ML19290D593
| ML19290D593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Peoples L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220250 | |
| Download: ML19290D593 (12) | |
Text
f 4L f A'
y recm
'c, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!4falSSION
{, & flf*,' k W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 L
Docket l'os. 50-599 GD and 50-600 g
Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Louis D. Peoples Director of Nuclear Licensing P, 0. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Peoples:
In conjunction with the NRC evaluation of the early site review segment of the Carroll County construction permit application, we are requesting additional information from Commonwealth Edison Company. to this letter sets forth our specific requests regarding the Site Suitability Environmental Report (SSER) and Enclosure 2 addresses our needs regarding the Site Suitability Site Safety Report (SSSSR).
The information requested will permit the staff to continue its evaluation leading to the preparation of the NRC Site Environmental Impact Statement and Site Safety Evaluation Report.
Accordingly, we are requesting your formal written response to be submitted by March 31, 1980.
This response may be in the form of a letter and then subsequently submitted as a supplement to the SSER and SSSSR.
Sincerely, 0
ky)0lW& FU Rodald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Envirvnmental Analysis
Enclosures:
1.
Request for additional information for SSER 2.
Request for additional information for SSSSR cc: Service list
Cormonwealth Edison Company.
ccht/ enc 1:
Richard E. Powell. Esquire
- Chairman, Isha :, Lincoln and Beale Illir.ois Commerce Commission One First flational Plaza Leland Guilding 42nd Floor 527 East Captial Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60603 Springfield, Illinois Mr. llilliam F. flaughton The Honorable Donald H. f;ehrkorn fiuclear Licensing Administrator Mayor of Savanna Commonwealth Edison Company Ci ty-Hall P. O. Box 757 Main & Uashington Streets Chicago, Illinois 60603 Savanna, Illinois 61074 fir. Donald G. Swanson, Chairman fiorthwest Illinois Regional Council Carroll County Board of Supervisors of Public Officials Carroll County Courthouse 211 First Street I ount Carroll, Illinois 61053 Dixon, Illinois 61081 The Honorable James R. Thonpson State Clearinghouse Governor of Illinois Bureau of the Budget State Capitol Lincoln Tcwer Plaza Springfield, Illinois 62706 524 S. Second Street, Room 315 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Attorney General State of Illinois fiancy J. Bennett Springfiled, Illinois 62701 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division Illinois Department of Public Health 188 West Randolph, Suite 2315 ATTri:
Chief, Division of !!uclear Safety Chicago, Illinois 60601 535 West Jefferson Springfield, Illinois 62761 Mr. Jim Dubert c/o Iowa Socialist Party 280 1/2 West Street Director, Illinois Institute Ames, Iowa 50010 of !!atural Resources 309 West Washington Clifford E. Peterson, Esq.
Chicago, Illinois 60606 Assistant Attorney General State Capitol Complex EIS Coordinator, Region V Des lloines, Iowa 50319 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency The Joe Daviess County Ad Hoc 230 South Dearborn Street Committee on fluclear Energy Information Chicago, Illinois 60604 c/o Mr. John W. Cox, Jr.
906 Campbell Street Galena, Illinois 01036
Commonwealth Edison Company Jan L. Kodner, Esq.
Mr. Thomas J. Sorg Pitler and Mandell Carroll County Environmental 230 West Monroe Street Coalitior.
Suite 2026 305 West Cole Chicago, Illinois 60F06 Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 John F. Wolf, Esq.
3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Robert Holtrn School of C earagraphy Oregc; State 6niversity Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Richard E. Powell, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Assistant Vice President P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Mr. James C. Schwab, State Coor.
Iowa PIRG 36 Memorial Union Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50010 Ms. Nettie Post 382 East 21st Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Mr. Paul A. Fuerst Dubuque Fellowship of Reconciliation 809 Dodge Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Mr. Richard Worm, President Environmental Coordinating Organization, Inc.
3555 Hillcrest Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Request for Additional Information Regarding the Site Suitability Environmental Report Carroll County Early Site Review Docket Mos. 50-599 and 50-603 Heat Dissipation System _
301.1 Please supply comparative infomation on alternative cooling systems (including Mechanical Draf t Cooling Towers) to Natural Draft Cooling Towers for the Carroll County Site.
Comparative data should include site location, environmental impacts such as off-site fogging, icing, drif t impacts and roads, farms or other activities which might be effected, costs, operating problems and visual impacts.
301.2 Uas consideration given to cooling systems other than natur al draft towers at the alternate sites for Carroll County?
If not, provide the rationale for not doing so.
301.3 Please supply a complete set of parameters for the discharge struc-ture for station blowdown, including (a) The angle between the river bottom and the discharge pipe.
(b) The number of ports (Figure 3.4.4 shows one, but page 5.1-6 says one or two).
