ML19276F029
| ML19276F029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903270015 | |
| Download: ML19276F029 (17) | |
Text
1-
/
UNITED STATES f
%,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.
~
j. (f
- I j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- y; di 9, ' A
%, % g/
go, 9 1979 g
Docket tio. 50-382 Louisiana Power and Light Company ATT;t: Mr. D. L. Aswell Vice President, Power Production 142 Delaronde Street flew Orleans, LA 70174 Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm arrangements made with Mr. Roy Prados of your staff for a March 20-21, 1979, official site visit and meeting related to the environmental review of the operating license application for Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit tio. 3.
Mr. Prados has indicated that the March 20 site visit will begin with a brief presentation by your company in the Waterford 3 site training room at 9 a.m.
In order to avoid confusion of those who are not aware of the changed location, our representatives to the visit will still meet at the Ebasco Administration Building at 9 a.m., and go from there to the site training room.
By copy of this letter, participants and observers at the site visit are informed that the company will not permit cameras to be brought on-site.
We have also been informed by Mr. Prados that your company will no longer provide a meeting room for the March 21 technical meeting in New Orleans.
I have reserved for this meeting Room 125 in the Hale Boggs Federal Building, 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m., as we had originally intended.
Enclosed is a list of items for discussion, which will serve as the agenda for the March 21 technical meeting.
Dr. Phillip C. Cota of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the project manager for the preparation of the environmental statement, will represent the NRC staff.
He will be accompanied by other members of the staff, including several members of the Argonne National Laboratory who are providing technical support in our environmental review. Also attending will be members of the Louisiana Consumers' League, the 79032700 6
__ _4_m
.g
Louisiana Power and Light Company 0ystershell Alliance, and Save our Wetlands (as observers) and representa-tives of the State of Louisiana.
By copy of this letter, others on the distribution list are again invited to attend; anyone who wishes to attend but has not yet informed Dr. Cota should call Mr. Prados, of Louisiana Power and Light, as soon as possible at (504) 366-2345.
Sincerely,
, ')
7lfaa'My&'&id R6nald L. Ball'rd, Chief a
Environmental Projects Branch No. 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
As stated
Louisiana Power and light Company cc: B. Jim Porter, Administrator Robert LaFleur, Executive Secretary Nuclear Energy Division Louisiana Stream Control Ccmmission Office of Conservation P. O. Drawer FC, University Station Department of Natural Resources Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70993 P. 0. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Jay Broussard, Director Dept. of Art, Historical, and Mr. Clinton Spotts, EIS Coordinator Cultural Preservation U. S. Environmental Protection Old State Capitol, North Boulevard Agency Region VI Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70301 1201 Elm Street First International Building Louis Quinn, Executive Secretary Dallas, Texas 75270 Louisiana Public Service Commission 1 American Place-Suite 1630 District Engineer U. S. Army Engineers District, Baton Rouge, LA 70825 New Orleans P. 0. Box 60267 President, Police Jury New Orleans, LA 70160 St. Charles Parish Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service Office of State Clearinghouse 9450 Gandy Blvd. North Department of Urban and Duval Bldg.
Community Affairs St. Petersburg, Florida 23702 P. O. Box 44455, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Regional Director U. S. Fish and Hildlife Service Teche Regional Clearinghouse 17 Executive Park Drive c/o South Central Planning and Atlanta, GA 30329 Development Ccmmission P. O. Box 346 Steven M. Irving, Esq.
Thibodaux, LA 70301 One American Place, Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, LA 70925 Louisiana Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. Ray Prados Luke Fontana, Esq.
142 Delarande Street 824 Esplande Avenue New Orleans, LA 70174 New Orleans, LA 70116 Fred Humke, 6AEE, Enforcement Division Lyman L. Jones, Jr.
U. S. Environmental Protection 910 Security Homestead, Bldg.
Agency Region VI 4900 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
1201 Elm Street, First International Metairie, LA 70002 Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75270
. _.w nw -
-n-
,w Enclosure ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1.
Saction 2.1. 3 - Picase provide references 27, 23, 31 5 32.
2.
Section 2.4
- Please provide references 10, 11, 17 5 13.
s.
3.
Section 3.3.4c - Specify type of filtration media used in pri.nrf water treatment plant.
4.
Sectica 3.6.2 - Estimate the types of metals and concentrations in the influent to de Materford 15 2 waste treatment facility frca Materford 3 precperational cleaning wastes and process waste strenas.
Estimate percent removals of these metals by the Waterford 1 5 2 metal waste pond.
Describe the method of waste disposal frca the pond.
5.
