ML19340F044
| ML19340F044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bryan J UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101160566 | |
| Download: ML19340F044 (16) | |
Text
..
UNITED STATES
-[
, # 37 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^f I
WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 2
/
%..@.. j JAN 2 1981 Docket No.: STN 50-483 7
~a Mr. John K. Bryan Vice President Union Electric Cemeany 1901 Gratiot Street h
7 P. O. Box 149 F
~
St. Louis, Missouri 63166 O
T-
Dear Mr. Bryan:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 As a result of our continuing review of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Environmental Report, we find that we need additional information to complete our evaluation. The specific information required is presented in the Enclosure.
To maintain our licensing review schedule for the Callaway Plant Environmental Report, we will need res cnses to the enclosed request by January 23, 1981.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us l
within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review our schedule for any l
necessary changes.
Please contact Mr. Dromerick, Callaway Licensing Project Manager, if you desire any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request.
Sincerely, d w-2,
V - s.
i I
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing l
l
Enclosure:
l As stated l
cc: See next page l
l l
l 81011607/9h
Mr. J. K. Bryan Vice President - Nuclear Union Electric Company P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 53166 cc: Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick Mr. William Hansen Executive Director - SNUPPS Resident Ins:ecter/Callcway NPS o Choke Cherry Road c/o USNRC Rockville, Maryland 20850 Steed. man, Missouri 65077 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge ISCO M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. J. E. Birk Assistant to the General Counsel Union Electric Company P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 Dr. Vern Starks Route 1, Box 863 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Ms. TrevaHearn, Assistant General Counsel Missouri Public Service Ccemissicn P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. D. F. Schnell Manager-Nuclear Engineering Union Electric Company P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0H11AT10N ENYTRO?tMENTAL REPORT CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. STN 50-483 Coolino Tower Oceration and Noise 290.1 (Section 3.4.3) Provide the flow rate of air through the cooling tower at maximum operating capacity.
290.2 (Section 3.5.11) The chemical composition of the ccoling tower drift as listed in Table 3.6-7 differs noticeably from the analysis presented in the ER-CP (Revision 1 Question D15).
Moreover, drift composition as discussed on page 5.1-7 (ER-OL) does not agree with the information in Table 3.6-7.
Discuss the changes in drift composition which occur between the ER-CP and ER-OL, sud address the discrepancies which appear between sections of the ER-OL, concluding the discussion with a recom-mendation of the analysis to be used in subsequent review.
290.3 (Section 3.6.11 and 5.1.4'.2)
These two sections contain ap,7arently independent analyses of cooling tower drift deposition. Explain the presentation of the two analyses and discuss their comparative applicability for use in subsequent review.
l 790.4 (Section 5.1.4.2) Expand on the infonnation presented in Table 5.1-6 by listing deposition rates as a function of distance from the cooling tower (i.e., provide deposition rates as functions of both distance and direction from tower).
f F
L
~
290.5 (Section 5.1.4.2) The buoyancy flux equation given on page 5.1-8 is F = 2.59 x 10-5 O.
The equation typically used in H
-5 this situation is F = 3.7 x 10 O.
Explain specifically H
-5 how/where the 2.59 x 10 ccefficient was obtained.
l Provide a discussion of noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity 290.5 of the plant site and the Missouri River pump house. The discus-sion should describe the type of land use (e.g., towns, hospital, school, residence, wildlife management area), and its location and distance from plant noise sources such as cooling towers, circulating water pumps, plant transformers, switchyard, steam vent locations and outdoor paging system.
290.7 Provide, if available, ambient (i.e., pre-construction) day-night equivalent sound level data for the identified noise sensitive locations and for the area in the vicinity of ths plant boundary.
l I
290.8 Provide a discussion of all significant barriers (natural or i
othenvise) to noise propagation and ground cover (such as I
groves of trees and other vegetation) that could possibly affect sound propagation to offsite areas.
Indicate their location, extent, elevation, proximity to noise sources and noise sensitive land uses, and estimate their effect on noise
~
propagation offsite.
