ML19253A319
| ML19253A319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1979 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908210313 | |
| Download: ML19253A319 (25) | |
Text
.
eff@.I
/
WISCONSIN Electnc m.a coumr 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 August 14, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. f:UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIC" Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
DOCKET NO. STN 50-502 ADDITIO?"i :U.~ ' '"' TION - EfiVIRONMENTAL REPORT HAVEIOitiLLEAR PLANT This is to provide responses to your request of July 10, 1979, for additional i;:fonnation related to the Haven Nuclear Plant Environmental Report. Twenty-five (25) copies of Applicants' responses are enclosed.
Very truly yo' irs, hbl i ,
C. W. Fay, Dir ctor Nuclear Power Department Enclosures Copy to: Service List 7 9 08 213 ~3/ 3 800 29$ C e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER Docket No. STN 50-502 COMPANY, ET AL.
Haven Nuclear Plant -
SERVICE LIST Chai rman Robert H. Gorske, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Wisconsin Electric Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 West Michigan Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Mr. Sol Burstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Vice President U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wisconsin Electric Power Company Washington, D. C. 20555 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route #3 Mr. William Charles Hanley Box 350-A President Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Safe Haven Ltd.
P. O. Box 40 Steven C. Goldberg, Esq. Kohler, Wisconsin 53044 Office of the Executive Legal Director David E. Beckwith, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Foley & Lardner Washington, D. C. 20555 First Wisconsin Center 777 E. Wisconsin Avence Docketing and Service Section Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Office of the Secretary V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Richard W. Henneger Washington, D. C. 20555 Bureau of Legal Services Department of Natural Resources Thomas A. Lockyear, Esq. Box 7921 Assistant Chief Counsel Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Gerald Charr.off, Ee.g.
Shaw, Pittnun, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 N Street, H.U.
- Washington, D. C. 20036 800 M W
Ef1CL OSURE WISC0liSIts UTILITIES PROJECT HAVEN I UCLEAR PLAT 1T APPLICAPES' RESP 0tlSE
.10 U. S. IlUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt1ISS1011 REQUEST FOR ADDITI0t;AL IllFORMATION DATED JULY 10, 1979 f7 800 -29F Mlp
NRC C0fetEi1T A.2 (f1RC latter dated July 10, 1979)
Questions regarding alternate sites transmitted by letters dated flarch 12, 1979 and April 21, 1979 remain outstanding.
RESP 0flSE All questions transmitted by the NRC letters of March 14 and April 21, 1979, were answered by Applicants' responses of June 20, 1979. .
M 800 t m
NRC C0fetEtiT A.1 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
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.
RESP 0flSE All questions transmitted by the NRC letter of May 15, 1979 were answered by Applicants' responses of June 20, 1979.
h 800 B S-
}'1
fiRC QUESTI0fl 63 (!1RC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Statements in Section 2.2.2.2 (p's 9,10) of the ER refer to effects on " environ-mental corridors associated with the development 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.
RESP 0ftSE The only envirormental corridor affected is that associated with the west branch of Seven Mile Creek. The effect on this corridor will remain the same regardless of the cooling system design, as stated in Section 14.4.1.4. The effects are described in Section 4.1.4.
800 P96' 3.e cj,
[1RC QUESTI0ii 64 (flRC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Provide an estimate of the land area within the 5 miles of the Haven plant site that is used for agricultural purposes. Provide a similar estimate for woodland of forest vegetation. In the case of agricultural use, differentiate between r opland and pasturage. -
RESP 0!iSE Agricultural land use within a 5 mile radius of the plant occupies approximately 70 percent of the land area or an estimated 18,500 acres. Woodlands occupy approximately 10 percent of the land area or an estimated 2,700 acres.
Pasturing of livestock is not practiced to any significant extent in area sur-rounding the site due to the high value of the land for crop purposes. Dairy farms in the area utilize exercise / feeding pens adjacent to barns to allow their herds to exercise. The exercise pens generally range in size from less than an acre up to 10 acres depending on the size of the herd involved. Within the 5 mile radius area such pens are estimated to occupy less than 500 acres.
Some very limited pasturing of livestock also occurs on land adjacent to small streams and drainage courses in the area, primarily in areas unusable for other agricultural purposes.
