ML20009H384

Forwards Revised Request for Addl Info for Environ Rept (OL Stage).Response Should Be Provided by 810901

ML20009H384
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/31/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
References
NUDOCS 8108100044
Download: ML20009H384 (14)

Text

-. _

r-

-c

]

i DISTRIBUTION:

BCCS:

(

Docket Files LNRC PDR-LB#2' File

-Local.PDR Attorney,_OELD' NSIC' JUL 31 1981 DEisenhut TERA Docket Nos. 50-440 RPurple TIC o

L and 50-441 RTedesco fACRS (16)

-ASchwencer

,m DHouston 4

MService

- (,9

'Mr. Dalwyn R.'Davidson, Vice President I&E(3)

VN

\\

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

[

4 55 Public Square b

1.

Post Office Box 5000

[

D A

sk Cleveland, Ohio 44101 0/ g#

s#

e i

Dear Mr. Davidson:

sul s

SUBJECT:

REVISION OF ACCEPTANCE REVIEW INFORMATION REQUESTS FOR THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS -1 AND 2, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (OLSTAGE)

On June 9, 1981, we issued the acceptance review letter for the Perry 1 and 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. Enclosed with that letter was a " Request for Additional Information." That enclosure was discussed with your stcff and consultants.during the environmental site visit of June 23-24, 1981.. Based on those discussions, the staff has made some modifications to its original request and has made a few additions.

A revised request for additional infomation is enclosed. A vertical bar-in the right hand margin identifies the items which were modified or added.

We will extend the schedule given in the June 9, 1981 letter for the revisions and additions and request that this information'be provided by September 1,1981.

If you require any clarification of this mquest, pleasecontactM.D. Houston,ProjectManager(301)492-8593.

i Sincerely,

• Waal miewd by' antatt L. Tedesee l-Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing i

Enclosure:

l Request for Additional

' Information i

l cc: See next page G108100044 010751 c

PDR ADUCK 0:$000440 C

pop

• SEENEXTPAGEFOR,RSTRIBU' ION D,,

B,#2 DL:LBN DL:AE6V)

L,u mce>M19..... 9me.ASchwey biekhh' '" [ "'"

[" " T'

'~'[

o

~

~

"[ "

.,.,[,[...,..,

.u 4.EL81.

..u.

81... lI8:g,.a,,,,,..,.,,.,,..,,...,,...,.,,.

1 L

om>

_ Nnc ronu sia cio-soi nacu c24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY _

usc

= amo

ng cv g

37 y

y Q

e6 O

V, W

f

[f g l distribution; Docket Files BCCS:

LB#2 File

-NRC DR Attorney, OELD Lo al PDR DEisenhut/RPurpl NSIC Docket Nos. 50-440 RTedesco TERA and 50 841 ASchwencer TIC DHouston ACRS (16)

MService I&E (3)

Mr. Dalwyn R. Davidson, Vice President The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 55 Public Square Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101

]

Dear Mr. Davidson:

SINECT: REVISION OF ACCEPTANCE REVIEW QUESTIONS /FOR THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 AND 2. ENVIRONME L REPORT (OL STAGE)

On Jure 9,1981, we issued the acceptance rev,tew letter for the Perry 1 and 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. Attached to that letter was an enclosure " Request for Additional Information." The questions stated in the enclosure were di/ cussed with your staff and consultants during the environmental site visit of June 23-24, 1981.

Based on those discussions, the staff has made some modifications to i

their oricinal qLestions and a few adpitions. The revised set of accentaace review ouestions is enclosed. A vertice.1 bar in the right i

hand margin identifies those ~questi.o'ns which were nodified or ~added.

Due to the revisions, we wil1~ extended schedule given in the June 9, 1981 1etter and reouest that the infp'mation be provided by Sentember 1,1981.

If you require any clarification of this request, please contact M. D.

Houston, Project Mar,acer, (31) 492-8593.

Sincerely, I

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing

]

D1"ision of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated CFFIC9) Dh.,lB#9 DL,:LB,#5,,,

