ML19347E929
| ML19347E929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105140308 | |
| Download: ML19347E929 (19) | |
Text
N o
eq QQ suer jo UNITED STATES J
y/
g w(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- ('cv/
HAY 121981 t
Docket No.: STN 50-482 Mr. Glenn Koester Vice President - Nuclear Kansas Gas and Electric Company 201 N. Market Street Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Koester:
Subject:
Wolf Creek Environmental Report (0L) - Request for Additional Information As a result of our review of your application for an operating license, we find that we need additional information regarding the Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report (0L). Most of the enclosed questions were discussed for clarification in the public meeting held at Burlington, Kansas on April 22, 1981.
To maintain our licensing review schedule for the Environmental Report, we will need responses to this request by June 5, 1981.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review your schedule for any necessary changes.
Please contact Dr. G. E. Edison, Wolf Creek Licensing Project Manager, if you desire any clarification of the enclosed questions.
Sincerely, 8bhd Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant 01 rector for Licensing Division of Licensing Enclosed:
As stated f
cc: See next page g
b NgBN3 t
y#
5 y +<JWe
'A to 8105140 M f
I Mr. Glenn L. Koester Vice President - Nuclear Kansas Gas and Electric Company 201 North Market Street P. O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 cc:
'<r. Nicholas A. Petrick Ms. Wanda Christy Executive Director, SNUPPS 515 N. 1st Street 5 Choke Cherry Road Suling:on, Kansas 66339 Rockville, Maryland 20750 Floyd **athews, Esc.
Birch, Morton, Si::ner &.*5nroe Mr. Jay Silberg, Esquire 1140 Conecticut A.enue. N. W.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trcwbridce 1300 M Street, N. W.
~
Washin;;on, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20036 Kansas for Sensible Energy Mr. Donald T. McPhee P. O. Box 3192 Vice President - Production Wichita, Kansas 67201 Kansas City Pcwer and Light Company 1330 Baltimore Avenue Francis Blaufuse P. O. Box 679 Westphalia, Kansas 66093 Kansas City, Missouri 64101 Ms. Mary Ellen Salva Route 1, Box 56 Burlington, Kansas 56839 Mr. L. F. Drbi Missouri-Kansas Section:
American Nuclear Society 15114 Navaho Olathe, Kansas 66062 Ms. Treva Hearne, Assistant General Counsel Public Service Commission P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Tom Vandel Resident Inspector / Wolf Creek NPS c/o USNRC P. O. Box 1407 Emporia, Kansas 66801 Mr. Michael C. Kenner Wolf Creek Project Director State Corporation Commission State of Kansas Fourth Floor, State Office Bldg.
Topeka, Kansas 66612 i
~ ~
240-1 240.0 HYDROLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 240.1 ER-OL, p. 3.3-2 Sec. 3.3.6.
Please indicate the makeup water (ER) rates used in simulating the Wolf Creek cooling lake drawdown (3.3) during the 16-year (1948-1964) design weather period.
240.2 ER-OL, p. 3.4-1, Sec. 3.4.1.
For one 1150 MWe unit operating at (ER) a 100-percent average annual load facgor, will the circulating N3 fo'r N) BN/
as Ndibki$ SN#Y4
?
240.3 ER-OL, p. 3.4-3, Sec. 3.4.3.2.
The calculated velocities of (ER) the water approaching and within the circulating water intake (3.4) structure do not seem to be accurate. The staff has presented in the FES-CP, Table 3.1 the various intake velocities for a total flow rate of 1256 cfs. Please prepare the similar table for the modified intake structure and the revised flow rate of 1204 cfs.
240.4 ER-OL, p. 3.4-3, Section 3.4.3.2.
Please provide an engineering (ER) drawing showing the width of the modified circulating water (3.4) discharge chute, and also indicate the discharge velocity for a total flow rate of 1204 cfs.
240.5 ER-OL, p. 3.4-4, Sec. 3.4.4.
Please indicate the service water (ER) temperature rise and the combined circulating and service water (3.4) temperature rise for the station operating at full load.