290.9 Provide a discussion of the expected day-night equivalent sound levels dua to operation of the plant at the noise sensitive locations identified above, as well as at the plant site boundaries.
(Selection of locatiens on the site boundary for consideration should be based on proximity to noise source locations due to the irregular shape of the site.)
Indicate
. clearly the bases for these estimates (i.e., reference for source data, distances considerr.d, allowances taken for barriers, groundcover, intermittent operation, etc.). For infrequently operated noise sources, such as the FA system, estimate the noise levels produ ed at the various locations and the per-centage of time that the sound source operates. Sound level estimates should include ambient sound levels for the locations considered, if such data are available.
f Terrestrial Ecology and Land'Use 290.10 What are the descriptive data and the impacts on terrestrial ecology that will result from the construction and operation of the sludge ponds for improving the quality of the discharge water?
290.11 What reclamation procedures will be used when the sludge ponds are filled?
l 290.12 What are the descriptive data and the impacts on terrestrial ecology of the construction and operation of the 'new Technical l
Support Center, the Secondary Access Facility and the Emergency Operation Facility?
l
290,13 Specifically where has the wild turkey hunting data been incorporated in the previous sections. Page 6.3-2.
1 290.14 Were any construction activities engaged in that were not evaluated by NRC? Appendix 4A, page 4.0-3.
If yes, provide the location and size, the previous' land use of the areas and if any are on primo agricultural land.
1 L
290.15 Determine the total amount of prime agricultural land on site,
, the amount utilized for permanent structures (e.g., containment building), the amound used for temporary facilities (e.g., lay down area-) and the percent -of-each type to the total site area.
This item is not covered in the ER.
290.16 Provide a map of the floodplain indicating the areas of construction activities and identifying the affected plant communities and any prime agricultural land.
290.17 F. ovide an indication of the commonness or rarity of the affected plant communities in the area.
i 290.18 Provide the following omitted reference citations:
(1) Page 2.1-15 Reference to U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,1967, not provided.
(2)- Pag'e 2.2-82 So.ida,1979, reference not provided.
(3) Section 6.1 No references provided.
-p.,,-
,.y
~
290.19 Please provide an updated list of the Threatened and Endargered Species on the Federal and State of liissouri lists.
P 290.20 Frcm Chapter 4 it is not possible to detemine if all the land needs i
for construction given in Table 4.1 of the FES have been disturbed
,. ye t.
That is, by delaying the construction of Unit 2 will less l
area have to be disturbed for lay down or other uses-than originally anticipated.
l 290.21 - Predict the maximum field strength and the field strength at the edge of the transmission line rights-of-way. Based upon the predicted field s trengths _ dis cuss _ the_lcag-lar::t biological.. effects,._1.e.,.n on-shock l
hazards,from these low level electrical fields. Section 5.5.
l l
290.22 Specifically where in the terrestrial ecology section have'.the 1970 to l
1979 mid-winter. waterfowl and the. IS7a to.1979 midwinter _ eagle surveys been 11corporated?' Page 6.3-1.
~
s
Acuatic Ecology _
291.1 (page 2.2-24) The staff requests additicnal information on the abundance, diversity, spawning, etc., of fishes in the Missouri River (vicinity of Callaway), Lcgan Creek, and Mollie Do:ier Provide the following references and any additional Chute.
pertinent information that may be available:
(1) Union Electric Company.
1974a. 'Gallaway Plant Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Baseline Inventory. Unpublished repc et.
Union Electric Company.
St. Lcuis, Missouri.
(?) Union Electric Company.
1974b.
1974 Annual summary, Callaway Plant Units 1 and 2.
Preconstruction monitoring.
Unpublished report.
291.2 (page 3.4-4)
'4 hat measures have been made or are planned to-prevent the entrainment or impingement of larvae and young fish that exit from the Mollie Dozier Chute immediately upst, ream from the intake structure?
291.3 (page 3.4-6) It is not clear frcm the discussion or from Fig.
3.4-2 how the low velocity fish escape openings function, and how their design will avoid fish aggregation in the intakes quiescent waters. Clarify.