Section 3.6.2.1-Esti:2te the frequency of chlorination of raw water prior to filtration (in days'yr) and approximate amount of chlorine needed during each application.
6.
Section 3.6.2.2-Estimate'the volume of the corrosion inhibitor solution centaining sodium nitrate and sodium metasilicate to be applied during start-tp and cperation and frequency of application during operation.
7.
Secticns 3.6 5 3.7
-Eecause of the known harmnil effects of chlorine and the resulting chlorinated organic cc=ccunds have any alternative ::.ethods, such as BrCI, been considered for biogrowth centrol, disinfectica and oxidation?
8.
Section 3.6.3 - Estimate the frequency of chlorine applicatica to the circulating cooling water in days /yr.
9.
Section 3.6.4 - Identify the wetting agent to be used in the preoperational c3eaning solutica.
10.
Section 3.1
- Please provide reference 1.
e e
'2
-.= n w 1.
T.<-
--...=.
a.+,-
...z.
---w 2.
Supply any additional Mississippi River water temperature data acquired prior to or since that provided in Tables 2.4-11, 12, 13, and 14.
3.
Please explain how the values of the various parameters en Table 5.1-4 are determined. For example, the 5'F excess isotherm for su=rer and fall extend from river bank to river bank, as shown in Figures 5.14 and 5.1-5, and yet the maximum lateral spread listed on the Table 5.1-4 is only 1700 f t.
For non-ponnected isother=s (e.g.
10*F), explain what the entry in Table 5.1-4 refers to (the sum, the lergest, etc.).
4.
For low river flow conditions, the predicted excess temperature distribu-tiens in Mississippi River due to thermal plume interacticn are questionable.
In Appendix 5-1, no justifications were given for assuming that the co=bined excess temperature at a given point in the the: nal field as a result of operating the three generating plants can be cbtained by linearly co=bining the excess temperature due to the independent operation of each plant. Please discuss this in more detail.
5.
Se effects of recirculatica between the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake under a wide variety of flow conditions were not clearly described in ER.
Please provide a more ccmprehensive discussion.
Be effect of river bend en t.$ernal plume distribution 6.
was not included in the mathematical =cdels selected for thermal predictions for all three pcwer stations.
Please provide further analysis on this problem m.a. m.
Z~
.7-
"PM
_---- - O :r. _
m_
!D 1.
Please supply the following references, if they are available
~
and convenient to obtain:
a) ER pp. 2.2-33 through 2.2-35:
Reference numbers: 9; 11, 12; 14 (aquatic Sections only); 24; 32,33.
b) ER pp. 5.1-20 through 5.1-23: Reference numbers 1; 15, 20, 21, 22; 26; 28; 38; 42.
c) For Table A2.2.2-1.
Reference number 33.
2.
What were the important impacts of station construction (intakes; discharge; dredging; major buildings, etc.) on the river biota in the Site area and dcwnriver? How severe were these impacts on the fish, zooplankton and benthic comunities?
3.
ER, page 2.2-28: Please provide names of any Waterford-3 area aquatic or terrestrial species of animals or plants that have become endangered, rare or threatened, particularly since the publication of the September,1976, Fish and Wildlife Service List?
4.
Will the piplines (Gas & Products) that cross the river south of the plant near taft (Fig. 2.1-13) significantly add thermal input to the river, or inhibit heat loss?
5.
What measures will be used to prevent asiatic clams from becoming established in the condensers and other heat transfer systems at Waterford-3? What biocides will be used?
6.
Were the data presented in ER Table 2.2-9 obtained at a different time of day, or frum stations other than those used for data shown in Table 2.2-8? Does the tem, "in the vicinity of Waterto.-d-3" include all stations shown in Figure 6.1.1-l? Does this phrase consistently mean the same thing, i.e., does the definition remain constant throughout the aquatic Sectic.ns of the ER?
7.
ER Tables 2.4-11, -12, -13:
What does the tem, "zero mean Sea level" mean? Is it the same as the surface of the river at Waterford-3?
In the next two tables, do "-10 ft. and -20 ft." mean that the temperature probe was down 10 ft. and 20 f t.,
respectively, from the Surface?
7 O
8.
In general, the evidence shows (e.g., p. 221, Oual. Criteria for Uater, EPA,1976) that the toxic impacts of chemical contaminants on aquatic biota increase as the temperature of the water is raised.
That is, the organisms under toxic stress are not as tolerant of temperature stress.
To what extent will the chemical and physical contaminants in the river at Waterford-3 " sensitize" the biota, especially fish and zooplankton, to the Waterford-3 thermal ef fluent?
a) Compared with similar fish and invertebrates in pristina waters, will the Waterford-3 river organisms be significantly more sensitive to the thermal effluent because of the present river pollution with chemical and physical contaminants?