240.6 ER-OL, p. 3.4-4, Sec. 3.4.4.
Please provide a copy of the manual (ER) describing the LAKET computer model used to calculate the cooling (3.4) lake temperature distribution.
240.7 Describe the effects of plant consumptive water use on existing (ER) and projected downstream water users under low flow conditions (2.4) up to and including the 2 percent chance drought. The description should include current information on water use and current projections of future use.
240.8 Provide a flow-duration curve for the Neosho River at Wolf Creek (ER) reflecting regulation by the John Redmond Reservoir. Also provide (2.4) an estimate of the 7 consecutive day once in 10 year low flow for the river at Wolf Creek under the same conditions.
Discuss the offect of plant operation on these parameters.
Provide in your discussion your assumptions regarding reservoir release rates and plant withdrawals.
240.9 Provide the dates of the minimum daily flows shown in Table 2.4.3 (ER) of the ER.
If these low flows were a result of reservoir filling, (2.4) provide minimum daily flows (and dates) for the period after the reservoir began normal operation.
l
i 240-2 240.10 Provide a description of the analysis used to determine the j
(ER) runoff into Wolf Creek Cooling Lake for the cooling lake (2.4) simulation study. Describe the gaged basins used to extrapolate flows for Wolf Creek including location, size, period of record, whether the streams are effluent or influent, and any adjustments made other than for drainage area.
240.11 Justify the conservatism of the estimates of Wolf Creek Cooling (ER)
Lake seepage, evaporation, and inflow that have been used as (3.3) input to the consumptive water use analysis and cooling lake drawdown studies.
240.12 Provide detailed stratigraphic sections used for seepage calculations (ER) along the seepage sectors shown on Figure 2.4-17.
These sections (2.4) should clearly identify the various stratigraphic members, their length, thickness, and elevations; and the location of wells or streams intersecting these members in the vicinity of the plant.
Photo copies of sections plotted for Table 2.4-10 calculations are acceptable.
240.13 Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release (ER) from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, (7.1) unless ctherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440,1978). Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations affected, water use).
It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic Engineer-ing Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis.
240.14 Descriptions of floodplains, as required by Executive Order 11988, (ER)
Floodplain Management, have not been provided. The definition used (2.4) in the Executive Order is:
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.
a)
Provide descriptions of the floodplains adjoining the Neosho River, Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake adjacent to the site. On suitable scale map (s) provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent (100 year) and.2 percent (500 year) chance floods both before and after plant construction.
240-3 b) Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to a. above.
Include your assumptions of and bases for the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the one percent flood flow and water elevation.
If, studies approved by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)' are available for the site and adjoining area, the details of the analysis used in the reports need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.
c)
Identify, locate on a map and describe all structures and topo-graphic alterations in the floodplains.
240.15 a.
Discuss the hydrologic effects of all. items identified in (ER) response to question 14c. Discuss the alteration in flood (5.7) flows in Wolf Creek below Wolf Creek Coolfng Lake. Determine the effect of the cooling lake on the 50,10,1, and.2 percent chance floods (2 year,10 year,100 year, and 500 year floods) in Wolf Creek below the cooling lake.
Expected reservoir water level and storage and the time of the storm should be taken into account.
b.
Provide details of your analysis used in response to a. above.
1
290-1 290.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 290.1 Describe any changes in the routing of the transmission line (ER) corridors since the ER-OL (Sec. 3.9). What is the current state (3.9) of completion (ER-OL Sec. 3.9)?
290.2 Give details on the present status of the railroad spur routing (ER) and have there been any changes since the FES-CP Sec. 3.97 (3.9) 290.3 Has the water pipeline been completed and have there been any (ER) changes in the proposed route (FES-CP Sec. 3.9)?
(3.9) 290.4 What are the current plans for recreational and agricultural land (ER) use on site when WCGS becomes operational?
(3.9) 290.5 What mitigative measures will be taken by the applicant (or ether (ER) agencies) for the protection of bald and golden eagles that may be attracted to the cooling lake? This is in regards to both protection from plant operation and structures and from recreational users of the cooling lake.
