ML18045A373

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Util & Revision 1 to Environ, Assessment - Palisades Plant - Steam Generator Replacement
ML18045A373
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/14/1980
From: Gibbs M
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To: Anderson G, Bechoefer C, Livingston M
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007210446
Download: ML18045A373 (12)
v • d • e


Text

I.

1.

I*

~-' ~-~-*-.:~;--*.:*.

.e

......... * * *. *. _A,AARF~FONDENC!'F *

'.REJA.L~~--

r ISHAM, LINCOLN:*,*&*:BEALE COUNSELORS AT' l:ffl,W ONE* FIRST NATIONAL'PLAZA.. FORTY':SECOND f'.LOOR CHICAGO, ILLINO_is'6o603 TELEPHONE 312-558-75,00 TELEX: 2-5288

  • July 14; ** 1980. *

. \\**

.*~*.

.. /;

WASHINGTON OFFICE 1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N. W.

SUITE 325 WASHINGTON,.O. C. 20036

  • 202-833-9730.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Dr. George c. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission*

  • 20555

.,-.- -*~-

.. Department. 0£ *Oceanography:.

.University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Gentlemen:

Dr. M. Stanley.:Liv+/-ngston :

1005 Calle Largo*

Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501

. Re:

Consumers *,Power Company.

(Palisades Plant)

Docket ~o. 50-255-SP Last April, Consumers Power Company served the Licensing Board and the parties to this proceeding with copies of a document entitled "Environmental Assessment - Palisades Plant -

Steam Generator Replacement."

This report addressed the environmental effects of a proposed barge slip which would be built in connection with the steam generator replacement operation.

Enclosed please find a copy of.Revision 1 to that report.

Revision 1 makes minor changes and provides additional information regarding noise levels attributable to barge slip construction activi_ties and proposed mitigative* actions to ~educe adverse environmental impacts.

Very*. truly. yours,.

~~.

MEG:cem cc:

Service List w/ Enclosure.

soo721 o/./rr,:

\\)So~

s I~

co

r rtRJ

\\Jf;di

' IJ General Offices: 21:2 West Michigan Avenue,.Jackson, Michigan,49:201

  • Area Code 517 788-0550 July 2, 1980 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att Mr Jennis M Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 5 U S Nuclear Regulatory.commission

. Washing-ton~*.DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE.DPR P ALISADIS PLANT -

STEA..Tv1 GENERATOR REPAIR ?ROJECT TRANS:MITTAL OF REVISION l.

TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGARDING PROPOSED BARGE SLIP Consumers Power Company letter dated March 31, 19eO, submitted a document entitled, "Environment.al Assessment, Palisades Plant, 'Steam Generator Renlace-ment".

This document addressed the environmental effects of a proposed barge slip which would be required to support steam generator repair efforts.

Our program for steam generator repair was described in "Palisades Plant-Steam Generator Repai'r Report" submitted by Consumers Power Company letter. dated January 3, 19eo, as subsequently revised.

Transmitted herewith for your information are 40 copies of Revision 1 to the Envirorl!!:ental Assessment submitted March 31, 1980.

Revision 1 makes minor changes and provides additional information regarding noise levels attribut-able to barge slip construction activities and proposed mitigative actions to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

Roger W ~uston (Signed)

Roger W Huston

  • Senior Licensing Engineer
  • CC JGKeppler, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades

1.:

'CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Palisades.Plant STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR PROJECT Docket Bo 50-255 License DPR-20 At the request of the Commissipn and.Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act *.of 1954, and*the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, *as amended and the Ccr.mi.ission's Rules and Regulations thereunder; Consumers Power Company submits Revisionl to the

  • report entitled, nEnvironmentai Assessment-Palisades Plant Sfeam Generator Replace-ment" dated May, 1980. *This report discusse~ the environmental effects associated with a proposed barge slip which would be constructed as part. of the potential repair program based on complete replacement of the existing s.team generators if major repairs become necessary.

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By R B DeWitt (-Sig~ed)

RB DeWitt, Vice President Nuclear Operations Sworn and subscribed before me this 2nd day of July, 19~0.

By Linda K Carstens (signed)

Linda K Carstens, Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan My commission expires June 10, 1981.

~. "'.

~

I.

1.~

PALISADES SGR-EA IN'STRUCTIO:iS FOR ADDT:iG 'REVISION l TO THE PALISADES PLA~'T SGR ENVI RO N:1E"N'TAL ASS ES ~1E~T This Revision 1 to the Environmental A:ssess:nent (E..;) *of the Palisades Plant Steam Generator Replacement (SGR) consists of pages that are to be inserted into your copy of the EA'.

c *

  • Vertical bars in the ma~gin indicate the *l~caiio~ ~i the revision in text

.and ta::iles.

Pages wi chout bars *.are* unchanged*. pages. furnished for.- *continu.i ty.