DL.: AD.: L

~~~) D.Hs u s,t, o,9 ; p.h.., AS,chyen,ce,r,,

RLTedes.co,,,,,,,

om> 7/ S f./81 7/

/81 7/

/81 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

' e ' *-32"24 unc roau sis.io,aciu 4cu o24e

~

v n

JUL 31 19 31 Mr. Dalwyn R. Davidson Vice President, Engineering The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 cc:

Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridga 1803 ?i Street', fl. U.

l Mashington, D. C.

20035 1

Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

Cleveland Elec ric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 500 Cleveland, Oh..;

44101 U. 5. Nuclear P.egulatory Commission Resident :nspector's Office Panaly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44031 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 ftcin Street Lake County Adninistration Center l

Painesville, Ohio 44077 s

i l

Tod J. Kenney 228 South College Apt. A l

Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Daniel D. Wilt Wegman, Hesiler & Vanderberg 7301 Chippewa Road, Suite 102 l

Brecksville, Ohio 44141 l

Jeff Alexander 920 Wilimington Ave.

Dayton, Ohio 45420 Terry Lodge, Esq.

915 Spitzer Building Toledo, OH 43604 t

i I

s t

9 e

l

~

4

~

ENCLOSURE

. PERRY =ILAND 2.

ER-OL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I!r/OR"ATION E q40.0 -

Hydrologic Engineering E 240.02 Furnish the populations and usage rites for swiraning, boating, hunting

- (2.1.3 :

-and and other shoreline uses 'necessary to calculate AppendirLIlliquid' E2.4) pathwai popula tion doses.

i.240.03-

- Compliance with Executive Order 11g88 on-Floodplain Management.

.( 2.3.1 ) -

Def n t on (fromExecutiveOrder11983FloodplainManagement) i ii Floodolain: The lowbnd and relatively flat dreas adjoining inland and I

coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a mi..imum that area subject to a. one percent or greater chance.nf flooding in any given year. -

a.

Provide descriptions of the floodplains of all water bodies, including intermittant water courses, within or adjacent to the site.

Da a suitable scale map provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one-percent chance flood in the absence of. plant-effects (i.e., pre-construction floodplain).

b.

Provide details of the methods used to detemine 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 floca flow and water elevation.

If studies Epproved by Flood Insura' 2 Administratinn (F:

f, Housing and Urban Development (h'JD) or the S

x Corps of Engineers are avaiiable for the site or. adjoining area, the. ~

]

details of analyses need not be supplied.

You can instead provide a

[

the repo-ts from which you.obtained the floodplain information.

i f

-e e.

J c.

Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures, construction activities and topc]raphic alterations in the floodplair.s.

Indicate the status of eac;i such structure, construction activity and i

.tcocgr:phic alteration in teras of start and completion dates:

cr.d work presently ccmpleted.

s

'd.. Discuss the hydrologic effects of cil items identified in c. above.

Include tne potential effect of debris accumulating on the plant.

structures.

1 4

. e.

Provide the details of your analysis used in response to d. above.

The levtl of detail ir similar to that identified in ittm b. above.

f.

Idtn.!fy non-floodplain alternatives for each of the items (structures, construction activities and topographic alternations) identified in

c. above. Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in the 4

ficodplai n.

.9 For each item-in f. 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.

E 240.0; Calculate the radiological conseque :as in terms of population dose for

-(7.1) a liquid pathnay release,from a postulated core melt accident. ihe analysis should 7:sume, unless otherwise J. :tified, that there has e

~~

4

7 if

)

e 1

[.

been a'.penetratio:: cf the-reactor-basemat by the-molton cere: mass, and' V

tnat' a substantial. quantity of radioactivity-contaminated suppression pool water has been released to the ground. The possibility of rapid movement of contamination to Lake Erie through the underdrain system sneuld-be taken into account-in the analysis.

Do:cs shbulo be ccmpared to those calculated-for the. Liquid Pathway l

l Generic Study (tPJF.EG-0440, 1978) land-based Great Lakes: site.

Provide' l

- a sumary of your cnalysis procedures and the values of pa;2 meters used (e.g., pemeabilities, retardation factors, gradients, populations affected, wner use).

I is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic' Engineering section be arranged so that we may share -

uith you the body of infomation necessary to perform this analysis.

A

~

I 9

e e

i l

f E'290 Terrestrial P.esources Prohide one copy each of the following reference on page l

E 290.1 I

(ER)

)

(3.9) 3.9-2.of the O'.-ER:

Reference. 3.9.1,.3.9.2 and 3.9.3 Prohide a: discussion-of the potential impacts to migratory

- E 190.2 (ER) bird-populations from collisicas with the Pt:PP cooling towers-(5.1.4) and the meteorological tower.

i t

Describe the validation studies (done either by the Applicants i