290.6 Was the crawfish frog observed in the area to be inundated by the (ER) cooling lake mudflat area?
If so, are there other preferred habitat areas within the area that currently maintain a localized population of this species?
290.7 Has the baseline terrestrial ecology been done for the proposed R0Ws?
(ER)
Please provide the data.
29.1.8 Have there been any changes in the site boundaries? Where are they?
(ER) 290.9 How many hectares on site are grazed prairie and how many are old (ER) farmland?
290-2 290.10 Provide a Table similar to Table 3.9-1 indicating the percentage (ER) of prime and unique farmlands onsite.
(2.1.3) 290.11 Provide an update of the listing of Rare and Endangered Species.
(ER)
(2.2.1 )
290.12 Provide a discussion on the potential short-term and long-term (ER) effects of electric fields on humans and describe the grounding (5.5) procedures to be utilized to prevent primary and secondary shocks.
290.13 Provide a discussion of the potential problems of seasonal waterfowl (ER) impacting the proposed transmission lines bordering the Wolf Creek (5.5)
Cooling Lake.
O e
n
291 -1 291.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRANCH i
291.1 Provide the following information on the lim e sludge pond:
(ER) a.
Location on the station site, including tne distance from the pond wall to the cooling lake; b.
Major diversions; c.
Materials of construction; d.
Need for and frequency of clearout and ultimate disposal of wastes removec; e.
Estimated seepage rate from the pond into the groundwater; f.
Estimated composition and flow rate of effluent from the pond into the cooling lake.
2 91.2 Please provide more details on the calculations of the blowdown (ER) discharge limits calculated tu Section 3.6.2.2 of the OLER.
In (3.6) particular:
a.
Provide a complete description of the model used to calculate the allowable blowdown limits; b.
Indicate the values used for the diffusion parameters and flow velocities in these calculations.
Describe the model assumptions made in these calculations; c.
The datg given in the OLER imply that the concentrations of the TDS, 50 and Cl in the blowdown are the same as in the cooling 3
lake. However, such factors as incomplete diffusion or mixing of solutes or concentration stratification in the cooling lake might make the blowdown solute concentration different from that of the lake as a whole.
Indcate whether such factors have been considered and, if so, what analysis has been made; d.
Provide,the bases of or the source (s) for the criteria for TDS, SO and C1 cited for the Neosho River.
4 291.3 Outline the derivation of the concentrations given in Table 3.6-1.
(ER)
Are the values for the cooling lake averages over the whole lake -
(2.4) are they steady state values? Discuss why the normal values for the Redmond Reservoir are so much higher than those given in Table 2.4-11.
2 91.4 Indicate whether essential service water is withdrawn continuously or (ER) only during an accident or shutdown?
\\
291 -2 291.5 Provide estimates of the maximum total residual chlorine enacantration (ER)
(including that combined as chloramines and chloroorganics) to be expected at the circulating water discharge outlet to the cooling lake.
291.6 Where is the service water discharged? Is sulfuric acid added to (ER) the service water? If so, how much is added?
291.7 According to the OLER, Ammonia, Hydra:ine, Potassium Chromate, and (ER)
Turco Decon 4521 and 4520 are used in the power block system. Provide estimates of the usage of these chemicals. Also discuss the ultimate fate of these chemicals.
Identify the pathways to the environment from the plant and indicate the amount and concentrations of these chemicals in the pathways.
2 91.8 Indicate the concentration and types of chemicals discharged in (ER) the rad-waste system effluent into the cooling lake.
2 91.9 According to the OLER Section 3.6.3.2 each demineralizer train (ER) will be regenerated once every 25 days, and only one will be (3.6) used at any given time with the other train kept as a spare.
Explain why the~ relevant entries of Table 3.6-2 are calculated for twice the above regeneration rate.
