ML19260C162
| ML19260C162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000448, 05000449 |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1979 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sells D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912180650 | |
| Download: ML19260C162 (7) | |
Text
>
DISTRIBUTION Dockets I'
'.: M flRR Rdg EPT Rdg ESB Rdg G. Lear Dochet flo.
50-448 50-449 l'Ei'0PIC:DU'1 FOR: Ceneld E. Cells, '.cting Chief Cr /i.'zmntal Projocts Crc"ch 2, OSE TRO:1:
car:0 Lmr, Chief C.airar.:atal Specillis:.s Crr...ch, DSE I'
SPJECT:
.E'!IE'.I 0F _:'/ FT SCTTLE:ZiT/.RY TESTI. :..Y G J'F'I> P0luT i
iMT.!R::MI'lE SITE c.dLYSIS I
I In raponse to your is orcndw dated f:ovember 14, 1979, C. Cillups of tha 9"atic 7.rourc9s Sectic:1 h7s r vie:cd sections of the draft supplcaentary tes ti: m.y on tha C#,gics Io at al tarne.tive site analysis scarared by 02WL's
- '. atic Liologist. 02 tailed cc.. 'nts from Dr. r>illups' ravic'i are enclosed.
The aquM.ic assessunt appears to support a conclusion that thera are environ-e a'.11y Tr:fcerad si tus to Ocuqlas Ioint, based on a",':atic factors alone.
Tha
- v. rT11 conclusion, uina oa ca 32,. ices not as.T:at::ly reflect Gis ap;ar.nt finding in stating that: "The Staff finjs that r.cn2 cf the si tes ar.! as ccod or Letter than the Douglas Foint site." Tha lattar conclusion l
'y b2 valid '..h.:n the findings of the aquai.ic ass:s= nt are ucighed with l
.'i.mings Teca ossessit:nts of other faci. ors (raviou catccortes); however, the tut (p. 32) indic tas that the oNeall evaluatica was perforced "uithout
.mighting any of da catecories".
It uculd appear that sora waighting
, racess had to intarpose bet'taen the findings of tha aquatic astesstent and the overall findings of the altcrnative site analysis.
In their i
pr0lcratica of the final draft, the CI:L tecm :nd the EP:: nay with to consider ravicing the discussion on page 32 to resolve this matter.
i Any qucstions cenceraing this r:vicu 'ay be directed to Dr. Dillups on FTS.ig2-3209.
1 Csorce 1. car, Chief D]m D
g-
~
2nvircrc.cntal Specialists Cr nch o
o q
Division of Site Safety and dc w
. dJ
-Q EnvircE6ntal f.nalysis
Enclosure:
Co. Jots jgj3 g}g
':!,cncl os':re
.._t cc:
i RT ESB...f.T d.I ES3,
..DSE;L9;fSB
"' :R!.lrecan-
- Sr.:'chlus ek..
.DSE;:
3 M '.MJT5Ptf Clear g a::R. Sr.ifo rt!)..
_ C,.,Rillugs C'ai1T0ps :sj.,
R ma 12/j/79 123r/79 12/3/79 I
m:>
- sic 10.'?! 318 p.7o hnct 0:40 D
,.s. n w e a.= t :
u m a v.ce:i.e..res.r.
7912180 6 @
EtiCLOSURE 1
Detailed Comments on Aquatic Sections of Draft Supplementary Testimony on Douglas Point Alternative Site Analysis Prepared by Charles W. Billups, Aquatic Scientist Aquatic Resources Section Environmental Specialists Branch, DSE P ce 24 3
First paragraph - The text is redundant in its description of reconnaissance level information (as given on page 3) and could be deleted.
The inclusion of an additional bibliography may only result in problems, e.g., a bibliography of generic source caterial invites an examination of the witness's familiarity with everything in the reference documents.
Questions might arise as to why the witness drew selectively from the bibliographical materials when other pertinent information therein (in another reviewer's view) was ignored.
