ML19289F429
| ML19289F429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1979 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070358 | |
| Download: ML19289F429 (25) | |
Text
f 4
UNITED STATES y '-
p\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!sSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 bl:M APR 2 61979 Docket tios. 550-599 and S50-600 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. Cordell Reed Assistant Vice President P. O. Box 757 Chicago, Illinois Gentlemen:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in conjunction with its review of Part I of your Construction Permit application for Carroll County Station has scheduled a site visit in the vicinity of the proposed site for Wednesday, May 2,1979. The purpose of this visit is to provide the NRC staff and its technical consultants from the Argonne National Laboratory an opportunity to inspect both the prime site and proposed alternative sites as well as provide an interchange of informa-tion between our respective staff members.
A meeting has been scheduled for the afternoon of May 2,1979 at the offices of the Interstate Power Company, 214 Main Street, Savanna, Illinois, to discuss technical issues related to the environmental review of your application.
It is anticipated that a subsequent site visit will be scheduled during the month of June to discuss technical matters related to site safety concerns.
In order to assist the staff in its inspection of the proposed alternative sites to the Carroll Station, it is requested that Commonwealth Edison provide a representative (s) to join us during our visits to these sites on May 1, 3, and 4, 1979.
For your review prior to the site visit, we are enclosing the following: : Meeting Agenda; Enclosure 2: Principal Questions for Technical Discussion; and Enclosure 3: Site Visit Attendees exclusive of Comonwealth Edison representatives.
2231 313 9
14 7906070 g
C6mmonwealth Edison Company If you should have any questions regarding our planned visit, please contact Mr. Clifford A. Haupt of my staff at (301) 492-8434.
Sincerely, f6ddf8te@
Environmental Projects Branch No. 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosures:
As stated 1
2231 314
' Commonwealth Edison Company.
cc w/ encl:
Richard E. Powell, Esquire
- Chairman, Isham, Lincoln and Beale Illinois Commerce Commission One First National Plaza Leland Building 42nd Floor 527 East Captial Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60603 Springfield, Illinois Mr. William F. Naughton The Honorable Donald H. Nehrkorn Nuclear Licensing Administrator Mayor of Savanna Commonwealth Edison Company City Hall P. O. Box 757 Main & Washington Streets Chicago, Illinois 60603 Savanna, Illinois 61074 Mr. Donald G. Swanson, Chairman Northwest Illinois Regional Council Carroll County Board of Supervisors of Public Officials Carroll County Courthouse 211 First Street Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 Dixon, Illinois 61081 The Honorable James R. Thompson State Clearinghouse Governor of Illinois Bureau of the Budget State Capitol Lincoln Tower Plaza Springfield, Illinois 62706 524 S. Second Street, Room 315 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Attorney General State of Illinois The Honorable Theodore Robbe Springfiled, Illinois 62701 Mayor of Mt. Carroll
. Carroll, Illinois 61053 Illinois Department of Public Health ATTN:
Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety The Honorable Fay Ashby 535 i!est Jefferson Mayor of Thomson Springfield, Illinois 62761 Thomson, Illinois 61285 Director, Illinois Institute of Natural Resources 309 West Washington 2231 315 Chicago, Illinois 60606 EIS Coordinator, Region V U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Enclosire 1 Carroll County Station Site Visit Agenda, May 1-4, 1979 Date (Time)
Item May 1, 1979 Inspect Alternative (8 am - 5 pm)
Sites
~
May 2, 1979 (8:30 - 8:45 am)
Pre Site Visit Meeting *
(9 am - 11:30 am)
Inspect Carroll County Site (11: 45 - 12:45 pm)
Lunch (1 pm - 5 pm)
Technical Discussion *
(5:30 pm)
Adjourn May 3, 1979 (8 am - 5 pm)
Inspect Alternate Sites (12:00 - 5 pm)
May 4, 1979 (8 am - 5 pm)
Inspect Alternate sites 2231 316
- Interstate Power Ccmoany 214 Main Street Savanna, Illinois
ENCLOSURE 2 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW:
NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SITE SUITABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
~
CARROLL COUNTY EARLY SITE REVIE
( ~.
2231 317 a
e
~
301.0 ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 301.1 Identify by a map the area within the site boundaries classified as prime and/or unique farmlands.
Specify the arount of this area to he temporarily disturbed by construction and tre amount which will be occupied by operational facilities.
301/2 Provide a map such as Figure 2.2-20 which depicts the site vege-tation and land use and also outlines the 475 acres to be dis-turced during construction and also indicates those areas to be returned to their natural state after construction.