Source: fir. Eugene G. Hoye Agricultural Agent University Extension - Sheboygan County Office 800 -2 n ppo
flRC QUESTION 65 (flRC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Identify current and projected land use categories (by acreage or miles) for new right-of-way (ROW) required for Segment E of the proposed transmission line system (ER, page S.3.9-3). Provide similar information for portions of the Segment E required expanded R0W, and for " existing unused" R0W. Provide comparable information for each portion of Segment H (page S.3.9-4). Will alterations of Segment ti and 0 require additional R0W? If so, indicate areas of land uses affected. Figure S.3.9-1 of the ER depicts transmission line Segments I and J. Are these segments parts rf the proposed transmission system?
If so, provide descriptions as for other Secuents and indicate acreages (or miles) and types of land use affected.
RESP 0tlSE The attached table identifies existing land use for Segments E and H of the proposed transmission line system.
Projected land use along all portions of Segment E is the same as existing land use. Approximately 1.2 miles of the existing right-of-way to be W 4ened by 48 feet for Segment H that is now used for agricultural purposes is projected to be converted to medium density residential usage (2.3 to 6.9 dwelling units per net residential acre). This is the only change in land use projected for the lands crossed by Segment H.
The restrings proposed for Segments N at d , will not require any additionai right-of-way.
Segments I and J depicted nn Figure S.3.9-1 are due to a printing error.
Segments I and J are not part of the proposed transmission additions.
l 90I 800 -298-
l I
l Table I j Existing and Proposed Land Use I
Segment E Land Use Category Existing Land Use Agricul./ Wood / Open/ Gravel Wood Woodland Wet Wetland Unused Pit R0W Type Length Agricul.
0.9 miles 8.4 miles - 0.5 mile New R0W 11.8 miles 2.0 miles -
1.3 miles 3.0 miles 0.7 miles 0.1 mile Widened R0W 5.1 miles -
1.5 miles 16.4 miles 0.8 mile 0.4 mile Existing Unused R0W 19.1 miles -
Restring Existing - - -
3.1 miles 0.7 mile 0.5 mile 0.3 mile No change in R0W 4.6 miles -
40.6 miles 30.9 miles 2.0 miles 4.4 miles 2.0 miles 1.3 miles - -
Total Segment E Segment H Widening Exi-ting 0.1 mile 0.1 mile 0.1 mile 3.9 miles 0.1 mile 0.4 mile 0.1 mile ROW by 40 ft. 4.8 miles 0.1 mile 0.1 mile - -
IIwy. I - Corridor 2.0 miles 1.6 mile 0.1 mile 0.1 mile Widen Existing 0.6 mile - - 0.2 mile 0.2 mile - -
R0W by 30 ft. 1.0 mile 0.5 mile 0.4 mile 0.4 mile 0.1 mile 0.1 mile Total Segment II 7.8 miles 6.1 miles 0.2 mile
~
Source: WEPCo estimate based on Bay Lake Fegional Planning Commission Aerial Photos taken May 1975.
3Q 800 %
u
flRC QUESTI0tl 66 (f1RC Letter dated Jrly 10,1979)
To facilitate comparisons cf land use impacts associated with the proposed and alternate transmission system (Fig. S.10.9-1), identify current land use categories (by acreage or miles) for new R0W required for Segment E of the alternate transmission system (page S.10.9-3). Provide similar information for portions of the Segment E requiring expanded R0W (5.1 miles) and for the existing vacant R0W (19.1 miles). Also provide the kinds and acreages .(or miles) of land 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.
RESP 0!lSE Existing and projected land use along the 40.6 miles associated with Segment E is presented in the response to Question 65. The right-of-way requirements for the proposed and alternate Segment E are the same. The structure type and circuit arrangement differ for the initial 10.8 miles.
Existing and proposed land use along the 29.4 miles of alternate Segment P are as follows:
Along the westernmost 12.4 miles of alternate Segment P the right-of-way would be widened by 90 feet. This portion of the alternate segment would cross 10.0 miles of agricultural land,1.3 miles of woedland,1.0 mile of wooded wetland and 0.1 mile of wetland. Projected land use for this portion of the alternate segment is the same as the existing land use.
Along the easternmost 17.0 miles of alternate Segment P the right-of-way would be widened by 80 feet. This portion of the alternate segment would cross 9.1 miles of agricultural land, border between agricultural land / woodland for 0.9 mile, cross 5.3 miles of woodlands, 0.8 mile of wooded wetland, 0.1 mile of wetland, 0.6 mile of open unused land which could also be wetland and 0.2 mile of a gravel pit operation. Projected land use for this portion of the alternate segment is the same as existing land use.