The subsequent text indicates that only two factors have been selected by the reviewer as important to the aquatic impacts assessment for the candidate sites.
These are:
(1) cooling water requirements in relation to historical flows in the source waterbody; (2) the point of interception of the source waterbody in regard to salinity regimes.
(The latter factor is expanded to consider the habitat functions for important finfisl. and shellfish associated with the salinity regimes). Although two additional factors are noted (i.e., potential occurrence of an endangered species and possible designations of scenic rivers), these factors do not appear to be given any importance in the comparison of candidate sites.
It would seem appropriate to only cite 1613 339
, reference materials which relate to the factors used in the comparison of sites.
Even though other source material was consulted, reference to that material is unnecessary unless used in the assessment.
Page 25 First paragraph - The first and second sentences present extraneous information which is not used in the subsequent comparison of candidate sites.
First paragraph - The third and fourth sentences are redundant with information in the second paragraph on page 25.
These sentences would better fit as examples follcuing the fourth sentence of the second pa ra g rap h.
Page 26 First paragraph - Typo: The site M10 should be deleted from the second line from end of paragraph.
Second paragraph - The fourth line from bottom of page states "an increase in temperature of a few degrees during the warm summer months may significantly impact these populations" (of soft-shelled clam].
Does thir, imply that the blowdown would cause a temperature increase of a "few degrees"? If so, a supporting thermal analysis might be in order.
Does the assumption of cooling tower blowdown (as stated on page 24) still hold for the discussion here?
1613 340 Second paragraph - Second line from bottom of page should be revised to read "...in the vicinity of the potential discharges..."
Page 27 First full paragraph - In the middle of paragraph, where it is stated that
" Ass" ming a condenser flow of 6800 liters /sec...", this should be clari fied as the intake water requirement. The condenser flow (FES, page 3-4, Fig. 3.2) is shown as 1,238,000 gpm (s78,106 liters /sec).
Page 28 First sentence - The text suggests that a conclusion sentence should follow that cumulative effects of Chalk Point and a plant at site M7 would detract from siting at M7.
tio conclusion is drawn in the text, at present.
First full paragraph - In discussing shortnose sturgeon, the fact that it is known for the Potomac River Estuary should perhaps put another check-mark against candidate sites on the Potomac River.
It is not clear from the discussion whether there is similar potential for the shortnose sturgeon at all of the candidate sites.
Some conclusion seems to be called for but none is presented.
Last paragraph - The last sentence does not present a conclusion that potential designations as Federal scenic rivers could detract from the selection of any candidate site. Although there are presently no res trictions on development 1613 341
of rivers which are now under study as scenic rivers, this doesn't preclude our use of this fact as a site screening factor.
Some further consultation with the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (D0I) regional office might bc n order to clari fy what river segments are now being studied and
..hether any of the candidate sites are within those segments. Attached is a regional directory for the HCRS offices with FTS phone numbers.
Page 29 The conclusion appears to be that, from an aquatic impact viewpoint, there are preferred sites to Douglas Point.
If this is the conclusion, then it should be reflected in Table 4 (cited on page 32 as the summary of the staff environmental assessment). Table 4 was not included in the copy of the draft testimony which was transmitted for ESB review.
Page 32 The text does not demonstrate that the conclusion of the aquatic assessment is reflected in the overall conclusion that "...none of the sites are as good or better than the Douglas Point site." The overall conclusion may be valid when the aquatic assessment is weighed with the assessments of other factors, but the text indicates that no weighting process has been used to support the overall conclusion.
Clarification is needed here, possibly by the expansion of the text on page 32 to more fully express what is to be presented in Table 4 1613 342
3 9
- ..i,'
' i i'.
k..
,\\
t g
1
\\,
S'
.\\1
=
.2 M,
-yp,
?
x:.
a C
U r
a; C
)
S A
., g.b;9s%f
,,t
~
d
,3wo,,"w,, m o f o *,o,\\ a. 5:. c Az N 1 u'.n,,',v_& g: w 9_ f s \\ N g j .'s ^ .e b g. gg s. 7 E1 a 4 s, r s ~
- ,* l.