301.3 Explain the discrepancy between the size of the site as identified in section 2.1.1.2 and many other sections (3,490 acres) and that given in Table 2.2-65 as 2,734 acres.
Provide a corrected Table 2.2-65 if necessary.
301.4 Identify how much of each land use classification in Table 2.2-55 will be disturbed during construction and how much of each type will be only temporarily disturbed.
301.5 Was any sampling done to try to determine the presence or absence of bats at the site during spring, summer or fall?
If so, discuss the methods'used and the results.
301.6 Identify the time of day Emlen bird cot its were made and the num-ber of hours per seasonal period spent sampling birds via the Emlen and road count methods.
301.7 Provide data or references to support the conclusion (page 2.2-148) that preferred habitats off site are below carrying capacity so displaced birds would be able to relocate in surrounding areas without significant increases in competition.
2231 318 2-1
301.8 What is the proposed width of the corridor for the intake-discharge pipeline?
List both the width needed during construction and the final width during operation.
Will any road construction or addi-tional areas be needed for construction of the pipeline or will the total 100 acres of disturbed land lie within the pipeline corridor?
301.9 Identify how many man-hours were spent on the biotic survey of the intake-discharge pipeline corridor.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND LINES 301.10 Provide a diagram or figure depicting the single-shaft transmis-sion towers and the H-frame towers showing height, width and dis-tance between lines.
301.11 Identify the type of structures to be used for the ISP line.
301.12 Identify the number of acrcs needed for new or expanded substa-tions associated with the Carroll County lines and the amount of acreage needed for temporary construction areas such as access roads, laydown areas, etc.
301.13 Provide references or other data to support the statement on page 3.9-7, "No long-term disruption to wildlife of this region is expected, since R0W's are ecologically suited to a mixed type o f habi'_.t. "
301.14 Provide a list of the number of acres of woodland, pasture, culti-vated fields and marshland which lie within the four transmission line corridors.
2231
- I9 2-2
301.'15 Provide a characterization of the methodology to be used to deter-mine if any federal or state listed endangered or threatened plants or animals occur within the proposed transmission R0W.
301.16 Discuss under what circumstances clear-cutting will be used for construction of the transmission lines.
301.17 Discuss the method (s) to be used to contrcl vegetation where the transmission lines pass through wooded areas.
If herbicides are to be used, specify the type and frequency of application.
301.18 To what extent (# of miles) will the transmission lines parallel other utility corridors?
301.19 Provide a list of the number of rivers, streams, highways, rail-roads, other transmission lines and pipelines crossed by the pro-posed transmission line routes.
Also indicate the number of buildings within the proposed corridor and those within 1/4 mile of the corridor.
Include a list of all natural areas, wildlife refuges, state and county parks and recreation areas within 1 mile of the proposed corridor.
301.20 Provide maps such as seven and one-half minute topographic maps with the proposed corridor outlined.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 301.21 Provide a cumulative distribution curve for wet bulb temperature for each month for nearest weather station with long term data.
301.22 Provide a typical natural draft cooling tower design curve (cold water temperature as a function of wet bulb temoerature) such as that for the towers at the Byron Station.
2-2231 320
'301.23 Describe geometry and purpose of relief holes on the blowdown discharge pipe (Figure 3.4-4).
301.24 Provide p eliminary results of the physical model test conducted at the Inst 4tute of Hydraulic Research as soon as they are available.
301.25 Provide information on alternate cooling tower designs.
301.26 Describe in detail (or reference) the models used to calculate plume and drift impacts from the cooling towers.
Identify the data base used in the calculations (meteorological data, tower parameters, etc.).
301.27 Describe the criteria used to select natural-draft cooling towers over other closed-cycle systems.
301.28 For each of the suggested alternate site, indicate the preferred made of cooling.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 301.29 Please define "Ryznar "tability Index" (p. 3.6.1) and/or provide literature reference.
Does thi parameter relate to the degree of saturation with CACO as with the Langelier Saturation Index?
3 If so, describe the relationship.
301.30 Please provide the average volume and composition of the chemical saste water (demineralizer waste, etc.) added to the blowdown before discharge.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - AQUATIC ECOLOGY 301.31 What type of intake will be used and how effective will it screen river biota, especially fish larvae?
2231 321 2-4
~
301.32 Should the notation given on page 2.2-8 of the 55'IR be 100m3 2
instead of 100m 7 301.33 Will the intake and/or discharge be located in a fish nursery area, or in an area (s) of relatively high ichthyoplankton density?