E 290.3 (ER) or others ) of the J0G, dr,ift, and LVPM models since references (5.1.4) 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 were published.

Provide information on the relative amounts 'of the various E 230.4 (Ek)

'(5.1.4) chemicals in the circulatin, g water.

Prohide an assessment of the biological significance of the E 290.5 (ER)

(5.1.4.3.1) predicted drift deposition described in Section 5.1.4.3.1.

Prohide a descriotion of the grounding systems and line clearan es

.E 290.6 (ER) which will be used to reduce induced voltage and currents in (5.5) conducting objects, such as fences and large tractor-trailers, l

in-the vicinity of the right-of-way.

l-

"J.

h l -

l i

O e

I

-.M.

-~.

4.%,_

- _ _,j

~

l y,*

. ;. t..

'o E290.7 Update the ER-OL with respect to Cleveland Electric Illumincting Cc 2ny' (ERSection proposed confirmatory conitoring (if any) of offsite noise levels d: ing 6.2)

Perry fluclear Power Plant operation.

E290.8' Provida an assessment of the effects of transmission line maintenanca (ER Section precedures on the spotted turtle (Clemmys cuttata).

Indicate whether 5.5) herbicides will be used along any pcrtions of tha Perry transmission lines.

E 290.9 In addition to responsas to other specifically requested infore tion provide a summary and brief discussion in ta51e fora, by section, of

- differences between currently projected environrental effects of the nuclear power station (including those that would degrade, and these that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental repo.-t subnittad at the construction stage.

i O

G G

e-I

-+

.U'

. i r

g 291 Acuatic Resources-E 291.1 LThe CP Stage Final Environmental Statement of April 1974 stated (Section 6.2.3.2) that the~ precon:truction aquatic monito. g program conducted caring I!71-19731::uid cc tinue ur.til PHPP-becon.2s operational, and that additional ecological d:ta.would be available for the operating license stage' environmental report.

H: 7er, the OL Stage ER presents no information on fishes or ichthycpiankton collected during the period between CP and OL aoplications.

/

t a) Pr-ide the aquatic biological data collected in the vicinity of the Perry site, as required in the FES-CP and by Hearing Board i

Decision LSP-74-69.

b)

Provide copies of the NUS aquatic biological studies conducted at the site during the 1970's.

E 291.2 Section 2.1.3.7 (illustrated by Figure 2.1-21) describes water uses l

within 50 miles of PNPP, but excludes industrial and p 2r plant l

intakes.

Provide a discussion of industrial and power plant water, intakes within 50 miles of PHPP and illustrate their location on an amended Figure 2.1-21.

. E 291.3 Section 3.4.4 states that water will enter the offshore intake structure through vertical in# low ports around the periphery.

Figure 3.4-1

._l,.Serlion A-A)_.shows_a_7'_d.f acet_er_ opening in the c

.r c7 the, top L

l plate (velocity capi.

Cl ify the function of the '/' opening for withdrawal of cooling wato.S

b E-291.4 Provide one copy each of. the 316(a) thermal discharge demonstrations' and the 316(b). impingement and entrainment studies conducte'd at l

the following C.E.I. power plants: Avon Lake; Lake Shore; East Lake; Ashinbuit. AES and Ashtabula C.

E 291.5 Provide one copy each of the following:

a)

The 401 certification fer operation of PNPP from the-State of-Ohio:

1 I

b)

The cpplicaticn for an NBd25 permit submitted to Ohio EPA for operation of FNPP; l

l c) The 316(b) plan of study to be submitted to Ohio EPA; L

d)

The present NPDES permit which regulates construction discharges at PNPP.

E 291.6 Provide data on the occurrence (known or expected) of endangered fishes (federal and state recognized) in the PNPP site vicinity (Lake Erie and -nearby streams).

E 291.7 Provide inforpation and a discussion for determining whether the site and 'its surroundings are important sp&wning and nursery areas for important fishes of the itral basin, as. required by the'FES-CP and Hearing Board Decision LBP-74-69.,

i L

l*

4

E'310 Socioeconc,;

i.

l E 310.1 Update the population forecasts in Figures 2.1 to 2.1-17 OL-ER, using the 1980 preliminary census count.

Using the 1980 census count, update the populatico centers within 50 mile radius of PHPP, as found in Table-2.1-1.in OL-ER.

In addition, update the transient population estimates found in Table 2.1-2 and'Section 2.1.2.3, OL-ER.

Update the OL-ER Figures 2.1-18 and 2.1-20, which prcvides zoning designations E 310.2 and actual and future land use plans for a 10 mile radius of the plant.

Identify any changes in these land use plans that may affect the pattern of population growth.

Identify any places where traffic congestion or problems of interference E 310.3 with patterns of local traffic might be. anticipated due to plant operation Traffic counts of major access roads to, the plant site or maintenance.

would be useful to support your,/pnsition.

Tables 2.6-l'and 2.5-2 in the ER-OL describe the' cultural resources within E 310.4 the area of the PNPP site listed in the National Registers of Hational Landmarks and of Historical Places.

Provide such a list of resources within 2 km of the transmission corridors.