301.4 Justify the applicability of the analysis of Sayre's data from Quad Cities in view of the fact that the ports in the Quad Cities diffuser pipe face downstream whereas the port in Figure 3.4.4 is perpendicular to the river flow.
301.5 Please furnish the results of studies at the Institute of Hydraulic Research of the University of Iowa that relate to optimization of the discharge structure with respect to the number and orientation of discharge ports and the rate of temperature reduction.
Hydrology 3 01.6 Please provide the following information for each of the alternative sites:
a.
Groundwater table conditions b.
Approximate excavation limit c.
Detailad soil map d.
Water uses and water rights e.
Contamination of potable water supplies f.
Thermal plume size and temperature effect in the river.
.c Please provide specific data at the Carroll site, atout tha pctential 301.7 for groundwater utilization, including water users and possible water quality changes due to plant construction and operation.
Tne "aquoteta Shale group of the Macucketa acuitard is d;scrited 301.C If ic Vol. 2 of the ER as having a low range of perreability.
available, please provide r. ore specific values of cer eabilities in the "acuoteta Shale grour, the Ordovician-Age Galera grcup and the Alluvial-glaciofiuvial acuifer in the vicinity of the Carroll County site.
Acuatic Ecology Why was surface sampling for phytoplankton and zooplankton omitted 3 01. 9 in the Carroll County surveillance study on the Mississippi River?
Are data now available on the plankton in the surface waters in the site area?
What aquatic ecology date, not in the ER, are available on the 301.10 8 sites south of Carroll County, visited by the staff in May 1979?
What evidence exists for the liklihood of surface algal blooms 301.11 (blooming blue-greens) in the intake area during sumner and fall periods?
If blooms do occur, what will be their probable durations, densities, and impacts?
If surface blooms occur, what corrective ceasures would liekly be taken if treatment (nanagement) becomes necessary?
The abundance of plankton (including ichthyoplankten) in the near-30).12 shore channel area around the proposed intake is partially the result' of an enriched outlfow from the near-shore break in the Spring Lake dike.
If appears that " corrective measures" could be taken (to reduce planktonic density in the proposed Scheme A intake area) by opening an additional break in the west-to-southwest protion of the dike, and closing the near-shore break. This would allow the contents of Spring Lake to spill out into the middle of the river, and more This of the plankton from the lake would miss the intake area.
plan would not be advisable, however, if Scheme C were used, tihereby intake water would be taken from the main channel (ER, pp. 10.2-3, and Figure 10.2-2, Revision 1).
Please com,ent considering the response provided in the ER Vol. 3, pp Q 301.33-1 and Q 301.34-1.
Terrestrial Ecology 301.13 In Section 2.2.2.4.5 of the EP., the statement is nade that the site is located near the borders of four of Illinois' natural divisions and that relicts of pre-ice age flora can be found.
Where are the borders of these four divisions in relation to the site? What relict plants or plant communities occur on or near the site?
301.14 Some areas near the site are being considered for restoration to native communities, e.g., sand prairies, for oarks and for pro-Please provide a list of these special tected conservstion areas.
conservation areas that already exist or will be created within 10 miles of the site.
Also, please provide a description of the special features and biota at each of these sites.
Societal Impacts Please provide the following additional infomation (See 2.1.2.3 301.15 of the ER) about tourism in the Illinois Counties of Carroll, Jo Daviess, amd Whiteside and Iowa Counties of Jackson, Clinton and Scott.
identify all major parks, recreational areas and a.
boating facilities b.
provide attendance figures for these areas for the past 5 years provide the r. umber of tourists and second home c.
residents living in these counties for 1970 and 1975 and estimates for 1980, 1985 and 1990.
301.16 Provide a copy of the Historical References on Carroll County.
301.17 Provide a detailed description of the archeological field survey methods used during the 1974 study of the Plum Grove site in Savanna, Illinois.
Site Selection Procedures 301.18 Please supply detailed infomation for all developed candidate sites (Braidwood, Byron, LaSalle and Quad Cities) on all of the issues listed in Section 9.2.5.1.
301.19 Please provide ranking tables for the developed candidate sites that follow as closely as possible the formats of tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7 for the undeveloped candidate sites.
301.20 Please provide ranking tables for the final candidate sites (Carroll County, Granville South, LaSalle County and Ouad Cities) that follow as closely as possible the fomats of Tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7, or, preferable, combine the ranking tables for all of the undeveloped and developed sites.
301.21 The modified Delphi technique is primarily a technique for arriving at an informed concensus within a chosen group of individuals.
Some of the issues are technical and can appropriately be deicded by expert opinion; others are nomative (value judgements) that should be an aggregate judgement of those affected by the construc-
tion and operation of the plant (including utility customers) or of society as a whole. The validity of the modified Delphi technique depends on unether the participating group is an appropriate sample of the larger population.