291.4 (page3.4-7) What will be the temperature of the spray water under winter conditions? What will be the winter water temperature in the forebays, especially at the lowest elevation of the traveling screens?
t
+-
Water Treatment and Chemical Dischar es 291.5 Referring to Table 3.6-6, fcotnote, provide the basis for the 94 mg/l reducticn in total alkalinity in the plant effluent attributable to aeration in the ccoling tower.
Indicate whether alkalinity (1182 mg/1) includes the effect of sulfuric acid addition.
291.6 There are inconsistencies between the flow rates given in Tables 3.6-4 and 3.5-5 and those shown in Figure 3.3-1.
For example, Figure 3 3-1 gives a blowdown rate (2 towers) of 9355 gpm, which is 13,471,200 gal / day; Table 3.5-4 gives 10,957,000 gal / day.
Please resolve these dlscrepancies and provide corrected valuss.
The maximum concentrations of sulfate and mercury in the river-291.7 as given in Table 3.6 6 appear to be abnormally high (cf. Table 2.4-7).
Please discuss the ultimate fate, including disposal method and f
291.8 l
location, of the water treatment :;ystem clarifying sludge.
Please specify the organic composition of the dispersant (organic 291.9 phosphonate), the EPA registration number, toxicity data for I
aquatic organisms (if available), the form in which it will be i
l discharged, the basis for the estimate of the amount used, the amount discharged, and discuss the possible chemical decomposition in water.
i
291.10 Explain how the proposed sulfuric acid treatment level was estimated.
291.11 In reference to question 291.10, discuss the effect of adding sulfuric acid on the action of organic phosphonates for scaling l
control; in particular, the effectiveness of organophosphonates at different pH values. How does the amount of sulfuric acid I
that would be needed to control scaling withcut using organo-phosphonates ccmpare with the amount needed when both are used?
l 1
294.12 Specify whether the inhibition of scaling by phosphonates will affect the corrosion protection nonnally afforded by slightly scaling conditions (positive saturation index). Provide a 1
quantitative discussion of the effects that the phosphonates may have on the soluble fractions of heavy metals (such as '-
copper, nickel) cooling system corrosion products and the -
resultant impact on discharge water quality and receiving water biota.
l l
l l
Sccioeconcaics 310.1 Upda a all population estimates and proje::fons using U.S.
Sureau of the Census data for 1975.
310.2 Provide a 1950 renthly estimate of the nu-ter of users of tne Reform Management Area and project yearly averages of the number of area users for the lifetite of the facility.
310.3 Provide a copy of the Dates & Moore demographic study which is discussed in Section 8.1.2.1.1.
310.4 Provide an update of Table 3.1.7.
Please add to the table for each personal category the approximate number of pecole-- --
who are currently employed by U.E. and have or will be trans-ferred to the Callaway Plant.
310.5 Provide a full-citation and' description for-the " State Model" discussed in Section 8.1.2.1.2.
310.6 Update the numbers in Table S.1.9 to Table 8.1-15 Table 3.2-6, and Table 3.2-7.
verify the statements in paragraphs one 310.7 Provide evidenc
.)
and three of Section 8.1.2.4.2.
310.3 Clarify, in Section S.2.2.2.1, the nur.ber of residences not ra:ed and the nu=ber currently rented. Discuss the intended disposition of these residences during the operation of the facility.
Cultural Resources 310.9 Provide a detailed description of the research design developed for cultural resource site identification on all plant proper-ties and all methods utili:ed in the field reconnaissance. Des-4 cribe and identify on a map the kinds of field strategies uti-li:ed in all areas that were surveyed and the different topa-graphic and vegetation settings in each survey location.
In-clude a discussion and map notation of the field conditions at the time of the field work in each survey area.
310.10 - Provide a detailed description of' the criteria used to evaluate the cultural resource sites identified on the plant properties.