301.34 Please discuss the purpose of Spring Lake.
Why is the dike broken, and what is the reason for the location of the break? Also, please discuss data obtained from Station 5 (at the break in the dike),
and its biological significance insofar as the Carroll Co. Station intake and discharge impacts are concerned.
301.35 What will be the impact of chlorination (of the condensers) on the ichthyoplankton?
301.36 If available, please supply the following references:
P. 13.0-5 'Ist 3 refs P.13.0-6 2nd ref., from top of page, and last ref.
P. 13.0-7 Last ref.
P. 13.0-12 2nd ref. from top of page.
P. 13.0-13 Ref. #5 (on that page).
P. 13.0-14 Next to last ref.
P. 13.0-15 Last ref., and 3rd from last ref.
P. 13.0-16 5th ref. from top.
P. 13.0-18 2nd and 4th from last references.
P. 13.0-19 1st reference.
P. 13.0-20 All available references (8 in number) by Helms.
P. 13.0-21 Ref #5 from top of page, and refs. 2 & 3 from bottom of page.
P. 13.0-22 Refs. 3, 4, and 6 from top of page.
P. 13.0-23 Last reference.
2231
- 22 2-5
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - CULTURAL RESOURCES 301.37 Provide a detailed discussion of the fiald methods, analysis, and results of the survey on the plant property and transmission corridor.
Include a discussion of the chronology, structure and function of all cultural resources found and evaluated during this studj including surface and sub-surface evidence.
Provide the basis for the evaluation of each resource.
Include consider-ation of resources that may be important to the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans.
-301.38 Provide a more specitic profile of the prehistory and history of the local area includ.7g information on the ethnohistory.
Pro-vide available state z d county lists or registers of important cultural resources, chrinology, etc. that have been listed includ-ing prehistoric resource 1 301.39 Provide a monitoring / mitigation plan which includes a program for protecting and preserving the cultural resources that may remain on the plant property a' ' in the transmission corridor.
This program must consider both direct and indirect impacts of station construction and operation.
301.40 Will plant construction and operation have indirect impacts on cultural resources surrounding the plant property?
If so, how will these resources be protected?
2231 323 2-6
340.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY - ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 340.1 Figures 2.3-20 and 2.4-1 suggest that the entire Pool 13 is (2.6) included in the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge or in the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
Table 8.4-64 lists the refuge as a recreational and scenic resource of Carroll County, Illinois.
No further description of the impact on the refuge, in terms of reduced recreational or scenic values, is presented in the text of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Neither th'is Section nor Section 2.2 intion the refuge as an attribute of the site ecology.
As a result please provide the following information:
1)
Describe the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Mississipp0 River Wildlife and Fish Refuge in terms of geographical extent and impli-cations of their designation as refuges.
2)
Discuss any conflicts with the goals and objectives, implied by the refuge designation, due to the construc-tion and operation of intake and discharge structures at the proposed location.
340.2 There is a discrepancy in the estimated maximum blowdown (3.4) rate given in various sections:
Section 3.4.1
" maximum.. 5.35 cfs per unit" Section 5.1.2
"...should not exceed 25 cfs" Section 5.1.3 "should not exceed 30 cfs" Section 5.7.1
" annual blowdown range of 10 to 50 cfs will eventually be returned to the Mississippi River" Please rectify the 7.pparent discrepancy in estimated maximum blowdown rate.
2231 324 2-7
340.'3 Is the discharge system being designed for 4-unit operation?
(3.4) 340.4 Step 2 of Phase 2 includes as a " siting issue" the topographic (9.2.3.3.2) relief criterion that " areas of widespread... relief having numerous natural grades exceeding 15 percent" be excluded.
Is there any environmental basis for this criterion being exclusionary?
340.5 One attribute of the identified potential sites is " rela-(9.2.3.4.1) tively flat topography".
It would appear that the Argo Fay (Al) site has this attribute si.nce it is one of the 16 poten-tial sites.
However, in Section 9.2.3.4.3, the Argo Fay site is " deferred" because "a significant portion of the site is marked by high topographic relief which is a non-exclusionary criterion that would inhibit site flexibility".
Explain the apparent discrepancy between Sections 9.2.3.4.1 and 9.2.3.4.3 in regard to the Argo Fay site.
340.6 Explain what " site flexibility" is inhibited by 10% or 15%
(9.2.3.4.1) slopes.