Include in the listing sites nominated for the Register.

~

l l

E 310.5 Please provide documentatici of any communication you have had with the Stat'e Historical Preservation Officer (SHP0) and with local historical and l

archeological groups concerning impacts of the site and transmissio.1 corridors.

i 1

I j

l

\\

J

_g_

- E 320 Need for Power, Alternatives 'and' Cost Benefit summary E 320.1 How long has DDC;i been used by CAPCO in capacity planni.e.

Has-

~

sufficient experience been acquired 'to enable an' evaluation of the effectiveness of this method?

Elaborate.

EE 320'.2?

What~ margin of? errori,if' any,s is anticinated-in your-current -

- load forecast'. Specify the-methodoloc. used in factoring this' margin of error'into:your analysis; E 320~.3 Provide actual 1980 peak demand.and energy requirement.

E 320.4 Tabl e-1.3-17. 'In the. no-delay scenario,1988' oil usage is 25.

million gallons greater than the 1 year delay. scenario. Please explain.

E 320.5 Provide cost of fuel, by type, used in revenue requirements i

assessmen:.

Include cost o,f purchased power, E 320.6 Provide revenue requirements comparison for years 19.14 through 1988 assuming. ero growth in energy load frca 1980 onward.

l Present results in terms of fixed and variable expen: as.

E 323.7 Indicate projected average annual capacity factor for PiPP during-the first five years of operation.

l i

E 320.8 On page 11.2-2, the first paragraph presents Applicant's estimates c7 total oil or coal required to replace potential annuil energy l

generated by PNPP.

Identify primary assumptions upon which thesa estimates are based, and trace through calculations used to darive l

these estimates.

i E 320.9 Identify latest scheduled operating date for Perry 1.

E 320.10 What percentage of PNPP is currently completed (specifically what portion of projected capital cost has been expended to date)?

D i

I e

[

r 3

ym.,

I l

'E 451 Met 6orolocy 451.01' Hour-by-hour meteorological' data for a one-year period are necessary for.

E,2. 3 ) -

evaluating environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents.

The most t

important parameters for this evaluation are wiod direction, wind speed, an indicator of" atmospheric stability (v.ually v.rtical temperature gradient)-

and precipitation.

Provide-at least c:

year (9/1/77-S/31/781 - r.f hour-by-hou

m:teorological data from the onsite maa.2re=2nts program on mc atic tape using the enclosed' guidance on format and tape attributes.- Ac lional hour-by-hour d-M for the two-year period 5/1/72-4/30/74 would ca most helpful in exF ;iting:the meteorological review.

. E 451.02 The analysis of potential impacts.on locr ceteorological conditions (5.1.4) resulting from operation of the' natural c. ;ft cooling towers is based on com uter programs entitled FCG (fogging, icing and drift) and LVPM (61cmis).

Describe the validation (or verification) of these models for multiple natural draft cooling towers./

l E 451.03 Onsite meteorological data are used as input into the FOG model.

l (5.1.4)

Discuss the appropriateness of these data for evaluaticn of fcgging, icing-and drif t. impacts, particularly the use of vertical temperature gradient.

Between 10- and 60m and the use of para =2ters such as wind speed, wind l

direction, dry bulb temperatura and dewpoint temperature at 60m when the l

exit point for cooling tower effluent is about 145m above the ground.

l E 451.04 Onsite meteorological data do not appear to be used as input into the l

(5.1.4)

LVPM model,.rathar upper air soundings from Suff alo, New York.are used

[

to define. average winter and su=er morning cmditions. On page 5.1-15 of the Environmental Report, surface meteorc jical conditions (dry. bulb -

temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed) are identified.for average' winter and sumer mornings at the Perry site bashd on the Buffalo soundings.

Average. winter and.su=er evening conditions are alluded to on page 5.1-16 but not provided.

$) Identify average winter.and su=ar eveni 3 conditions used as

' input to the LVPM model.

1

.b). Compare average; surface conditions based on Buffalo soundings

'with average surface conditions based on measurements from the Perry site. Discuss toe effects of~different conditions on the plume impact assessment presented.

c) 'The LVPM model provides average seasonal plume impacts.. Identify tha meteorological conditions whic' result in maximum plume length, ar.d discusc.the fr: :uency and dura :cn of these conditions. Also-discuss behavior o

.h

rooling.towr plumes during unique

,x meteorological regims. :h ar a lake breeze at the Perry site, E 451 05' Described the stEtus o'.the onsite me* crological measurements program i

(6.1. >

since September 1, 1978.

l

~

L i

~.._

r o.

_11 o

,4 E 451.06 f;o mention is made about veri' ing predicted cooling teler impacts on 1ccal (6.2.2) meteorological conditions with actual impacts after plant operation. Discus the rationale for not including an operational monitoring program to identify actual cooling,tc.-;er impacts on local mateorological conditienc.

e.

e e

ea e

e e

e 6

S S

,_,g

.