If so, can this increase in sensitivity be quantified?
9.
ER, p. 5.1-12' through 15; FES, p. V-14 and 15: On the basis of data obtained by the applicant, the distribution of the plankton, river shrimp, and fish in the river appear to be quite uniformly distributed at the five statior.: of the Waterford area.
Have statistical verifications been made, and if so, are these organisms randomly distributed?
It is assumed.that the fraction of entrained organisms is in direct proportion to the fraction of the river flow utilized by the plant.
If the biotic populations mentioned are not randomly distributed in the giver cross-section, the percentage estimates of population kills, because of entrainment by Waterford-3, (and the other three plants), would likely be in error. Please comment.
The expectation (stated in the ER) that the cumulative entrainment impact of all four power facilities on the biota will not be significant is based on the assumption that the river organisms are randomly distributed.
- 10. ER, p. 5.1-3, Sec. 5.1.2.4; p. 5.1-12 & 13: The collective thermal effluent impacts to the river biota from Little Gypsy, Waterford 1 & 2, and Waterford 3 will occur after the latter plant goes on-line.
In addition, the prer..elt chemical and physical stresses will continue plus entrainment impa::s induced by the four power stations. What will be the total impacts on the fish, ichthyoplankton, zooplankton and river shrimp during the hottest months when low flows are likely?
Will the monitoring programs detect significant impacts to de various biotic groups, and if so, how soon will the results be known? If the populations of, e.g., fish are significantly reduced, what corrective measures will be made? Which river organisms (especially fish & zooplankton) will be most severely stressed?
a.
T2)
J 11.
ER, p. 5.l-13 and 14:
Entrainment of Ichthyoclankto Based on figures from sampling tne river at Waterfor$n3, about 137,000 ichthyoplankton will be lost each day in this plant, which amounts to a loss of about 4 million per month.
If ichthyoplankton densities similar to those near St. Francisville appear at Waterford, about 115,000,000 will be lost each month because of this station. These loses each month, even for only four months each year, appear substantial. Will these losses have a significant impact on the fish populations?
12.
ER, p. 5.1-10 next to last 5, and p. 5.3-2 Sec. 5.3.5 ?
a)
" Free available chlorine corr at the coint of discharge are expected to reach 0.2-0.5 p;m for 2 hrs / cay when cniorinations is necessary." Where is the point of discharge referred to in these statements?
- 13. Chlorir.e Concentations:
- p. 5.1.0; Table 5.3-6; Fig. 5.3-1:
Chlorine is expected to reach 0.2-0.1 ppm for 2 hrs / day, when chlorination is necessary, at the point of discharge.
Explain how the high concentrations of chlorine in the Waterford-3 plume can be reduced to 0.05 ppm as it flows into the river.
A 14.
ER, pp. 5.1-17 and 18: Because of the southern location of Waterford-3 in the United States, Cold thermal Shock to fish does not appear likely or if it occurs, it does not appear to be a significant threat. What has been the experience with Cold Shock at other power plants in the area, including Waterford 1, 2, and Little Gypsy? Does the applicant plan to shut Waterford-3 down gradually when a possibility of Cold Shock is present (except for emergency shutdowns)?
15.
- p. 5.1-12 of ER, and FES p. II-15.
If the absoluta upper temperature limit for the million gpm effluent to the river were placed at 35 C (95 F), what would be the order of alternatives used to comply, e.g., effluent canal sprays, mechanical draf t auxilliary cocling, power cutbacks, etc.?
- 16. Zooplankton Sampling:
ER, Table 6.1.1-6:
The sampling gear for zooplankton during 1973-4 was done with #6 plankton net >(0.3 m diameter) with 0.243 m mesh. Why was the diameter later changed to 0.5 m? Why was the mesh too large 'for the ratifers smaller than about 250 mm?
, m y - =
~~. - = _
-. g g.
m mx
p l
Additicaal Waterford-3 Questions for the Applicant 1.
From past experience at the Waterford Site, does it appear that the station themsl input to the river will aggravate blue-green algal grc..th, and induce blocas?
2.
'Ihe intake velocity under the ski =er wall at the river is 1.8 ft/sec.
Can this be reduced to better confom with the present-day state-of-the art?
3.
Can the accdation of high concentrations of fish in the intake canal be prevented?
6
)
O
=m'~~~
~M mm
1.