Please justify the use of the Delphi technique in this respect.
Uhat are the grounds for expecting that the ranking of the issues would be the same, or that the weighting f actors would be approximately the same, as those vehich one would obtain if one cnuld determine the collective judgement of the larger population?
301.22 Please supply evidence, pro or con, on the question of the replicability of the results of the modified Delphi technique; i.e., if another participating group were assembled, would that group arrive at the same ranking and similar weighting factors?
301.23 If it cannot be established that the results of the modified Delphi technique are replicable and a reasonable sampling of the population as a whole, please provide ranking results for the undeveloped and developed candidate sites using an appro-priate alternative ranking procedure.
301.24 Please provide numerical data (i.e., the weighted environ-mental ratings and the sums for each candidate site) for the different weighting values used in the sensitivity tests in order to support the statement in the next-to-the last paragraph in p. 9.2-54 of the ER.
301.25 Please provide justification for the claim on p. 9.2-54 of the ER that a change of 25 to 30 percent can be considered to be the bounds of reasonable divergence of opinions that could be expected among different groups of participants.
301.26 In assigning site suitability ratings (SSR) for different issues, the displacement of 50 residents in 18 dwellings is given an SSR of 1 and the displacement of 73 persons in 25 dwellings is given an SSR of 5, so that an increment of 23 residents leads to an SSR increment of 4.
A difference between an unknown public acceptability and a public accept-ability judged favorable is given an SSR increment of 4; a difference between an unknown and unfavorable acceptability an increment of 1.
The SSR for transmission impact increases in a roughly linear relation with the new right-of-way requirements. These various scalings imply tradeoffs between incremental changes that cannot be compensated (over the entire SSR range) by subsequent weighting.
Please provide justification for the scaling of all of the issues and provide evidence to show that the final ranking is not sensitive to the scalings used.
_5_
301.27 Please describe in detail the procedure by which potential sites with the attributes listed on p. 9.2-12 were identified.
How did the applicant ensure that other potential sites 301.28 which might be preferable were not overicohed.
In rating the undeveloped candidate sites on environmental 301.29 issues, the largest weight factor uas assigned to trans-We find the data provided, however, mission line impacts.
is not adequate to assess the environmental impacts of transmission line impacts as an environmental factor in So as to reach a the NRC's alternate site assessment.
general conclusion regarding proposed finding No.138, please respond to the following:
Provide a list of the number of acres of woodland, a.
pasture, cultivated fields and marshland which ife within the new transmission itne corridors for each of the candidate sites.
b.
To what extent (number of miles) will the trans-mission lines parallel other utility corridors?
Please provide a list of the number of rivers, streams c.
highways, railroads, other transmission lines and pipelines crossed by the proposed new transmission line routes and the number of miles of new access roads for servicing the transmission lines for each of the candidate sites.* Also indicate the number of buildings within the proposed corridors and those within 1/4 mile of the corridors.
Include a list of all natural areas, wildlife refuges, state and county parks and recreation areas within 1 mile of the pro-posed corridors.
The location of major river crossings and their proximity to resting areas for waterfowl sippi (such as the Spring Lake region of the Upper Missis-sippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge) are of particular importance.
Please provide maps, such as seven and one/ half minute d.
topographic maps, with the proposed corridors outlined.
Please provide a characterization of the methodology e.
to be used to determine if any federal or state listed endangered or threatened plants occur within the proposed transmission line R0W's in each of the candidate sites.
- Including developed sites of Braidtiood, Byron, LaSalle and Quad Cities
.c_
301.30 In Sec. 3.9, the new transmission line requirements are given as 32.5 miles from Quad Cities to Carroll County, 39.5 niles from Carroll Countv to Byron and 119.5 miles from Carroll County to various loca ions in Iowa, a total of 191.5 miles.
Fig. 3.9-2, which uses a solid line for existing ROM and a broken line for the proposed transmission ROW, indicates that this will all be new R0W (some adjacent to the existing ROW).
In Appendix 9.2C the ner transmission line requirements are given as 35 miles from Quad Cities to Carroll County, 44 niles from Carroll County to Byron and 34 miles from Byron to Charter Grove, with no data for the lines to Iowa.
Using the data from Sec. 3.9 for the lines into Iowa, the total is 232.5 miles.
On p. 9.2-45, the new transmission line mileage is given as 113 miles.
Please explain these discrepancies.
301.31 On pp. 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 the line from Quad Cities to Carroll County is described as consisting of four sections.
In Fig. 3.9-2 only three are shown (AB, BC and CD).
Please explain.
Site Selection 301.32 Additional information is needed in order to resolve certain issues, noted below, that affect the choice of candiate sites.
