ML19344D132
| ML19344D132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1980 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003110391 | |
| Download: ML19344D132 (4) | |
Text
\\
TERh
- .4
/
4)*
UNITED STATES
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.(
,[
FEB 2 21980 Docket No. 50-341 Detroit Edison Company ATTN:
Dr. Wayne Jens, Manager Engineering and Construction 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48421 Gentlemen:
Executive Order (E.0.) 11988, Floodplain Management was issued in May 1977 to assure that Federal agencies were taking appropriate consideration of floodplain development. On October 6, 1978, the NRC published in the Federal Register (43 FR 46499) its plans for compliance with E.0. 11988.
So as to assist the staff in its review of various factors associated with floodplain development at the Fermi II facility, we request your responses to the questions provided in Enclosure 1.
With respect to the overall NEPA review of your application, the staff also requests that responses be provided to the matters identified in.
Please submit your responses in letter form to us by March 21, 1980, and include this information in the next supplement to the Environmental Report.
Sincerely,
,n
/sw C/W f,ad' R nald L. Ballard, Chie Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosures:
1.
Floodplain Management Questions
-2.
NEPA Review Questions cc: See next page 8003110 39/
\\
Dr. Wayne H. Jens cc: Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esq.
David F. Howell, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 21916 J,ohn R 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.
Hazel Park, Michigan 48030 Washington, D. C. 20036 Mrs. Martha Drake Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
230 Fairview Co-Counsel Petoskey, Michigan 49770 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Fahrner Project Manager - Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Licensing Engineer - Fermi 2 Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David R. Schink Department of Oceanography Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77840 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr.' Jeffrey A. Alson 772 Green Street, Building 4 Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 0
6
y
~
l QUESTIONS RELATING TO E. O.11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 1.
Provide descriptions of the floodplains* of all water bodies, including intermittent water courses; within or adjacent to the site. On a suitable scale map provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one-percent chance flood in the absence of plant j
effects (f.e., pre-construction floodplain).
2.
Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to 1. above.
Include your assumptions of and bases for the p'.*tinent' parameters used in the computation of the one-percent flood iow and water elevation.
If studies approved by Flood Insurance 1
Administration (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Corps of Engineers are available for the site or adjoining area, the details of analyses need not be supplied.
You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.
3.
Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures, construction activities and topographic alterations in the floodplains.
Indicate the status of each such structure, construction activit alteration (in terms of start and completion dates)y and topographic and work presently completed.
4.
Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in 3. above, Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, both up-stream and downstream.
Include the potential effect of debris accumulating on the plant structures. Additionally, discuss the
. effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities.
5.
Provide the details of your analysis used in response to 4. above.
The level of detail is similar to that identified in item 2. above.
6.
Identify non-floodplain alternatives for each of the items (structures, construction activities anc' tooographic alterations) identified in
- 3. above. Alternately, justi"y why a specific item must be in the floodplain.
7.
For each item in 6. above that cannot be justified as having to be in the floodplain either show that all non-floodplain alternatives are not practicable or commit to re-locating the structure, construction activity or topographic alteration out of the floodplain.
. Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
b REQUEST FOR If1 FORMATION REGARDIf1G IIEPA ISSUES 1.
It states in the Environmental Report (Sec. 2.1.2) that part of the site woodlands will be developed to include nature study tratis, an educational center, and other public recreational factif tfes.
Our_ present understanding is that these plans have been modified.
Please provide information as to your latest intention on the develop-ment of these site woodlands including location and acreage to be disturbed.
2.
In a letter dated August 2,1979, the Mtchigan Water Resources Canmission gave conditional approval to the proposed entraf nment/
impingement study submitted by Detroit Edison on May 30, 1979.
Formal approval of the study is apparently contingent upon your acceptance of the modifications indicated in the August 2,1979, letter. Therefore, please provide the staff with any subsequent correspondence you may have had with the Water Resources Commission regarding the status and approval of the Study.
l