ML19220C838
| ML19220C838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1978 |
| From: | Ernst M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C836 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905150622 | |
| Download: ML19220C838 (2) | |
Text
.
e 4 * "Uv,(
6 e
f UN'TI 0 97A TES
.$ Yg,. -
NUCLEAR HECUL ATd1RY COf/MissiCN d...g/[7, :
j asmc rce o c. :cssa s w.~. 7 g
1......'
MEMORANDUFi FCR: Voss A. F: core, Assistant Director for Envirorcental Projects, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis FROF1:
Palcolm L. Ernst, Assistant Director for Environmental
' echnology, Division of Site Safety and Environmental i
Analysis
SUBJECT:
ITEM RECOMMECED FCR TRANSMITTAL TO TMI-2 HEARING BOARD Attached is a report entitled "An Evaluation of Environmental Data Relating to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Sites.
The Three Mile Island iiuclear Station Site" ( ANL/EIS-4). This report, which was done by Argonne National Laboratory under NRC contract, contains recommendations for terrestrial monitoring wnW. are different frcm the monitoring program adopted by the staff for TMI-Unit 2.1 The staff considered these recommendations and decline to adopt them for technical reasons in the TMI-2 monitoring requirements.
Recommendatiens 1 and 2 are designed to detect possible adverse environmental effects of cooling tower drift.
In the technical specifications for Unit 2 the staff has chosen to utilize true color and color infra-red aerial photography combined with ground truth inspections as the means of monitoring possible drift effects rather than the methods detailed in the recommendations. The reasons are (1) photography provides a more comprehensive area of coverage than detailed localized m.easurement, (2) ohotograohy permits Unit I ard 2 to be monitored in a single cpera-tion, and (3) photography detects changes in vegetation directly rather then indirectly as with soil chemistry measurements.
Recommendation 3 of tne ANL report outlines a bird monitoring program which the staff has not adopted in the Unit 2 teciinical specifications.
The staff has develoced a specification which requires notification only when and if an episode involving large numbers of bird collisions takes place. This was done since the staff has found that crograms of the type 1 Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 of Page 8 in the subject document.
117 042
'2905150/4 21
~
Voss A. " core u-in recommendation 3 require more effort than is warrented considering tha usually small magnitude of the proDiem. Licensing experience has shown that bird collisions with cooling towers are relatively infrequent and that tnej do not constitute a significant stress on bird populations.
'ie are confident that our reasons for not adopting the monitoring recom-mandations contained in the subject document are suund. We recommend that the report be transmitted to the T:C-2 board, however, since it contains differing technical views which the board may not have been aware of previously.
,5
/~ ~ n}!
//
~
- +til'colm L. Ernst, Assistant Director for Environmental Technology Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Attachment-As stated I
e l
1 i17 043 f
!