340.7 In the screening of land use compatibility, only Carroll (9.2.3.5.2)
County shows an obvious conflict, i.e., with a proposed expansion of the Stransky Memorial Airport.
Table 9.2-2 indicates that the Evaluation Parameter is "yes or no" with the Rating Value frem 1 (most compatible) to 5 (least com-patible).
To be consistent with the other two "yes or no-parameterized siting issues, Carroll County would have to receive a rating of 5 (least compatible).
In terms of land use compatibility, why hasn't Carroll County assigned a value of 5 since it is the least compatible?
2231 J25 2-8
's 340.6 In the screening of potential' sites, three criteria are used (9.2.3.5.2) to arrive at the combined site suitability rating for aquatic ecology.
Were the three criteria given equal weight in the combined rating? If not, provide bases for combined rating.
340.9 The Applicant states that " Development of the Carroll County (9.2.5.5) site, which is planned for at least four units, would enhance CECO's future siting options."
In regard to site suitability and alternative site analysis, shouldn't the assumption for site and plant have been four units instead of two?
340.10 The Applicant concludes that "...the Carroll County site (9.2.5.6) should be developed before Units 3 and 4 at LaSalle because it... establishes a site that may not otherwise remain avail-able for future siting needs...".
Since the Applicant owns essentially all of the Carroll County site, the basis for this conclusion is unclear.
Clarify the basis for the con-clusion reached in Section 9.2.5.6 (Item e).
2231'326 2-9
350.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY - COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 350.1 The peak annual average daily work force for the proposed Carroll (8.2.1.1)
County Station is estimated to be 2,155.
This estimate is based on four Ceco nuclear power plants, three of which are currently under construction while the fourth is ope,ating.
Forecasts made by the Construction Manpower Demand System ', Energy Sector), a pro-gram sponsored by the U.S. Dep~artment of Labor, indicate that work-hours per kilowatt in the construction of nuclear power plants will increase between 1977 and 1981.
Given this trend toward increased manpower requirements, the Applicant should justify the use of manpower data from the 1970's for a plant that would reach peak construction activity in the 1980's?
(NB:
The staff believes that the Applicant has substantially under-estimated p?ak construction manpower requirements).
350.2 The Applicant should identify the construction worker studies (8.2.1.5) at Byron and LaSalle wHch are discussed on p. 8.2-7.
- Also, copies of such studies should be provided to the NRC staff.
350.3 The last sentence on p. 8.2-7 indicates that many studies have (8.2.1.5) concluded that excess capacity exists in small town businesses.
The Applicant should provide NRC with a short list of such studies.
350.4 The Applicant should specify the analysis that was undertaken to (8.2.1.5) arrive at a multiplier of 1.3 presented on p. 8.2-8.
Also, the Applicant should provide the factual basis for concluding that one-third of the induced jobs would be filled by spouses of the construction workers, one-third by residents, and one-third by migrants.
350.5 The allocation given on p. 8.2-9 relative to in-moving construc-(8.2.1.7) tion workers to type of housing is based on studies of the Byron, 2231 327 2-10
LaSalle, and Watts Bar construction sites.
Such an allocation would have increased validity if the housing market in the Carroll County impact area is similar to that found at the three sites mentioned above.
The Applicant should indicate if such a com-parison was undertaken.
350.6 The Applicant should justify the use of 1.6 given on p. 8.2-13 (8.2.2.2) as the multiplier for induced employment.
350.7 In computing the local tax payments given on p. 8.3-1, has the (8.3.1.2) Applicant taken into account applicable state real property tax laws that would reduce tax liability?
350.8 In the Applicant's analysis presented on p. 8.3-6 does the condition (8.3.2.2) or "standardness" of housing affect the estimate of housing supply?
350.9 Does the Applicant have evidence that housing costs given on (8.3.2.2) pp. 8.3-18/20 escalate as a result of nuclear plant construction?
The discussion of escalating housing costs implies that the entire rental and sale stocks of housing would be impacted.
However, only those units which are to be sold or rented would be subjected to inflationary pressures and that the numbers of such units is a small percentage of the housing market at any one point in time.
Please provide further clarification.
The Applicant should also discuss the course of rents and prices during the post-peak construction period.
For instance, does the Applicant assume stabilization at the higher equilibrium point for sales and rentals or does the Applicant forecast a sub-sidence of housing costs to a lower point of market equilibrium?
350.10 The quotation presented (third paragraph) on p. 8.3-30 refers to an (8.3.2.2) MIT study on property values.
The Applicant should identify this study.