The.pages to be removed and.inserted are--as.follows:

REMOVE "Title Page 5-5 6-1 8-1 App.A: 7-5 1 of.l

  • .INSERT Title Page App 5-5 6-1 6-la 8-1 8-2 A: 7-5 Revision 1

~!ay.1980

. ~ :.... :

ENVIROt\\~1E~T ~ r 'S ~ * *:-_ --_

~.

n.u -n Si:.SS~!ENT PnLI~AiJES ?U.i-."T STEM! G*

wNERATOR R~.PT 1 C~'1E

.......... ~"1.

~.

~'T CONSurfLt\\S PO' :-::'R co

~!P A.\\ry

. Decemoer 1979 Revisi'on 1 * ~1ay 1980

. '* *~. '

'~'.

... :*.- '~*'

c.

I PALISADES SGR-EA

d.

Deliver Sheet Piling, ~arch 1981

e.

Drive Sheet Piling, Start April 1981, Finish July 1981

f.

Dredge Channel, Julyl981 Fede:?:"al (COE) and State (~1D~R) approval of c*he Applica::ion'. for an Act.~247 Permit for the repair project: is.sought.]:)Y

  • Ja.'1.uary* 1980 (one. year after Applica-::ion date) to *avoid an adverse impact on t:his schedule.

. The offshore sheet piling or sunken ship hulls.t:hat may be required temporarily in the Lake will be removed as soon as practicable after operations are completed.

These temporary offshore wave protection facilities, if needed, will be in place for an estimated period of from three to eight months but will not be left in place during winter months.

The decis~on on the ultimate disposition of the onshore facilities above the Ordinary High-Water Level of the Lake has not: been finalized; however, their removal will be at Consumers Power's option.

.5-S Revision 1

  • .:lay 1980

.e PALISADES SGR-EA 6

I~lPACTS

  • 6. l Primarv Imoacts The primary impact:s are 1:hose. impacts associa-ced with the temporary barge facility.. This ::acilhy is discussed in Section 5 and shown in' Figure ~-1.

The impacts are cat:egorized.. as c~nstrll:7tion

  • i!llPCicts, :;:iredge. disposal impacts, shoreline impacts., and visual impacts..

The.construction impacts would be those temporary-.impacts of cons-cruction, and are addressed in Appendix A, Sections 7.0 through 7.6.3.

Within that Appendix, Sect:ion 7.2.3 discusses the effects on water resources.

Other const:ruction impacts, including noise and dust, are discussed in Section 7.4 of that Appendix.

The noise levels at the Plant boundary given in Sec-cion 7.4.1 of the Appendix are estimated maximums.

Because of local topography and vegeta-cion and the greater dis-cance to campsi-ce locations in Van Buren State Park, the noise level attributable to construction Ac'tivities should be lower normal sleeping hours.

Dredging for the barge facility is expected to occur to an elevation of 568.5 feet (IGLD) as shown on Section B of' Figure 3-1.

Because the dredged ma-cerial was shown to be nonpolluted (see Section 3:2), the relocation of t:his material will not have a significant impact.. The offshore dredge mat:erial t.:ould be 6-1 Revision 1

  • ~lay 1980

PALISADES.SGR,..EA *.

dis'.:=ibuted on the sides of the dredge channel.

The onshore excavated material would also be placed on the.sides of the work area and remain onshore.

~la!:erial from e.i!:her source may be transport:ed to a disposal area on site if they interfere with construction act.ivi-c.ies, or if it is found *to be polluted at: the t:irne of dredging..Natural wave action will *return the Lake bottom tc its original contour.

All unpoflut:ed dredged material will be returned to the littoral 2one Bt th~ end of the ~arge f~cili~y's use.

The shoreline concerns are:

(a) restricted access, a..~d (b) erosion.

The temporaEy offshore installation, due to its physical limits, will preempt approximately 0. 6 acre of the Lake surfa.ce and bottom.

This portion of Lake 6-la Revision 1

~lay 1980

PALISADES SGR-'EA 8

PROPOSED ~ITIGATION With specific regard co the proposed barge slip, several items have been identified chat ;.;arrant continued appraisal and may result in the need for mitigative action *t.o reduce.. advers*e eri.virori.inehtal impacts.

Thes*e are*

identified.separately below.

In adciicion, cons--cruction' activity will' be*

controlled to mi'tigat:e' to *~he ex'tent'.*feasible' impaC::t:s a'ssoc'iated t.*ith noise' dust, aesthetic in'trusions and rela-ced activities that may be cause for local complaint.

A program of shoreline monitoring will be in effect during the period when offshore facilities may affect littoral drift, although the Company believes the proje.ct will have no significant impact on litt:oral dri:f't.

Visual ij inspec'tion procedures, as well as aerial and land-based photography, will form the basis for identifying erosion pa'tterns.

i Additionally, Consumers Power Company will assess the effec'ts of the barge slip on the shoreline in t:he immediate vicinit:y of the Plant: and co a depth of 20 feet: by conducting a bat:hymetric survey before initiation of the project and after barge removal.

Upon identification of adverse effects, if a..~y, quantitative es-cimat:es of mat:erial displacement would be developed and a program of corrective beach nourishment would be implemented after concurrence

/

  • by the app~opriate agencies and property o~'!lers.

The program of corrective I

.I beach nourishment will include transporting unpolluted dredged materials to I I.