291.10 Accogding to Table 3.6-2 of the OLER about two mole equivalents (ER) of H are used in regeneration of the demineralizers for each (3.6) mole equivalent of OH. As a result, during each regeneration, one-half the acid is discharged unused into the alkaline lime sludge pond. Please verify or correct the above entries in the Table.
291.11 Provide details on the derivation of the numbers given in Table (ER) 3.5-6 of the OLER.
(3.6) 291.12 Describe the program for monitoring TDS, S0], and Cl~ concentrations (ER) in the Neosho River or in the blowdown to ensure that discharge criteria are met.
291.13 Indicate whether discharged fluids, including oil spills in the (ER) transformer vault discharged through the oily waste separator system.
If not, describe the discharge system where the effluents go and the amount of oily discharge to be expected. Describe the oily waste separator system and the fate of the separated oil and aqueous wastes after leaving the system.
291.14 Verify or correct the following changes in the OLER supplied (ER) during the site visit. Annual use of Na0CL for potable water (3.4) disinfection 315 lbs/yr instead of 1315 lbs/yr. (Table 3.6-2).
Lime softener blowdown contains ferric hydroxide instead of ferrous hydroxide (page 3.6-5).
2 91 - 3 e
i 291.15 Please supply a list,, and copies if Evailable, of all permits (ER) needed to discharge effluents during station operation. The OL-ER, Section 12, states that the discharge permit No.1+NE07-R002 will be modified as WCGS becomes operational. Describe the expected modifications.
If available give pollutant limits for the modifications.
Identify and describe effluent discharges into the cooling lake or the lime sludge pond that will not be covered by a permit.
291.16 Indicate the nresent status of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) with (ER) respect to completion of the Dam and filling.
291.17 Indicate the present prediction for completion of filling of Hol f (ER)
Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL).
291.18 Please provide the results of aquatic biological surveys conducted (ER) to date relative to aquatic organisms in WCCL.
291.19 Provide details of the monitoring program on WCCL during filling and (ER) as planned after station operation begins. This should include information on ichthyoplankton and young-of-the year fishes, especially in area of cooling water intake.
291.20 Provide better schematics showing the siting and' configuration of (ER) the make-up water intake, the cooling water intake and the essential (3.4) service water intake. The ER-OL provides figures showing locations, but details of configurations and adjacent shoreline are needed,
[ER-0! p. 3.4-2, p. 3.4-3],
291.21 Clarify the following: The statement "The Wolf Creek Generating (ER)
Station cooling system is designed to support two ll50-MWe pres-l (3.4) surized water reactors operating at 100 percent average annual load factor" (p. 3.4-1) is contradictory to the following statement,
" Analyses indicate that the cooling lake will supply adequate water for the operation of one unit operating at 100 percent average annual load factor and two units operating at 88.5 percent average annual load factor" (p. 3.4-2).
291.22 Discuss the aquatic biotic monitoring program for area of makeup (ER) water intake in the Neosho River.
Indicate the parameters to be monitored, the frequency and timing of sampling, the date(s) of program initiation, its duration and the location of the sampling sta tions.
291.23 Outline the aquatic biotic monitoring program for the site area (ER) during station operation (see requests by staff in FES-CP.
Sections 6.1.3.2. p. 6-3, 6.2. 3.2. p. 6-7 ).
291.24 Describe any stocking of fish in WCCL that has already taken place, (ER) including date introduced, species and number introducede Also provide a description of future plans for stocking fish in the WCCL.
~
291 -4 291.25 Provide the details and discuss the impacts of return of material collected from the plant intake screens to the Neosho River.
31 0-1 31 0.0 SITING ANALYSIS BRANCH 310.1 Are there any substantial charles in the station external (ER) appearance or layout which ha e been made subsequent to the description in the OL-ER? I so, please describe.
31 0 !2 Are there any new roads or rail lines or relocations of roads (ER) or rail lines near the plant which have been proposed subsequent to the description in the OL-ER?
If so, please describe.
31 0. 3 Section 2.1.3.3.4 of the OL-ER states:
" Currently, there (E#)
are no plans for public use of the cooling lake or lands (2.1.3) within the site boundary adjacent to the cooling lake not needed during operation of the station and related facilities."