Please list the lccation by annular sector (L), dis tanc e-tc alte (D'. and/or daily peak employrent (DPE) for the follec.ing industries (ref:
3ection 2.1.2 3 3 and Figure 2.1-11)
L D
DPE A gus Chemical Co X
X c
Shell Chemical Co X
Sewell Plastics Co X
X X
s.,f A A
A y
VDiva Witco Chemical Co X
X X
Chevron Oil Co X
X General American Transportation X
X Good Hope Refinery X
X Shell Oil Co X
ACM Milling X
X X
Bayside Grain Elevator X
X X
Cargill X
X X
Costal Canning Co X
X X
St Charles Grain Elevator Co X
X X
2.
'That are the 1978 vacancy rates for each town listed in Section 2.1.2.1.1.
Also, if available, list vacancy rates for '.he unicorporated areas in St John the Baptist Parish and St Charles Parish.
3 Please furnish information on secondary educational facilities that provide education to the residents within 0-10 miles, to include:
location, and sise.
If applicable, list the institutions of higher learning (cctmunity colleges, universities) and vocational schcols that are within the area of the site.
lJ__
2 y - _ - --
E.
Please elaborata on the social services (i.e., police, fine, watar, sewage, hospitals, medical services) offered to municipal residents within 0-10 miles of the site.
Also, include what services St John the BaptistParish and St Charles Parish offer to its citisenry.
.~_v-~~
_ _ _- : =--- _ _
_= x z
-- 3 z.
^BJ;M%W- --;
m8 A.p prn -ir > ;el:.. hat much noney <ta, cw rn ted by labor s...i prenru : rs in re der' ng 1978 f..r the f ollo'eling econSmic acti. -: 3
- mnufa r.qg; agri. J r-c; or :-try; and, retail /
r
- c -.:re L lamiv.
Th.c inf rc-- ti r should cnly irvolve the a:ti.. 2s
.e.;er*ed in Sac'10'r'.J.s 7 3, 2.L.3 5 2b,c, 2.1 3 5 3, and 2.1 3 5 4 6.
Please present info ration on propert7 taxes for 1977 and 197S for each community within 0-10 mi.les of the site and St John the Baptis: Parish and St Charl s Parish.
This infor-
-.ation should include a break down of ta:'.es into amounts collected by each taxing district.
1.
Provide a detailed discussion of the field methods, analysis, and results of the limited sun'ey on the plant property and transmission corridor. Include a discussion of the chronology, stn:cture and function of all cultural rescurces found and evaluated during this study including surface and sub-surface evidence.
Include consider-ation of resources that may be important to the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans.
2.
Provide the same kind of data specified in Question 1 for other disturbed areas of the plant property where a field reconnaissance for locating surface and buried sites is still feasible.
3.
Provide a more specific discussion of the prehistory and historf of the local area including infonnation on the ethnchistorf. Provide available state and county lists or registers of important cultural resources, chronology, etc. that have been listed.
4 Provide a monitoring / mitigation program for protecting and preserving the cultural resources that may remain en the plant property and in the transmissica corridor. This program must consider both direct and indirect impacts.
5.
Provide copies of all references used to prepare the envircnmental statement and response to these questions.
x "e 4
.l
_5.s *{
~
'W' M%=
~ -~
~ -
ws
.~
q~
O 1.
P!ere describe the plans for construction of the powerline with particular reference to the disn:ption of wetlands, both marsh and timbered swamp. We need more detail of the procedures for clearing the RCW and of the method for installing towers. A description of the ancunt of construction damage associated with installation of the towers and in constmction of access routes.Section III of the ER and Supplement 3 of 12/15/72 do not pmvide an adequate description and are outdated.
2.
Please provide a description of the towers and their foundations or anchoring devices.
3.
hhat is the present state of constmctian of the transmissica line? Is it still scheduled for completion in 1980?
4.
How was the route chosen,and what factors were considered in plotting each sepnt. of the route?
Je kafd 5.
Please provide a, map of the transmission line showing the terrain type and dominant vegetation in each segment of the route.
6.
Discuss effects of construction upon the biota, with particular attentien to rare and endangered species.
w
-.g
S In writing the need for power section, the approach suggested by the September 1973 issue of " Guide to Format and Content of an ES on a Nuclear Power Plant (OL)" could be best.
Section 7 of that Guide indicates it to be " fundamental to the OL stage of revi>w to assume the plant has been built and is ready for operation" (this is not quite true for Waterford 3).
For the review, according to the guide, this section sets forth the staff's assessment for the need of operating the plant, not finishing its construction.