1'

-I !

the affected area from the onsite disposal area where they are stored during dredging for the barge facility.

This material will replenish beach areas affected by acceleraced erosion due to the barge slip's influence.

8-1 Re\\* is ion l

~ia)* l9so

Re;:i:-ese:itative sar:n?les *of dredged :nat*e:::-ial.*;.:ill* :,e obta:::.ned to ensure that the material is disposed of in accordance ~ith regulations ~hich lim:::.t chemical cons.:ituents.and particle size character.istics.

~1i:iga.:ive action may* be

  • necessary should the tests indicate an unexpected variance :=.rom.anticipaL:ed cha:-acteris--cics.

7he :1ichigan Depar-ment o:f Natural Resources.t..*ill be

  • ~

not:::.fied immediately if any signif:::.cant variance is :ound..

..... ~ '

"~p-2

'Rei;ision 1

  • ~1ay.1980

i-i PALISADES ?LANT SGRR gallons for heater train, condensate polishers, and hot*..;el2..

This is the a..~our.t necessarv to refill the svstems if maintenance had been per:or;ed t~a~ required-draining the systems.

Approxi:;ia tely 75, 000. gallons would be_ =e~ired :c=

primary sys tern dil u :.ions to retu::::n to *power.

DepeDding on various chemical ;:Ja=a..'ileters, as much as 50% of t.."iis water could be recovered t.:-..::-cuch tb.e nla.:it r.ecoverv* svs-ce!Ils, such.

as clean radwaste svste::n~ boric~ ac:id.:-ecvcle~ svstem,;, and steam generator. blowdown iecove~J sys-t.e.:i:

Fol,owi'ng rc..,....1aceme,.,t o.::.*. :~e*.::.:.... -.;.;.,,;

l'""O.,.:,iQ..-::...... oi--

.... is.

.. w.

, '--~h '
:::-_.. __ --:....

exnected that forc:::d outages associated *,.;i th_ s-ce2.!Il gene::-atcr tube plugging a.!1d/or tl:be sleeving w:.11 be essentiaJ."ly eliminated; however, it is not a.m:icicated that t..i.e water consumption associated wi w."l tb.e cu=::-e~:n: i:-...spection program will be signi~icantly reduced because of the continuing requirement to inspect (eddy current test) t.~e steam generator tubing at regular inte=vals.

7. 6. 2 OPERATIONAL EX?OSlJKES Section 4:.3.7 discusses the future reduc-:.ion in man-rem exposure.as a consequence of t.'1.e repair program.* A potential savings of 250 man-rem/y= ~ay be realized because of the expected eli~ination cf t::e necessity to plug tabes in the repaired steam generators and t..~e decrease in t.~e number of inspections requi=ed (Req~latory Guice 1.83).

7.6.3 RADIOLOGICAL RELEASES Although t.~e Palisades ?lant has experienced only seven primary-to-secondary leaks f=om t"..l.be failure, t:l:e repair of the steam generato.=s should reduce t....~-e probabili '!:.y of :1.itu.:-e secondarv releases as a consecue~ce of the same tu.be failure mechanisi..

7-5 Revis ion 5

.F.ebruaz:y.19 a 0

,.I(

1 t*.c' SE?ARATE COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS HENDRIE ANO KENNEDY ON THE PROPOSED NEW REGULATION FOR FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OPERATING PRIOR TO JANUARY l, 1979 We _agree with the fire safety provisions of the proposed Appendix R tc 10 CFR Part 50.

However, we do not agree with the implemen'.ta,tion schedule that the Corrmission proposes.

In its original presentation of this rule to the Conmission. the staff. proposed a 'schedule whi.ch we believe is more rea.sonab 1 e.

In *the absence of Three Mile Island and. the actions We have required.

the short schedule the Cotrmission proposes might be appropriate in view of the extended pei-iod during which a number of.these fire safety provisions have been under discussion.

In the present situation~ the Ccnmission has properly imposed a large number of Three Mile Is1and-re1ated safety requirements on operating nuclear power plants.

We are concerned that the short imp1 e.inentation schedu1 e proposed here fer fire safety *provi si ens, together with the large workload associated with the Three Mile Island requirements, may make it impossible for licensees to complete a11 cf these measures in a carefully considered.and thorough fashion. *Since a11 operating plants have implemented a"*number of' improvements in their fire safety postures, the remaining improvements*to be required under the proposed ru1 e do no*t seem to us so urgent as tc ~qui re either

. shutting down of plants because of inability to complete these requiremen~s..i-:

  • on the short schedule proposed or to make those improveirients in a hasty fashion.

We note a1so that the proposed implementation schedule would require licensees to submit their plans fer complying with this rule by August l, 1980.

Considering that the staff has said it wi11 not be ab1e to complete its p1ant-by-p1ant reviews to determine specific: requirements until July 1980, some licensees wi11 simply not have any ~asonab1e time to make an adequate plan.

. -* -* ---- -------- ~--*-.. -**** -.._.--------..

-~* -*------ -**----

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18045A373&oldid=5025306"