It also states that the visitors center location has not been sel ected.
4 Have the plans for public use of the ccoling lake and adjacent lands been revised? If so, please describe. Also, has the visitors center site been selected?
'f so, please give its description and location.
31 0.4 Section 2.1.3.2.11 mentions "an increase in the number of (ER) large rural homesites on nearby agricultural land."
1.e.,
(2.1.3) within five miles of the site.
Because of this increase, have the 1980 census results dif-fered significantly from the 1980 population forecasts in Tabl e 2.1-2, ER-OL? If so, please revise the population data for the five mile area around the site.
31 0.5 Provide an estimate of the average annual number of workers (ER) required for the operation of Wolf Creek Unit No.1.
State whether the workers are employees or contractors. Also provide an estimate of the average annual operating workers' payroll for the unit.
31 0.6 Local purchases of goods and services for a nuclear power plant (ER) operation may frequently have a significant impact on the local economy.
(For these purposes local may be defined as either the host count.y or the host county and one or more contiguous counties.)
Please provide infonnation on local purchases of goods and services expected to be made by the plant during a typical year of operation. To the extent possible, identify specific types of dollar amounts of these purchases.
If it appears that there will be no significant local purchases, explain why.
31 0.7 Construct a table containing dollar estimates of taxes attributable (ER) to Wolf Creek No.1, for each of the first five full years of operation. Provide the dollar estimates by type of tax, and by taxing jurisdiction. What percent of the jurisdictions' total tax revenues are represented by the taxes attributable to the Wolf Creek No.1 Plant?
31 0-2 310.8 Please provide the distances of the proposed transmission (ER) corridors from the following properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
Samuel J. Tipton House Harris Vicinity Anderson County Columbia Bridge Peoria Franklin County I. O. Pickering House Olathe Johnson County Please give the same information for any other archeological and historical sites or properties listed or eligible for listing located within 2 km of the corridors.
i l
l
~
\\
i 311 -1 31 1.0 SITING ANALYSIS BRANCH 311.1 As published in the Federal Register (Vol. 45, No.116, June 13, 1980, Pages 40101-40104) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised its policy regarding accident considerations in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.
Information 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 discussed. References to safety evaluations is acceptable provided the Environmental t
Report contains a complete overview with references to specific 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) industrial activities, and (4) military activi ty.
31 1.2 Section 2.1.2.3, Page 2.1-9, discusses peak monthly transient (ER) population at John Redmond Reservoir.
Please provide an estimate (2.1.2.3) of peak daily usage as well.
311.3 Section 2.
3.2.9, Page 2.1-18, and Figure 2.1-23 identifies (ER) several abandoned and one operating quarry within 5 miles.
It (2.1.3.2) is difficult to read Figure 2.1-23.
Please clearly identify the location of these quarries. Please identify the maximum quantity and type of any explosives stored at the quarries.
Please identify the frequency, quantity and transportation route for each explosive type delivered to each quarry.
31 1.4 Figures 2.1-3, 5, 6 and 7, etc., show an abandoned A.T. & S.F.
(ER) railroad line passing through the Wolf Creek Site.
FSAR question (2.1 )
310.01 requested an explanation of the status of this line and discussion of any easements which may exist relative to this railroad line. For completeness, please include your response to FSAR question 310.01 in the ER.
l
~
320-1 320.0 UTILITY FINANCE BRANCH 320.1 Please provide further information an KEPCo. including present (ER) status of purchase of 17". of WCGS and of applications for (1.1) membership in SPP and M0KAN, and the latest annual report. Please provide information available for KEPCo which corresponds to that given for KGE and KCPL in Tables 4-6, 16-18, 25-34 of the section 1.1.
320.2 In section 1.3.1 of the ER-OL, reserve margin deficiencies due to (ER) delay of WCGS operation are stated which for Sur. flower Electric exceed (1.3) expected sales to Sunflower by KEPCo. Please give details of KEPCo/
Sunflower generation and purchases to support the margins stated.
model C. Rj7 of the ER-OL in the description of the XCPL econometric 320.3 On p. 1.1-(ER) and DW are not defined. Please do so.