800 305 3
NRC QUESTION 67 (NRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
Indicate current land use of acreages utilized for the construction of proposed new and expanded transmission system substatians (ER Section S.3.9.2).
RESPONSE
Land use for the various substation sites described in ER Section S.3.9.2 are as follows:
New Acreage Proposed Substation Requirements Land Use Construction Power Substation 1 acre Agriculture Haven Nuclear Plant 9 acres Agriculture Erdman Substation NA Cedarsauk Substation -
Saukville Switching Station 0.5 acres Agriculture Range Line Substation 4.0 acres Industrial St. Lawrence Substation 5.0 acres Agriculture Forest Junction Switching Substation 5.0 acres Agriculture Alternate Substation South Fond du Lac Substation NA Proposed land use is the same as existing land use at all substation sites.
NA - not applicable. L 800 30Y
NRC QUESTION 68 (NRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
Confirm, if possible, the selection of the proposed 73.45-acre borrow site-referred to in Section 4.1.l.8 of the ER as a source of earth materials to be used for backfilling at the llaven site. Also confirm the volume of materials to be borrowed and the acreages of the various land use types to be affected.
Discuss projected land use for portions of the 73-acre site that will not be affected by excavation of borrow materials.
RESPONSE
The present borrow area, land use and impacts of borrow area activities are described in Section 4.1.1.8 of the Environmental Report. As stated in Section 4.1.1.8, the borrow area described is proposed for use, although alternate bnrrow sources will also be investigated. The volumes provided in Section 4.1.1.8 are the best estimates of material to be borrowed. Projected land use for areas not affected by excavation activities is expected to remain the same as present use.
800 30e of
i flRC QUESTIO!169 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)_
Provide average pumpage (gpm) data, if available, for each of the non-residential wells listed in Table 2.2-15.
RESP 0ftSE Average pumping rate data for these 45 wells are not available. In any event, the construction dewatering analysis presented in Section S.4.1.1.6 shows that drawdown effects, if any, on these wells will be negligible.
800 3g3
i ii_RC QUESTI0ft 70 (flRC Letter dated Uuly 10,1979)
" Applicant's Responses to the Department of Natural Resources -- Specific Conments on Amendment 10, DilR Comment 3.6-2, Para.1, 8/30/78.
The DflR comment from the ebove reference is as follows: "The calculations csed to determine that the filter backwash from the gravity and carbon filters would contain 66 lbs. of solids should be provided ..."
The 3pplicant's response to the above DilR comment stated that " daily solids production due to filter backwash operation was revised to 30 lbs/ day to reflect the updated analyses of Haven site water quality data. This estimate it. based upon the maximum hydraulic capacity of the system (530 gpm) ... Over a 5-year period, the total solid accumulation would be approximately 18,500 lbs.
(3700 lbs/yr)."
In Amendment 14, Section 3.6-2, it is stated that approximately 1850 lbs per year (s5 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. (ER Amendment 14,53.6-2)
RESP 0flSE The value of 30 lbs/ day is based upon the maximum hydraulic capacity in order to provide an estimate of maximum daily production. The annual values for solids production are based upon average water requirements.
While the maximum hydraulic capacity of the makeup water treatment plant has not changed, the makeup water requirements for one unit are only half those for two units. Thus, the solids filtered from Lake liichigan water used for this purpose have been reduced by a factor of two (frcm 3700 to 1850 lbs/ year).
The response to the Department of flatural Resources comment was based upon two units. Amendment 14, Section S.3.6.2, provides information for a single unit.
800 394 07
NRC QUESTI0ll 71 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
It is stated in Section 3.6.1.1 that 27,600 pounds of 93% H2SO4 will 'o added per day to the makeup water. In Table S3.6-5, it is listed that 4,789,200 (4684400 = liakeup water treatment system; 104-800 = demineralized water makeup treatment system) pounds of 93% H2504 will be added per year. This would imply a plant 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, Tabie S3.6-5).
RESP 0f!SE Section 3.6.1.1 of the Environmental Report (ER) provides values for two units, while Table S.3.6-5 of the Single 'Jnit Supplement provides values for a single unit. The latter values should be used. In any event, it is invalid to calculate plant capacity factor based upon chemical use.
