ML20031G938
| ML20031G938 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Kerrigan J NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110260241 | |
| Download: ML20031G938 (2) | |
Text
-
y x.
g
/
4 q
g.
g q.
(( ;u u)l '.J r(
October 21, 1981 DISTRIBUTION
_ OCT2 319gg, g--I Mcaurren o.s.gj[ q Gutierrez Reis s
7/
Shapar/Engelhardt
'" /
stenbury/Scinto OELD Reading File llMiditMuuii FOR:
Janis D. Kerrigan, Project flanager NRC Docket File FR0li:
lienry J. licGurren Counsel for NRC Staff SUudECT:
iltVIEW OF PALO VERDE DES.
1.
The DES succary sheet is not prepared consistent with previous sumary sheets.
(See Conanche Peak FES ct iv) 2.
hny are we using a new forward format? (See Conanche Peak FES) 3.
Where is the discussion of inpact fron " Drift"?
(p.4-5; s 4.2.6.2)).
The discussion in s 5.5.1.1 (p.5-9) says nothing about ii,1 pact en plants.
What are the impacts of wseous effluents, page 4-6, and are they in 4.
i violation of any standaros state or Federal?
(See also page 5-a) 5.
Regarding PVi4GS transoission lines to Devers, can't we say what it involves, briefly?
(See 9 4.2.7.3, at 4-9).
6.
Regarding 4.3.6 Histo.'ic and Archeological Sites, shouldn't this be r.. ore than a simple promise to conduct and subait surveys? (See p.4-15) Should it be a license condition?
We should at least say that this matter will be updated in the FES.
7.
What are the discharges from the 23rd Avenue plant; and give a reference?
(p.5-3 and 6-4)
U.
How often will the liner be inspected for leaks?
Isn't tuis important enough for a condition or a technical specification?
(See p.5-6; 9 5.3.2.3.)
Regarding leach rates, is tnis inportant enough for a condition or a technical specification?
(p.6-6; s 5.3.2.3.)
9.
Where is Seguent b?
(b 5.5.1.2 p.b-10) 10 Section 5.7 (at 5-12) should be expanded.
It should reference 5 4.3.6.
and hdve a conclusion iike Coaancne Peak (See Conancne Peak FES, p.5-14 5 5.6)
- 11. Where do we indicate our belief that Applicants' operation of PVUGS will neet Part 20 and Part S0.30, including ALARA (releases to unrestricted areas) s, o ome
......"Y.f.9
- I suc eoyu 3 e nc e s,:cu.>2" OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- *-3m
-c
/-
h pt er
.o p
9 r
a (See 9 S.9; p.5-IS) Section S.9.1.2 doesn't clearly say " including ALARA" (p.6-2S)
- 12. Regarding i 3.9.1.1.1 (at b-19) and occupational radiation exposures, where is the Staff's conclusion that we believe PVNGS' operation will neet Part 20, including ALARA7 (See Couanche Peak FES at 5-2d) 13.
The draft SER indicates that the Applicants do not own all tne aineral rights ic the exclusian area. This is inconsistent with DES Statement that all such rights are owned by Applicant (at 5-38)
- 14. kegarding i b.11, why don't we use the StanJard decornissioning story?
(See Conanche Peak FES and 'laterford FES (at 5-63))
tienry J. ficGurren Counsel for i4RC Staff
)i bC) i,
o riu >
OELD >
"J EGUFr lykw"
..g.3pe;g.7j;,
.~
1060/81
- 5 we eeuu.w no ceincu we OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
"*-