ML19248D792
| ML19248D792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908170482 | |
| Download: ML19248D792 (7) | |
Text
-.
1 V
- r W
DISTRIBUTION Docket File (Environ)
- 1 JUL 101979 TERA /
M NRC PDR 7
Local PDR
-M NRR Reading
.Jh Docket ilo. 50-502 EP-1 Read?ng 7
RBallard/EAHHpXXPCOTA MSlater h@
Wisconsin Electric Power Comppny RSharma, ANL ATTil: Ifr. Sol Burstein Executive Vice President
-w
,3 231 Mest Michigan Street 49 Mih;aukee, Wisconsin 33201 Gentlenen:
In ny letter to you af 'ay 15, 1979, I transnitted auestions resulting from J
the staff review of frendnents 9 through 11 of the Daven environnental repert.
As nnted in the letter, these anendnents concerned themselves with a two-unit application, an option which was precluded on an inmediate basis by the Wisconsin Public Service Connission's Order of August 1978.
You were advised by ny letter that new additional questions for upcening Anendnents 13 and 14, and revised questions from the staff review of previous anendnents would be forthconing upon receipt of these latest amendments, fcendments 13 and 14 provide infornation as to the single unit application and proposed once-through condenser cooling systen.
y
/cendments 13 and 14 were receivad fron your office in early t'ay 1919 and have since, together with trendnent 12, been reviewed by the hRC staff. Accordingly, I.an transmitting for your consideration a request for additional infornation q
..g for the !.'aven nroject.
This request reprasents staff review of frendnents 12,
-3 13, and 14, as well as update and revision of crevious staff questions for q
Amendrents 9 through 11 based on two-units and closed-cycle cooling at the au Haven site.
s}
- :l Please provide your responses to the enclosed request for additional informa-tien by not later than August 15, 1979.
Due to the recently announced two-year delay in the Haven plant, the staff I
will proceed toward preparation of m Preliminary Draf t Environnental Statement (PDES).
We expect. to complete the docunent approximately three ponths after receipt of your responses.
No publication of the document will be nade, i
l1
{
Sincerely,
- !Ui
- i
') <
-[
p" ' ~
'0 ]
')"
T. ! - 1 Original signed by 7 ID,[ h h T [. I Ronald L Ballard
]
L[h L U
3 Ronald L. Ballard, Chief M
[]
M Environmental Projects Branch 1
.,9.i
/L -
qI$E;.EP-1--
//1 vivisio l of Site bah ty and
-,i
.E;EP-1.
....Env.i.r w.menta.l.J.na h PCota 11ard:mh
~ s.i s..
7 0 p g '
omeo-SR0h y,
.u-u Tn sures:
_7/9/79
.C
.mes tated.. 7/.9 e
l Wisconsir. Electric Power Company Haven Robert H. Gorske, Esq.
Mr. John Williams Vice President and General Counsel Wisconsin Public Service Wisconsin Electric Power Company 4802 Sheboygan, Rm.471 231 West Michigan Street Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Mi.waukee, Wisconsin 53202 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 A. William Finke, Esq.
Senior Attorney Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Mr. Howard Druckenmiller Department of Natural Resources 4601 University Avenue, Rm. 916 Madison, Wisconsin 53/05 William C. Hanley Safe Haven, Ltd P. G. Box 40 Kohler, Wisconsin 53044 Honorable Bronson C. LaFollette Attorney. General, State of Wisconsin Department of Justice State Capitol Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Peter Peshek, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Public Intervenor Department of Justice State Capitol Madison, Wsconsin 53702 Mr. Hilmer Wagner, Town Chairman Town of Mosel Route 1 Cleveland, Wisconsin 53015 Mr. Tom Lockyear, Assistant 7 $q Chief Counsel
'l, %
Wisconsin Puboic Service Commission 4802.Sheboygan, Rm. 471 Madison, Wisconsin 53705
-.m
I REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AMENDMENTS 13 & 14 AND UPDATE OF PREVIOUS REQUESTS (AMENDMENTS 9 THROUGH 12)
AS AFFECTED BY SINGLE UNIT AND ONCE THROUGH C00LIf1G SYSTEM HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT July 1979 oic
'iL
,) -
~
The following information request and revisions result from staff re-review of Amendments 9 through 14. This provides a composite and updated review of these amendments on the basis of one unit and open cycle cooling system as revised by the applicant.
A.
Revision of Previous Staff Review On the Basis of One Unit /Open Cycle Cooling 1.
Except as noted, all staff questions previously transmitted by letter of May 15, 1979 remain outstanding except for questions 33, 34, and 35, page 8.
These questions have been eliminated.
2.
Questions regarding alternate sites transmitted by letters dated March 14, 1979 and April 21, 1979 remain outstanding.,.
B.
New Additioni1 Information Requests 63.
Statements in Section 2.2.2.2 (p's 9,10) of the ER refer to effects on " environmental corridors associated with the develop-ment of a 2-reactor unit plant and natural draft cooling towers."
Provide discussion of the effects on such corridors that will result from development of a single-unit reactor with once-through cooling.
64.
Provide an estimate of the land area within the 5 milas of the Haven plant site that is used for agricultural purposes. Provide a similar estinate for woodland or forest vegetation.
In the case of agricultural use, differentiate between cropland and pasturage.
65.
Identify current and projected land use categories (by acreage or ifles) for new right-of-way (ROW) required for Segment E of the proposed transmission line system (ER, page 5.3.9-3).