800 305 o'b
t NRC QUESTI0fl 72 (llRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
Explain how the values in the column entitled " Estimated increase in cooling system blowdown concentration" from Table 3.6-6 were determined. A sample 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 liean" and " Ambient Mean". Llould 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 obtain the " discharge mean" values? (ER Vol. #3, Table 3.6-6 and 5.4-2)
RESP 0flSE Table S.3.6-5 should be used rather than Table 3.6-6 since Table S.3.6-5 provides values for a single unit.
As a sample calculation, the annual add '.un of ammonia from Table S.3.6-5 is 562 pounds. The average conce.itration is calculated as follows:
Average plant disc harge (Figure S.3.3-1) = 7792 gal / min.
Average concentr o .< bn = 562 lb/yr 1 365 days /hr
- 7792 gal / min
- 1440 m.in/ day
- 8.3 b/ gal *
= 0.017 ppm Similarly, the maximum concentration is calculated as follows:
Minimum plant discharge (Figure S.3.3-1) = 5102 gal / min Maximum concentration = 562 lb/yr 1 365 days /yr
- 5102 gal / min
- 1440 min /yr
- 8.3 b/ gal
= 0.025 ppm The discharge concentrations provided in Table 5.4-2 are calculated using the formula provided and described in Section 3.6.2. As shown by the formula cnd the water use diagram (Figure S.3.3-1), the discharge stream is made up of 800 3B6 W
several individual waste streams of which the cooling tower blowdown is only one. Thus, discharge concentrations cannot be determined simply by multiplying arbient values by the cooling tower concentration factor. The calculated concentrations must be obtained from the mass balance described by the fo"mula in Section 3.6.2.
\
800 3ef
NRC QUESTI0ft 73 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
Describe the current status of the WPDES permit?
RESP 0ilSE The Applicants submitted the WPDES permit application to the Wisconsin Department of flatural Resources (DilR) on September 19, 1978. No response has been received from the Dlin as yet.
800 388 Il
f4RC QUESTIO!I 74 (flRC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Amendment 14 follows flo.13 (once-through cooling), but the cooling system described in Section 3.4 is for cne n6tural-draft cooling tower. Explain the contradiction.
RESP 0:ISE There is no contradiction. As stated in the introduction to the Single Unit Supplement (Amendment 14), the Supplement provides information for a single unit with closed cycle cooling and supplements information in Sections 1 through 13 of the Environmental Report which describe a two-unit plant with closed-cycle cooling.
As stated in ti e introduction to Chapter 14 '4nendment 13), Chapter 14 contains information for a single unit with once-through cooling.
800 309
NRC QUESTIO!! 75 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
Amendment 14 does not provide revised information on cooling tower impacts (plume rise, plume length, drif t, fogging, blowdown, etc.) for single unit operation. Justify the implied predicticr. that cooling tower impacts are the same for one unit as for two.
RESPONSE
The cooling tower impacts (visible plume, drift, fogging, icing and blowdown) from a single unit operation with a single natural drc ft cooling tower are less than the impacts from a two unit operation with two natural draft cooling towe rs. This is due to the reduction of cooling water flow and consequently, the reduction of total cooling tower emissions and blowdown. Since the impacts from a two unit operatica are insignificant, as shown in Section 5.1.5, a re-analysis of cnoling tower impacts for a single unit is unnecessary.
800 31 3
flRC QUESTI0!i 76 (IIRC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Provide drift drop size spectrum dat?.
RESP 0!lSE Drop size spectrum data are provided in Figure 3.6-6 of the Environmental Report.
The source and use of these data are described in Section 3.6.3.1.
L.
800 31f
FIRC QUESTI0il 77 (fliC Letter dated July 10,1979)_
Provide the design curves (cold and hot water temperatures, exit ai" temperature and velocity) as a function of wet-bulb terperatures and humidity.
RESP 0ilSE ,
Performance curves (cold water temperature as a function of wet bulb temperature and humidity) are provideo on Figure 3.4-6. Exit air temperature and velocity for normal and extreme conditions are provided in Tables S.3.4-2 and S.3.4-3.
As stated in Section 3.4.1, the rand of the cooling tower is 26F.