/Sg s). a,N. Ig.1.s)vs,* s. ~ ,,a a, o, ~ ~, t;. l.- - , a. . a ;~ pg o s =. s e T m o 1 $.uE Y, g ',,,M s \\ g ,6~,. a-s ~d m .~ s w O o .-s \\../; cn 4 ~ Z. n T n:u l G' k. o, u
- u.. ;,.-
o S c o
- !l
~,.. ],nl 3 J. o o .a .a. c 2 ~ o o i w. 0, .t o . a. a -.a o \\s c . n. T,i : l! ~ a.
- z W\\,r Ft o
g e j.1 i n e o $r o .js,' ~
- 4. #
s n, a. o a r n a w '% ((' s u c s $ a c* f* "q%c*%n.. a .n c { m s 't t l )s \\
- \\
\\\\. n- [
a. V rri N:A 'r?Y
- c. : IC A.E+ SS P T C:
-:d w I. T F>.:.s
- GC YA57 W :
- 4..*t L. m 4
'9 24 diff.:r.co f:7s ?:00-4:30 Taji. _=1 Oil -; tor 1:ithinj*:n tio 'diilic J. G:c :n FA. Ofc. B1.1, P.,. 9310 7 630 Arc'. St c at Thil.'d ? '.3, FA 19106 T*c,12 215-597-7333 f*:S 8-537-7330 C0._1a_':'ei_f ?ci>ut M. *
- r
!b dif& m :.2 0.an 7 45 *:15 9.);iTa1 Oi:.-r.or ..mi;ri.ca ti o Fic'u rd 3. 2 n.-?ll F M. BMg 75 3, r!n; 5'.rc 3t Atir.ts, CA 30303 T:sra-40 -221-3145 i.S 2-2 2-3145 %-2 c?'- E "'rc;.-A D. Jr.2s
- b diff 2:enac fran 7:30-4:00
- 9 r.eul Oi;. -'ne Wadinit,a ti.m
?>' ual 3.nliityg U M bsr'dl '3107 T: cr. ': 313-562-2023 P*3 S-375-2223 ' :3.' t..%.'...:..'.r. C..rrell P. '.".,1;r o Oss h x:s b t h d 3:00-4:30 i r =1 0':- :.ar wsW;':n ti.m i %:.er T- *. C=.w: ?.O. 0.;x ;137
- ,s.,-r, c0
- :?25 F:ve,a: 302 23' C 52 1.'.! ;- 2 2 * - 6 ' 6 2
_-. d' c " ? E
- llrd 9.
w dley ?ss brs b+.ind 7:30-4:00 . e;uca1 ci. ur m_Airic.:a ti.m 5:03:drble,t.T 31 211 A'b4 m:e, !N 37110 75r:3: 5:1-!EC-3515 P S 2-474-3515 _- m? 9:3 f earir.3 H. L rdy t_.-2 5:=_rs S. ixi S:00-4:30 + .jiwl Oiraccr m shingt n ti;e N >rsl sid;. ::n. 990 913 Gr.: ai Asa.:a 021:-1s, KA isl74 TS::a: 200-440-4706 13 2-3??-4706 TAT /IC S7 'E.2.,f Jc.'a D. CM::y Or ? Mrs b+.i xi 7:45-4:15 T:ine11 Dir:- tcr taf.in;t:n tim 4 9 G ife.. Cit.2 k.m. Esa T-arts.r, C; 94102 Phra: 415-556-C132 k S 3-55C-0182 s
- m \\.17 A Cmc Jo?t W. M.cle rive Io.
- s b9.Lri 7: D-4 15 Tc;i nsl Dire-or W12.in f. n tt e 101.1 E. 721:r, Seite 297 A-dura;2, A.11&195503 Th.u:
537-277-1f66 T.S E-300-0150 g A fP -.g n q _ja i o m}}