Descr_f be_ each.of these sites.. incl.uding the. sites' structure,...
function, chronology, cultural affiliation and current condi-l tion. Which of these sites still remain on the plant property i
and what mitigative measures were used for sites and parts of sites that..do not remain?
l l
l 310.11 Describe the natural resources or locations on the plant prop-i erties of cultural or religious importance to Native Americans living in or utilizing the nearby area.
If Native Americans l
no longer reside in the area,-when did they last reside in the area?
L.-______________
310.12 Provide a detailed description of the settlement-subsistence system for all cultural phases known in the nearby area and a correlation of site type, cultural-phase and environmental setting over time. Provide a list of references which illus-trate examples of site types and typical locations at whien to expect sites for various temporal periods and cultural groups.
310.13 What are the major research problems for this general region?
How do the nearby cultural -escurce sites relate to these
. problems? How do the sites located on the plant property
~
relate to these problems and do they provide information contributing to a betger understanding of the local culture history? ' Explain why. -"-
j i
I 1
\\
.a f
i
Offsite Ha:ards 311.1 As published in the Federal Register (Vo. 45, No. 113, June 13, 1980, Pages 40101-40104) the Nuclear Regulatory C =ission (MRC) has revised its policy regarding accident censiderations in Mational Envircreantal Policy Act (MEPA) reviews.
Informatien regarding the site as well as events arising from causes external to the plant which are considered possible contributors to the risk associated with the plant are to be References to safety evaluations is itcceptable provided the" discussed.
Environmental Report contains a complete overview with references to spec'ific sections of the FSAR. Accordingly, please provide an analysis of all offsite activities and an assessment of potential hazards including:
(1) transportation,(2) mining and mineral exploration and/or operations,(3) industriai activities, and (4) military activity.
Paragraph 2.1.1.2 (Page 2.1-1) states "... acreage on the site not'-
311.2 directly preempted for the power production process is being made available for various levels of public use or development..."
Paragraph 2.1.3.3.4 (Page 2.1-17) and your responses to FSAR Question 310.02 discusses land use in greater detail. An indication of possible "research" use, etc.,'is of concern. Please provide a more,
explicit list of activities contemplated and those activities which will te excluded.
l l
l I
x 311.3 Section 2.1.2.3, Page 2.1-6 (and F3AR Section 2.1.3.3, Page 2.1-10) states that "Last Canyon Lakes is a recreaticnal vehicle and trailer park dev'elopment approximately 2.2 cites acrth of the site. The devele: ent has apprcximately 500 sites currently in use, and its develc;ers hcpe to sell an addi:icnal 500 to 500 sites by Se;;ecter, No per=anent reside.ntial structures are alic. sed within Last 1950.
Canyon Lakes.
" Current average sw=:er weekend use of Last Canyon Lakes is estimated to be around 400 persens with usage on peak holiday weekends approaching 1,000 persens (Utley, 1979)"
Please update this infor=ation and include:
~
~
(1) ~ ProjEctef total re !sr Uf sites -st ec ;Hetice--- -- - -
of project.
(2) Projected end of project usage on a seasonal, I
weekday, and weekend basis if significantly
~
different.
311.4 Please identify ownership of land within the plant corridor (Section 2.1.1.2.1.3 of the FSAR identifies tracts of land within the plant corridor area that are not owned).
311.5 Please confirm that explosives are act shipped via County Roads 335 and 337 through the Exclusion Area. Please identify the shipping routes and maximum single ship =ent quantity of explcsives discussed in Section 2.2.1.2.4 of the FSAR.
l R ~ ER. A..
~ ~
4 T
Radiolecical Imcacts 470.1 Ca p.5.2-7, it is stated that the 2ASPAR and LADIAP cc,puter codes wcre i
used to estimata doses.
Provide a listing of input parareters that were uscd in the GASPAR and LADTAP cc.;:puter runs.
4
~
470.2 On p.2.1-22, it is stated that "According.to MOC (1976b), no public access points exist on the Misscuri River dot.nstream of the discharge."
Is there a more current reference? When you state " downstream of the 1
j discharge", do you mean within 10 miles, 50 miles, or to the :Mssissippi-River?
O 9
t
\\
\\
1' i
b
. se S
6 f
- -... - -..