2-11
350.-11 The third paragraph on p. 8.3-31 cites NRC and MIT studies on (8.3.2.2) property values.
The Applicant should identify these studies.
350.12 What is the factual basis for the statements made in reference (8.3.2.2) to the impact of the construction period on social life (see last paragraph of p. 8.3-33 to the end of the second paragraph of p. 8.3-35).
35C.13 The Applicant should supplement Figures 8.3-4 to 8.3-7 with pic-(8.3.2.2) tures showing the plant from the following viewpoints:
a.
the scenic lookout approximately 2 miles east of Savanna; b.
Center Hill School; c.
Mount Carroll residential neighborhood; d.
City of Sabula residential area; and e.
Mount Carroll School.
Where possible, the view should include existing structures in the foreground.
350.14 With respect to the nine developed candidate sites and the two (9.2.3.5) preferred developed sites discussed on p. 9.2-19, the Applicant should provide information on:
a.
the origin and availability of the construction labor pool, and b.
anticipated points of vehicular congestion.
350.15 What is the significance of the 5-mile radius as used in the (8.3.2.2) Analysis of Aesthetics referred to on p. 8.3-37?
350.16 Using the estimated impact region, th'e Applicant should provide (8.3.1) a breakdown of estimated procurement expenditures that will be spent during the construction period.
This infonnation should indicate the year of expediture by the county within the expendi-ture will be made and by the four-digit industry code (Standard Industrial Classification Manual).
This submission should also 2-12 2231 329
_= hew, summmmmmmmmmei
i
indicate the year the dollars are expressed in and the escalation rates applied to each category.
350.17 On separate tables, the Applicant should provide a breakdown of (8.3.1) the payroll of direct and secondary employment for each year of construction an.d by the county of residence of workers.
Indicate whether the dollar amounts are current or deflated.
Provide the year dollars are deflated to and supply the relevant escalation rates applied to labor costs.
2231 330 2-13
361.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - GEOSCIENCES 361.1 The primary means of assessing the adequacy of the Applicant's (2.5) geologic, seismologic and geotechnical engineering screening of sites is tiy use of reconnaissance-level information.
It is not apparent in Chapter 13.0, pp. 13.0-38 and 13.0-39, that anything other than a very generalized reference source was used by the Applicant in the site selection process.
On this basis, provide a Data Sources Index Map using a base similar to Fig. 9.2-10.
On this base plot:
a.
Developed and Undeveloped sites b.
Identify, where feasible, the geographic area described in the data sources actually used.
c.
Provide a list of the sources used in the reconnaissance-level analysis.
d.
Provide the staff a copy of the cited references, if available.
~
361.2 As presented in Appendix 9.2C, geologic cross-sections and other (2.5) site specific alternate site information has been extracted from various Sargent and Lundy reports.
Please provide the following reports:
a.
Site Investigation of Areas Along the Mississippi and Lower Illinois Rivers, August, 1974, Report Number 3104.
b.
Erie Site Geotechnical Evaluation, May 1975, Report Number 3189.
c.
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the Proposed Glad-stone North and Rozetta West Sites, April 1975, Report Number 3193.
d.
Geotechnical Evaluation at Quad CitiesLSite, March 1977, Report Number 3299.
2231 331 2-14
361.3 In addition to the references listed in Question 361.2, several (2.5) unlisted data sources appear on the following figures.
Provide the information as noted in Items (a) and (b):
a.
Plot Plan, Bedrock Tocograohy, Guad Cities Site - Provide the borings completed by Soil Testing Services of Iowa, Inc.,
in September, 1972.
Provide the borings completed as part of the Sargent and Lundy Site Study, October, 1976.
b.
Plot Plan, Granville South Site - Provide the report contain-ing the borings depicted on this figure.
361.4 Provide one copy of each of the USGS quadrangle maps (7-1/2" or (2.5) 15 as appropriate) within 15 miles of each of the candidate sites (Appendix 9.2C).
Also, incorrect quadrangle maps are listed on the Candidate Site Evaluation Data Sheets and elsewhere for several of the Candidate Sites.
For instance with the res-pect to the Hillview (Hl) Site, the quad: angle listed is the Roodhouse (15) quadrangle (page 9.2C-42).
The Topographic Map, Hillview Site references the Truncy quadrangle.
The staff finds that neither of these is correct.
The Pearl quadrangle appears to be the quadrangle within which the Hillview site is located.