Provide similar information for portions of the Segment E requiring ex-panded R0W, and for " existing unused" R0W.
Provide comparable information for each portion of Segment H (page 5.3.9-4). Will alterations of Segment N and 0 require additional R0W?
If so, indicate areas of land uses affected.
Figwe 5.3.9-1 of the ER depicts transmicsion line Segments I and J.
Are these segments parts of the prcposed transmission system?
If so, provide descriptions as for other Segments and indicate acreages (or miles) and types of land use affected.
66.
Tc facilitate comparisons of land use impacts associated with the proposed and Alternate transmission system (Fig. 5.10.9-1), identify current land use categories (by acreages or miles) for new R0W required for Segment E of the alternate transmission system
'OO L'
'l _g; l
(page 5.10.9-3).
Provide similar information for cortions~of the Segment E requiring expanded ROU (5.1 miles) and for the existing vacant R0W (19.1 miles).
Also provide the kinds and acreages (or miles) of and uses affected by expanding the R0W of the 12.4-mile portion of Segment P that will be widened by 90 feet.
Provide similar information for the 17.0-mile portion of Segment P that will be widened by 80 feet.
67.
Indicate current land use of acreages utilized for the construction of proposed new and expanded transmission system substations (ER Section 5.3.9.2).
68.
Confirm, if possible, the selection of the proposed 73.45-acre borrow site referred to in Section 4.1.1.8 of the ER as 1 source of earth naterials to be used for backfilling at the Haven site.
Also confirm the volume of materials to be borrowed and the acreages of the various land use types to be affecEed.
Discuss projected land use for portions of the 73-acre site that will not be affected by exca,vation of borrow materials.
69.
Provide average pumpage (gpm) data, if available, for each of the non-residential wells listed in Table 2.2-15.
70.
" Applicant's Responses to the Department of flatural Resources--
Specific Comments on Amendment 10, DliR Comment 3.6-2, Para. 1, 8/30/70.
The D!lR comment from the above refererce is as follows:
"The calculations used to determine that the filter backwash from the gravity and carbon filters would contain 66 lbs of solids should be provided..."
The applicant's response to the above DtlR comment stated that
" daily solids production due to filter backwash operation was revised to 30 lbs/ day to reflact the updated analyses of Haven site water quality data.
This = stimate is based upon the maximun hydraulic capacity of the system (550 gpm)...
Over a 5-year period, the total solid accumulation world be approximately 18,500 lbs (3700 lbs/yr)."
In Amendraent 14, Section 3.6-2, it is stated that approximately 1850 lbs per year (s 5 lbs/ day) of suspended solids will be removed from the raw water.
Since the hydraulic capacity of the proposed plant has not changed, account for these discrepancies in daily solids production values.
(EP, Amendment 14,53.6-2) 71.
It is stated in Section 3.6.1.1 that 27,600 pounds of 93% H S0{
2 will be added per day to the makeup water.
In Table S3.6-5 5
is listed that 4,789,200 (4684400 = Makeup water _ treatment system; 104,300 = demineralized water makeup treatment system) pounds of 93% H SO4 will be added per year.
This would imply a plant 2
~l + i
(
operation figure of 46.5% since:
27,600 lbs x 356 days x.465 = 4,684,400 lbs/yr day year An average nuclear power plant operates somewhere between 60 and 80% of the year.
Explain what appears to be an extremely low plant operating value.
(ER Vol. #3, Section 3.6.1.1, pg. 3.6-1 vs. Amendment 14, Table S3.6-5.)
72.
Explain how the values in the column entitled " Estimated increase in cooling system blowdown concentration" from Table 3.6-6 were determined.
A sanple calculation would be helpful. Also, provide the relationship (again, a sample calculation would be helpful) between the 2 columns in Table 5.4-2 entitled " Discharge Mean" and " Ambient Mean".
Would not the " Ambient Mean" values simply be multiplied by the plant concentration factor (for those chemical constituents not artificially added to the system) in order to cbtain the " Discharge Mean" values?
(ER Vol. #3, Table 3.6-6 and 5.4-2.)
73.
Describe the current status of the WPDES permit?
74.
Amendment 14 follows No.13 (once-through cooling), but the cooling system described in Section 3.4 is for one natural-draf t cooling tower.
Explain the contradiction.
75.
Amendnent 14 does not provide revised information on cooling tower impacts (plume rise, plume length, drift, fogging, blowdown, etc.)
for single unit operation.
Justify the implied prediction that cooling tower impacts are the same for one unit as for two.
76.
Provide drift drop.ize spectrum data.
77.
Provide the design curves (cold and hot water temperatures, exit air temperature and velocity) as a function of tiet-bulb temperatures and humidity.
73.
Provide a more detailed description of fish egg sampling.
The description given for the sampling in the interim study (Appendix K) indicate that only the bottom sediments and water fron an un-specified depth over the sediments was collected, yet the entrain-ment calculation is based entirely on density of eggs in the water column.
(Section 14.5.1.3.1)
- )
G
/ Ju
79.
Provide an entrainment estimate following a procedure similar to the impingnent calculation method, f.e., based on Point Beach data.
How does this estimate compare to the original estimate?
(Section 14.5.1.3.1) 80.
Provide impingement and entrainment estimates for each of the alternative cooling systems and intake designs.
(Section 14.5.1.3.1) t L -
y
>>L..
(-
$