Accordingly, the only alternatives considered are:
not to operate the plant, or to operate it. The guide also says that other alternatives can be exanined (such as coal) if staff believes that alternative was not properly treated in the CP-FES. More about this will be said later in this memo.
The case for operation must consider that the estimates of demand growth made for the ER (OL) (peak and energy) could be grossly high.
But, since it is almost impossible to logically assume "no growth" for the next 10 or 15 years, sooner or later there would be a need for the plant. The argument would, suggest delay in start-up rather than non-operation. Delay will probably occur anyway for several reasons; e.g., actual numbers for average annual rate of growth for the years 74-77 or 78 which are lower than the rates forecast in the FES for the CP.
Applicants system is today more than 90% fueled by natural gas and fuel oil (not residual oil). Even with Waterford 3 coming on in 1932, the LPL system will still be 79% fueled by oil and gas.
It would not be difficult to show that fuel costs for nuclear plants are less than those for oil or gas now and in the future.
The FES (for the Waterford CP) is not adequate in the treatment of the coal alternative. To date, the writer has not been able to locate the ER for the Waterford CP, but the search is still going on.
You (GM) have given me a copy of the testimony before the ASL3 given (by deduction) in January-March 1974 (about 1 year af ter the FES).
In that testimony, there is evidence of a reasonably good assessment of the two alternatives (coal vs. nuclear) done (presumably) by NRC or the old AEC.
Rather than ask a long list of questions, the answers to which would require considerable effort on the applicants part, it is sugcested that, at the time of the site visit, a meeting be arranged between nyself and the person (or persons) involved in forecasting LPL (and MSU) future requirements.
If the person who tracks current electricity demand is different from the forecaster, then that person should be available, too.
If the person who tracks fuel prices (oil, gas, uranium) could be made available, that would help as well.
I will go to all meetings with items for discussion. A visit with state or local people wnc might have applicable knowledge would also be helpful.
v HYDRCLOGIC EtiGINEERING QUESTIONS WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 371.01.
The staff recognizes that the amount of water used consumptthely (5.7.2.2) by the plant will be small in relation to the ficw of the MississippiRiher. Howeher,tobecomplete,thewateruse rates should be shown. Accordingly, provide estimates of water useunderhariousoperatingconditions.
371.02.
There does not appear to be any means of monitoring the potential (6.1.1) effects of deposition and/or erosion on the intake and discharge structures. SincetheMississippiRiherisconstantlyshifting in the area of the plant, there is the potential of adYersely affecting these structures. Therefore, a program should be dehelopedtomonitorperiodicallyaggradationanddegradation inthehicinityofthestructuressothatremedialactioncanbe
_g taken if necessary. ProYideamonitoringprogramforthestated purposes, or the bases for your detemination that such a program is not necessary.
m 332-1 i},
332.0 RADICLCGICAL ASSESS"E.'lT 332.1 Provide data on the annual meat (:g/yr), milk (2.1.3)
(liters /yr) and agricultural crop production (Kg/yr) by sectors for the area within a radius of 50 miles from the station (similar to Tahle 2.1-l..
332.2 The referenced Table A-4 should be Table A-5.
(5.2.4.2) 332.3 How many pounds per year or Kg/yr of fish and (5.2.4.4) invertebrates were assumed to be eaten by tne 50 mile population based on commercial and s; ort catches? ' shat was the location used for the population (2l129,562) surface water drinking water intake downstream from the plant?
332.4 In Table 6.1.5-5, the control river water comoosite (6.2.3) sample analysis should be the same as the indicator drinking water samples. The St. Charles Parish drinking water intake should be used instead of Jefferson Parish in Table 6.1.5-5.
Milk sample collection and analysis frequency will be semi-monthly, when animals are on pasture (monthly at other times) for the operational monitoring program.
^N I -<
332-2 C
332.5 The LLD's in Tacle 6.1.5-6 should be based on the (6.2.3)
NRC, Eranch Technical Position i. March 1973)
Table 2, instead of the referenced Regulatory Guide J.3, Table 3.
331.6 Confirm that the land use in Table E-9. Table 6.l.5 ~
(App. 3) and Tables 2.1-13 through 17 has not changed since the 1976 based information. Table 6.1.5-7 and Table 3-9 should ce referenced in section 5.2.4-2.
g
-' l-V CCMMENT ON WATERFORD ER Sections 2.1. 3.1 and 2.1. 3.5. 3.
Agricultural Lands Based upon consultation with the Soil Conservation Service, provide an estimate of the number of acres, if any, of " prime and unique farmlands" on the Waterford site.
(Federal Reaister, 'lol. 43, No. 21, pp. 4030-4033.
January 31, 1978)