreservations concerning theenvironmental effectsofcertainaspectsoftheproposedaction.EPAbelievesthatfurtherstudyofsuggested alternatives ormodifica-tionsisrequ'redandhasaskedtheoriginating Federalagencytoreassesstheseaspects.EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPAbelievesthat.theproposedactionisunsatisfactory becauseofitspotentially harmfuleffectontheenviron-ment.Furthermore, theAgencybelievesthatthepotential safeguards whichmightbeutilizedmaynotadequately pro-tect,theenvironment fromhazardsarisingfromthisaction.TheAgencyrecommends thatalternatives totheactionbeanalyzedfurther{including thepossibility ofnoactionatall).Category1-AdequateThedraftimpactstatement adequately setsforththeenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoractionaswellasalternatives reasonably available totheprojectoraction.Category2-Znsufficient information EPAbelievesthatthedraftimpactstatement doesnotcontainsufficient information toassessfullytheenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoraction.However,fromtheinformation submitted, theAgencyisabletomakeapreliminary determination oftheimpactontheenvironment.

EPAhasrequested thattheoriginator providetheinformation thatwasnotincludedinthedraftstatement.

Category3-Znadequate EPAbelievesthatthedraft.impactstatement doesnotadequately assesstheenvironmental impactofthe"pro-posedprojectoraction,orthatthestatement inadequately analyzesreasonably available alternatives.

TheAgencyhasrequested moreinformation andanalysisconcerning thepotential environmental hazardsandhasaskedthatsub-stantialrevisionbemadetothedraftstatement.

Zfadraftimpactstatement isassignedaCategory3,~rdinarily noratingwillbemadeoftheprojectoraction,sinceabasisdoesnotgenerally existonwhichtomakesuchadetermination.

CHAP3Figure3-1.Notification ofEPA'sClassification ofCommentsPage2of23]-)S