ML19274E024
| ML19274E024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1979 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903050026 | |
| Download: ML19274E024 (3) | |
Text
.
),j
.l lA
[
b UNITED STATES e"
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j.
Ah!
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- s. m FEB 12 E Docket No. 50-341 Detroit Edison Company ATTN: Dr. Wayne Jens, Manager Engineering & Construction 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48421 Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of your responses (Supplement No. 5) to staff environmental review c,uestions which were submitted with your letter of December 26, 1978.
Based upon the staff evaluation, we find that additional information is required so as to permit our continued preparation of the environmental impact statement for the Fermi 2 facility. The requested information is provided in the enclosure to this letter and has been discussed previously with Ms. E. Madsen of your staff.
We would appreciate that your written responses be submitted to the NRC by February 23, 1979, with a copy to Dr. R. A. Zussman, Division of Environmental Impact Studies, Building No.10, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439.
Sincerely, h
d[W Ny' Ronald L. Ballard, Ch mf Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:(see attached list) 7903050ORG g
^
Enclosure Environmental Review Questions 1.
The staff has identified an apparent discrepancy between the weight ratios of Na250 and Cl2 given in the body of Table 1, p. A4-35 and 3
footnote C to Table 1 which pertains to 1.5 times the stoichiometric amount of Cl.
Furthermore, the basis of the applicant's selection 2
of the 1.5:1 ratio of sulfite to chlorine is not given.
Explain the apparent discrepancy and provide the rationale for choosing the 1.5:1 ratio.
2.
The intent of the staff in posing question No. 5 given on p. A4-106 of Supplement No. 5 was to ascertain why the 50-acre holding pond had not been retained as an alternative to chemical dechlorination, even if it was no longer desired by the applicant as the ultimate heat sink.
If the initial location is no longer considered desirable for a holding pond, describe in detail (with maps or drawings) other locations on the site where a holding pond between 5.5 and 50 acres could be located. Also indicate how measures could be employed to allow the use of a holding pond at the initially planned location -
e.g. dredging of silt from the pond, if or when it would become necessary; construction of adequate, protective berms around the pond; installation of water wave-energy reducing, reflecting or deflecting structures at the Erie shoreline, lakeward of the pond perimeter.
3.
Provide the source and basis for 158 ppm of sulfate, given in the third column of Table 3.3-1, page 3.3-5 of the Environmental Report.
Detroit Edison Company Fermi 2 cc: Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1757 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
Co0 Counsel Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. W. J. Farner Project Manager Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Supervisor Frenchtown Township Frenchtown Township Hall 2664 Vivian Road Monroe, Michigan 48161 Dr. Robert G. Asperger 12 Dennis Court Midland, Michigan 48640