ML19282B400

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Responses to NRC Environ Review Questions & Responses to R Zussman at Argonne Natl Lab.This Info Will Be Incorporated Into App A.4 of Suppl 6 to Er in Mar 1979
ML19282B400
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/06/1979
From: Jens W
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: Ballard R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
EF2-44057, NUDOCS 7903130334
Download: ML19282B400 (6)


Text

.

Wayne H. Jens.

Ass et vre e., ome

~ ~ " " ~

Detroit 1131 W B q in

~~-

Ecison san ~asrFN1 mv March 6, 1979 EF2 - 44057 Mr. Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Ballard:

Subject:

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-341 Responses to NRC Environmental Review Questions

Reference:

NRC Letter, Ballard to Jens, February 12, 1979 Enclosed are 10 copies of Detroit Edison's responses to the NRC's Envircnmental Review Questions enclosed in the above-referenced letter.

By copy of this letter, we are also forwarding 10 copies of the responsen to Dr. Ronald Zussman at Argonne National Laboratory.

This information will be incorporated in Appendix A.4 in Supplement 6 to the Environmental Report (Operating License) in March 1979.

Should you or your Staff have any questions, please do not besitate to call.

Sincerely,

/' '. Q l -

WlIJ/EFM/jr Enclosures (10) cc: w/ enclosures (10) Dr. R. Zussman 90 f/

790313 0 3 sk O ' (\

Mr. Ronald I.. Ballard March 6, 1979 Page 2 EF2 - 44057 cc: w/ enclosures Jeffery A. Alson Citizens for Employment and Energy 772 Green Bldg. 4 Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 David Hiller Environmental Law Society University of Michigan Law School Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

EF-2-ER(OL)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. The Staff has identified an apparent discrepancy between the weight ratios of Na2S03 and C12 given in the body of Table 1, p. A4.35 and footnote C to Table 1 which pertains to 1.5 times the stoichiometric amount of C1. 2 Furthermore, the basis of the applicant's selection 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 (February 12, 1979).

RESPONSE

The weight ratio of Na2S03 to C12 given in the subject table is slightly lower than the calculated stoichiometric quantity of Na2503 required.

For each pound of C12 applied, the stoichiometric quantity of Na2SO3 is 1.8 pounds.

NPDES Permit No. M1 0037028 states "the quantity of reagent used shall be limited to 1.5 times the stoichiometric amount needed for dechlorination of the chlorine applied." Thus, for each pound of C12 2.7 pounds of Na2S0 3 can be added and maintain conpliance with the permit requirements.

A ratio of 1.5 pounds of Na2S0 3 (in P lace of 1.8 pounds) to 1 pound of C12 was used in Table 1 (pA.4-35) based on preliminary measurements of the ratio required to effect dechlorination at another plant on the Edison system.

~

A.4-141

/

EF-2-ER(OL)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUESTIONS

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 becor.ie 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 (February 12, 1979).

RESPONSE

The chlorine effluent limitations for the Fermi 2 plant have been established by the Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) and concurred with by EPA, Region V. These conditions are set forth in Part I.A.1 of NPDES Permit MI 0037028 (modified January 19, 1979).

Also in Part I.A.1 it is stated that The permittee may use dechlorination techniques to achieve the applicable limitations, using sodium thiosulfate or

. sodium sulfite or other dechlorinating agents approved by the Chief of the Water Quality Division as dechlorination reagents. The quantity of reagent used shall be 1~.uited to 1.5 times the stoichiometric amount needed for dech.orination of the chlorine applied. The permittee shall report monthly the quantity of each dechlorination reagent used per day.

. 4-14'

EF-2-ER(OL)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUESTIONS

3. Provide the source and basis for 158 ppm of sulfate, given in the third column of Tubic 3.3-1, page 3.3-5 of the Environmental Report.

RESPONSE

The 158 ppm sulfate that appears in the third column of Table 3.3-1 is derived from 62 ppm from two cycles of concentration in the blow-down from the circulating water reservoir, plus 96 ppm from sulfuric acid addition to the circulating water reservoir to control pH.

e em A.4-143

EF-2-ER(OL)

ENVIRON 31 ENTAL REVIEW QUESTIONS The use of a dechlorinating agent, as specified in the NPDES permit, for the control of chlorine effluent limitations lies within the jurisdiction of the EPA Administrator as indicated in Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision, ALAB-515, December 27, 1978, in the matter of Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek, Units 1 and 1) Docket No. STN 50-566 and STN 50-567 and,therefore, is not subject to this review.

O 1

e o

e A .4 -144