Please explain or correct as noted.
2231 332 2-15
371.'0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - HYOR0 LOGICAL ENGINEERING 371.1 Provide the bases for the stat.aent that, "There will be no (2.4.2.4) offsite effects due to construction dewatering for the main
~-
plant excavations." Discuss the aquifers involved, the flow rates and radius of influence with methods of analyses and pertinent parameters. Where will the effluents be discharged and what will be the effects on the receiving stream? Also identify, for each aquifer involved, the nearest offsite well and confirm that it will not be affected.
371.2 Provide a map that shows the bathemetry for the monitoring (6.1.1) stations.
371.3 Provide a discussion and history of ice depths and accumula-(2.4.1) tion on the Mississippi River and affects on the intake structure and station operation.
371.4 Discuss the disturoance of the surface and ground-waters and (2.4.2.4, shoreline of the Mississippi River due to the cons truction of 4.1.2, the intake and discharge structures.
Where earth cofferdams 4.1.3) are proposed, provide the magnitude and areal extent of changes in turbidity and associated damage.
The construction dewatering affects should be discussed in detail.
Provide methods of analyses and parameters for determining flow rates and zones of influence.
Provide a list of affected wells, the duration of affect.and any proposed mitigation.
Candidato site evaluations and comparisons should include f
discussions relevant to the following hydrologic features:
a.
Flooding potential and required flood protection.
b.
i..ailability of water supply and effect on station operation (potential for power reduction due to limited water supply).
Consider upstream and downstream water rights.
2231 333 2-16
h
'o s
y, p.
=- ' *'.- _, _
"9%
- =
=A.
s s
e e
g.
t 0
e u
e 8
e S-e s
t 4
e s
t
- =
J 1
p g.
a w-h
'O'
- 372.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY
[ Questions 372.1 through 372.3 and 372.5 through 372.9 have also been included in Enclosure 1 recarding the Site Suitability Site
~
Safety Report.
Responses to tiiese questions should be cross referenced or duplicated.]
372.1 On page 2.3-3 it is stated that "the prevailing wind at both (2.3.1)
Moline (1967-1976) and Rockford (1966-1975) is southerly".
This differs considerably from the prevailing direction of WNW given in Table 2.3.1.
Explain the discrepancy between these wind directions.
372.2 To ensure that the time period for onsite data collectien was (2.3.5) not an anomalous period, provide the wind direction and wind speed frequencies for Rockford and Moline for the period from August 1, 1976 to July 31,1977.
372.3 As discussed in Section 2.8 of NUREG-0158, " Environmental Stand-(2.3.5) ard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Stations" (Part 1, January, 1977), onsite meteorological data should be available on magnetic tape.
Having access to onsite meteorological data would facili-tate the review of atmospheric dispersion characteristics.
If available, provide onsite meteorological data for the period August 1, 1976 through July 31, 1977 in the form of hourly aver-ages on magnetic tape using the format given in Attachment 1.
372.4 Provide a brief description of the cooling tower model used to (5.1.4) determine visible plume and drift frem the natural and mechanical draft cooling towers.
2231
.335 2-18
372.5 The differential temperature range is given as -5 C to +5 C (6.1.3)
(page 6.1-43).
Since positive temperaure differences often exceed the value of +5 C, how are these data recorded?
372.6 What is the time interval between samp'.ing of each of the meteror-(6.1.3) ological variables recorded on magnetic tape? How many of these samples are needed to constitute an acceptable hourly average?
372.7 Provide the dates and times of significant instrument outages (6.1.3)
(e.g., greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or recurring), the causes of the outages, and the corrective actions taken.
372.8 Give the fraction of meteorological data obtained frem analog (6.1.3) charts that was used to replace invalid data from the digital system.
372.9 Provide the criteria used to determine invalid meteorological data.
(6.1.3) 2231 336 2-19
Site Visit Attendees
- Name Affiliation Responsibility Clifford A. Haupt NRC Prcject Management Charles Billups NRC Aquatic Ecology Richard Goddard NRC Legal George L. Montet ANL Environmental Review Team Leader Edward Daniels ANL Aquatic Ecology Jim Carson ANL Meteorology Gary Marmar ANL Thermal Discharge Sue Anne Curtis ANL Cultural / Historical Katherine Hoekstua ANL Terrestrial Ecology D. A. Brodnick ANL Alternative Sites, Socio-economics, Need for Power
- Representatives from the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the U. S. EPA and the U. S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) may also ettend.
2231 337