The staff believes that the criterion, "... areas that may require plant designs to withstand ground accelerations of of greater than about 20 percent of gravity.."(ER, p. 9.2-7) will be found to be unacceptable as a regional screening factor for the following reesons:
- The use of ground acceleration threshold for screening translates primarily to a cost consideration which is not an acceptable criterion at the regional screening level.
- There are operational nuclear power plants that have been hardened to withstand a ground acceleration greater than the chosen threshold.
- Acceptable candidate sites in the seismically excluded zone have been identified in previous siting studies (e.g., the environmental report for the Clinton site).
- Ground acceleration is not a function only of the distance from the epicenter of an earthquate.
Depending on the under-lying strata, a site closer to an active fault might be accept-able when a more distant site was not.
Hence, seismicity is more appropriate for rating potential or candidate sites than for use as a regional screening factor.
The staff is also concerned by the lack of diversity among the candidate sites.
The undeveloped alternative sites that have been submitted for comparison with Carroll County can be broadly characterized as being located on prime fanniand.
The State of Illinois has other land use areas (e.g., abandoned strip mines) that are considered suitable for siting a nuclear power plant.
L'e request, therefore, that the slate of candidate sites be expanded to include one or more sites in Southern Illinois below the current seismic threshold line, and that an attenpt be made to find other sites, either north or south of the seismic threshold line, which will orovide more diversity to the proposed alternative site list.
These sites may include strip-mined land within Illinois that has adequate water supply for a nuclear power station.
Have any steps been taken to ascertain whether permission could 301.33 be secured for increased water withdrawal at the Braidwood or Byron sites?
If so, what has been done in order to remove the uncertainty regarding increased water withdrawal?
301.34 Please provide the information needed to treat the Langham site as an alternative site and compare it with the Carroll County Site.
Information on the cost of hardening this site against the blast overpressure from an explosion at the nearby fertilizer facility should be included.
301.35 If available provide the results of the detailed analysis mentioned on p. 9.2-16 of the ER regarding the probability of additive effects of multiple boxcar explosions of TNT.
System Reliability 302.1 Develop a bulk power transmission plan for delivery of 2200*iN from two nuclear generating units meeting the Commonwealth Edison and MAIN regional planning, loading and stability criteria for each of the following possible sites:
a.
Carroll County site b.
Braidwood site c.
LaSalle site d.
Byron site e.
Bigsville site f.
Concord site 9
Southeastern site (near Hutsonville)
This plan should include all facilities required to integrate the station output into the regional power network.
Identify any existing facilities which must be improved due to the development of a nuclear generating station at that location.
302.2 Discuss the transmission plan for each of the sites discussed in 302.1 with details of all the known constraints associated with each site.
- c -
Provide a single line diagram with circuit breaker arrange. ent 30,2.3 for each of the possible sites.
Provide a system single line of the currently planned 1938 302.4 This diagram should include the bulk transmission system.
po'..er transmission f acilities in the region served by the Commonwealth Edison, the Interstate Power Company and the Io'.ta-Illinois Gas and Electric Company.
!lould the present ownership agreement for the Carroll County 302.5 Station be impacted by locating the station at any of the proposed alternate sites?
If so, describe such impacts.
Provide an estimate of the transmission and sub-station 302.6 facility costs associated with each site.
The transmission costs should be separated by line and by general supporting structure design type.
Land and site development costs should be listed separately.
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Site Suitability Site Safety Report Carroll County Early Site Review DocLet f.'os. 50-599/600 Please resolve the apparent inconsistency regcrding proposed finding 331.1 (SSR)
I'o. 28.
On p. 2.4-3 of the SSR, the maximam historic flood of record in the a) vicinity of the site is given as 593.9 feet above MSL but Table 2.4-4 on p. 2.4-43 of the SSR gives the value as 591.14 feet above MSL.
Table 2.4-2 on p. 2.4-41 of the SSR indicates that the peak discharge b) for the Mississi?pi River at Clinton, Iowa occurred on 4/28/65 at river mile 511.8.
On p. 2.4-43 the peak discharge is shown to have occurred on 4/2//65 at river mile 518.0.
The analyses presented indicate that the probability of an aircraft 312.1 crash leading to radiological consequences in excess of 10 CFR Part 100 (SSR) is in excess of the staff's acceptance criteria, as given in Standard Review Plan Section 2.2.3.
The staff criteria indicate that an event should be made a design basis event if the probability is realistically estimated to be in excess of about 10-7 per year.
In view of the considerable uncertainty regarding growth of future air traffic near the Stransky airport as well as other uncertainties, such as the future rate of air crash statistics, we cannot concur in your conclusion that no design basis aircraft is required.
Therefore, we believe it to be prudent that yot propose an aircraft of a selected weight and speed that will be incorporated into the plant designbasis,suchthataircraftimpacysmoredamagingthanthisdesign basis impact be less probable than 10- per year.