(1.1 )
320.4 There appear to be typographical slips in the tables for section (ER) 1.1 of the OL-ER.
For example, in Table 1.1-12 all entries in (1.1 )
the third column (GWH increase) from 1980 on are inconsistent with columns 2 and 4.
Please provide any corrected tables for Section 1.1.
320.5 Please provide current revised numbers for any entries in Tables (ER)
B 2-1 and 2 which have been significantly affected by changes in (1.3) interest and escalation rates since completion of the. ER-OL.
Please provide any corresponding revisions of the text tables on p. 1.3-3.
320.6 Please provide the most recent forecast (if any) updated by the (ER) current actual numbers of the electricity demand and the capacity for the applicants and the powerpools.
320.7 Please provide, the estimate or evaluation of a reduction in (ER) the demand for electricity (use and capacity) as a result of various load management programs by the applicant.
320.8 Please provide the change (if any) in the reserve requirements of (ER) the applicant and the powerpool.
320.9 Please provide the fuel mix you would use in providing the replace-(ER) ment energy in case WCGS does not come on line. Also, provide the cost of producing electricity (mills /kwh) by each fuel type.
320.10 Please provide the capacity charge, and the price of electricity (ER) paid to the powerpool to satisfy the future demand increase in case WCGS does not come on line. Please provide the portion of total incremental demand satisfied by in-house generation and the purchase from powerpool.
320-2 What fixed charge rate has been used to calculate the capital cost 320.11 (ER) portion of the total cost of generating electricity by nuclear fuel?
Please refer to Table B.2-2.
Why is fixed charge into year 1986 1983 (269.10 vs. 217.58 million dollars)? What higher than the year inflation rates have been used to arrive at 1986 numbers in this table and other places?
320.12 Please refer to pages 1.1-43 and 1.3-3.
Please provide the basis for calculating the fuel savings or consumptions (in terms of (ER)
(1.1) quantity and dollar both) resulting from bringing or not bringing MCGS on line. The unit of coal consumption on this table appears to be incorrect. The response to Question 3 may be extended to answer Question 6.
320.13' Please provide new estimates, i f any, of decommissioning and (ER) dismantling costs.
450-1 450.0 ACCIDENT EVALUATION BRANCH 450.1 Will applicant initiate pre-operational fog monitoring program to provide baseline (ER) data? If so, provide details of the plan.
If not, explain why such a study will not be undertaken.
450.2 Please provide a transportation map detailing any controlled roads, uncontrolled (ER) roads, and railroads within two miles of the cooling laxe.
In addition, if available, provide data on the extent of traffic density on the controlled and uncontrolled roads.
450.3 Please provide a copy of the latest version of the F0 GALL Model User's Guide.
(ER) 450.4 Please provide documentation of the procedure used to validate the F0 GALL Model.
(ER) 1
470-1 470.0 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH 470.1 (ER)
(2.1.3.2.4)
Confirm that the land use in Table 2.1-18 has not changed since 1978.
~
470.2 (ER)
(2.1.3.3.4)
Provide information concerning the location of the visitors center and an estimate of the number of visitors dnticipated annually.
470.3 (ER)
(2.1.-15)
What is the fraction of daily intake of cows derjved from pasture during the grazing season?
470.4 (ER)
(2.1.3.4.1 )
Provide information concerning the population served by the City of LeRoy's Municipal Water System.
470.5 (ER)
(5.2)
Provide a copy of the information referenced in Section 5.2 that was to have been updated in mid-1980.
l i
470-2 470.6 (ER)
(Appendix SA)
Appendix 5A of the ER states that a summary of dose models and a list of assumptions used for Wolf Creek were presented in Appendix 5.2A of the ER-Construction Permit Stage, however in reviewing this information, the addition of the computer code F000 in the ER-OL became apparent. Therefore, please provide an updated summary of the dose models and assumptions used, i
,