800 3B
/F
NRC QUESTI0il 78 (flRC Letter dated July 10,1979)
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 from an unspecified depth over the sedinents was collected, yet, the entrainment calculation is based entirely on density of eggs in the water column. (Section 14.5.1.3)
RESPOT1SE All Lake Michigan species which utilize the aear shore zone for spawning deposit eggs on or near the bottom. Alewife eggs are pelagic for only a short time after which they too settle to the bottcm. The hose used for egg sampling drew water from the bottom sediment-water interface. These volumes of sediment-water mixture were measured and the density of eggs was then determined by u .ing these volumes and actual egg counts. Although these density values are conserva-tive since they were extrapolated to approximate densities in the entire water column, they were deemed the most appropriate for entrainment loss estimation since the intake would be withdrawing water from the entire water column including the area on the bottom near the structure.
800 3M Ib
f1RC QUESTI0ft 79 (flRC Letter dated July 10, 1979)
Provide an entrainment estimate following a procedure similar to the impingement calcuistion method, i.e., based on Point Beach data. How does this estimate compare to the original estimate? (Section 14.5.1.3.1)
RESP 0f1SE The comparative data are listed below. Using this approach, larval fish entrain-ment estimates derived using field data are very conservative in that they are higher than estimates based on actual operational data. Based on Point Beach Plant operational conditions, actual losses may be lower by a factor of ten.
Estimated clewife egg entrainment losses would also be lower using actual field data. The difference between the two estimating techniques is primarily due to the fact that alewife egg densities in the vicinity of the Point Beach intake were, on occasion, hundreds of times higher than in the area of the proposed Paven fluclear Plant inta'Ke.
Haven 2 Point Beachl (Basedon Haven 3 Species (1975-76) Point Beach (Based on Field Data)
Alewife 4,661,410 2,176,900 1,500,000 Smelt egg 0 0 0 Alewife larvae 416,311 194,400 969,000 Smelt larvae 1,272,080 594,100 5,360,000 1 Source: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 1976 - Point Beach fluclear Plant Final Report on Intake flonitoring Studies, Report to Wisconsin Department of flatural Resources 2 Assunes maximum flow conditions for both plants where Haven flow equals 0.467 Point Beach flow.
3 Values from Section 14.5.1.3.1 800 3W-12
i fiRC QUESTI0ft 80 (llRC Letter dated July 10,1979) ;
Provide impingement and entrainment estimates for each of the alternate cooling systems and intake designs. (Section 14.5.1.3.1)
RESP 0ftSE Entrainment Estimates i
None of the alternatives (velocity can, velocity cap plus removable screens, velocity cap with water jet curtain,10-mm slot wedge-wire screens) would sig- !
nificantly reduce entrainment with the possible exception of the velocity cap with water jet curtain alternative. fio operational information is known to exist for predicting entrainment losses with this arrangement. f40st of the laboratory research has focused upon the use of this method to reduce impinge-i rmnt losses (see Section 14.10.2.3.3 for a more complete discussion). Recent j l
research has shown that slot sizes greater than 2 mm allow substantial numbers i of larval fish to pass through the wedge-wire screen units. !
Impingement Estimates {
The wedge-wire screen option would effectively eliminate impingement of adult and juvenile fish. The velocity cap with water jet curtain could potentially reduce adult and juvenile fish impingement based on laboratory tests; however, the reduction cannot be estimated due to lack of operational experience (see i
Section 14.10.2.3.3 for a more complete discussion).
The following table presents a comparison of the velocity cap with and without !
scr2cns. Impingement of alewife, smelt and longnose dace would not be significantly reduced by the placement of one by two inch mesh screens around the structure .
I for the period flarch through flovember (screens would be removed during the winter to prevent ice blockage). Impingement losses of sake whitefish, brown trout, lake trout, coho salmon and white sucker would be substantially reduced. However, loss estimates for the velocity cap without the removable screens optiongre already extremely low. 800 3
4 Once-through Cooling System Impingement Estimates of Critical Aquatic Organisms for llaven fluclear Plant Velocity Cap
- Velocity Cap & Screens **
Srccies Number Number Alewife 413,946 413,946 Rainbow smelt 75,359 75,369 Lake whitefish 10 1 _
Brown trout 37 14 Lake trout 95 2 Coho salnnn 8 4 White sucker 50 4 Longnose dace 56 56 _
- Values derived from Point Beach intake study data (1975-76) and corrected for flow differences, e.g. , Haven Plant flow = 46.7% Point Beach flow.
- Values for brown trout, lake whitefish, lake trout, coho salmon and white sucke reduced using relative abundance age (size) data from five year study at Point Beach.
800 3t6 ICf