ML20198F871
| ML20198F871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1975 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1031 NUDOCS 8605290126 | |
| Download: ML20198F871 (7) | |
Text
r t
i
-I 1
JAN E 1975 t
Daniel R. Huller, Assistant Diractor for Eavironmental Projects, L i
REVIEW OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1 AND 4 DRAPT CIVIRONICiTAL STAT 2 MENT PLAh! NAME: UPPSS Nuclear Projects 1 and 4.
LICENSING STAGE: CP
+
DOCZZT NUMBER: 50-460- and 50-513 RESPONSIBLE BRMG: Environmental Projects Branch No. 4 PROJECT K4 NAGER: Ron I.oose DESCR17 TION OF RESPONSE: Coasments on Draf t Environmental Statonwnt DATE REQUEST RECEIVED BT ESB: December 23, 1974 22 QUESTED COMPLETION DATE: January 3, 1975 REVIEW STATUS: ES3 Review - Complets We have reviewed the WPPSS Nuclear Projects 1 and 4 DES per your request of December 23. 1974. Our review indicates the need for several modi ~
fications ahd additions to the taxt and the Stenary and Conclusions.
l Your attention 12 directed to the following two items of particular importonce
- 1.. In the staff's armlysis of ccee-through cooling as an '
alternata plant design (Section 9.3.1.1) it is indicated from both an envirommental and economic viewpoint that once-through cooling is an acceptable, if not preferable, cooling aystama at the proposed site'. - It is difficult to reconcile this statemaat with tLe remaining discussion of alternate cooling systsas and to follow the staff's reasoning in supporting closed-cyc1 mechanical draft towers at the site.
2.
'The Sm==ary and Conclusions statements concerning the area's l
currently stressed housing market, the chartage of construction labor in the area and the applicant's submittal of a revided terrr.strail and aquatic monitoring progran should be modified to reflect our enclosed consaants. A statement sumarising nonradi-ological aquatic impacts is also needed.
8605290126 750108
~
PDR ADOCK 05000460 D
PDR l
JAN 8 1975 DISTRIBUTION I
Daniel R. Mullar Docket File L: ESB L: Rdg i
L: AD/SS Our recommendations on the above and several other items are attached.
i l
This review was' conducted by J. Bolen, J. Lehr and J. Kline.
i Orighest signed W E L Deutsq l
Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director 3
for Site Safety
+
Directorate of Licensing ces w/o enclosure A. Gisabusso I
W. Mcdonald l
J. Panzarella SS Branch Chiefs i
j cc: w/ enclosure S. Hmmuer F. Schroeder TR Asst. Directors W. Reagan A. Kenneke R. Ballard R. Loose J. Lehr J. Kline l
J. Bolen l
t i
[
L:CBAB l
PFine 1/7/75 i
Pc7 O
]/ L: AgSS L: ES L: ESB o,,,,,,
H Dfn o{
~ ~ '
~
J. B nr R. Bil a W
_1
_1 W3 suaaa= = *
]
mar =
- Foran AZC.)l3 (Rev. P 53) AZCM 0240 W u. e. sousnmassmr em= vine orrecas se74.sse see
ESB COMMENTS ON WPPSS 1 & 4 DES
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS We suggest adding a summary statement indicating that no significant aquatic chenical or biological impacts are expected from plant operation.
The last paragraph of Section 6.1.5.2 should be modified as follows and added to Summary and Conclusions Item 7b:
These programs shall describe the detailed plans and methodology of the preoperational aquatic and terrestrial studies so as to obtain information relative to the implicit objective, namely the determination and significance of the environmental effects of the operation of the three stations at the proposed site.
Section 2.5.1 Explain what is meant by the adjustment of monthly flow data for the Columbia River in the site vicinity to reflect 1970 conditions.
The flow data for the river is generally adequate, however, the seven-day ten-year low flow, if applicable, should be presented.
There is no justification for the statement that the water quality data presented in Table 2.2, taken 43 miles upstream, from the site, is indeed indicative of the water at the site. A comparison between these data and analyses on the water used by the Tricities (10 miles below the site) would be helpful in the absence of on site water analysis.
The presentation of water quality data representing average conditions over a number of years is more desirable than presenting a single year's sunmary as in Table 2.2.
Section 3.4.3 Eas the staff verified the applicant's estimate of average appraoch velocity?
Section 3.6.1 State the basis for the estimated holdup time for blowdowm release of approximatley 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> (necessitated by the time required for chlorine residual degradation from 2.5 ppm. to 0.1 ppm).
i Section 3.6.2 Provide the basis for the limitation on chemical releases to the pH range of 6.5 to 7.1.
Section 4.2.1 In view of the 'act that no known archeological sites are expected to f
be impacted, the recommendation of having an archeologist continuously l
present during early stages of construction seems unwarranted. A i
reasonable alternative would be to have an archeologist on call in case something of importance is found.
l Section 4.6.1 The creation of a construction worker shortage seems to require a more i
l complete analysis if true.
Included in the analysis should be the number l
of such workers now in the area, the expected number to be diverted to
l i construction of the nuclear plant and the reasons why other nonnuclear construction workers would not come into the area seeking jobs when the shortage occurs. We consider it novel to claim that the creation of job opportunities which is equivalent to a shortage of workers constitutes an adverse impact. Unless further analysis reveals a more definitive problem we recommend deletion of comments refering to a shortage of construction workers as an adverse impact.
The possible stress on housing is a matter which should be explored further. It seems unlikely that workers will actually move into the area without having made prior arrangements for housing. If this is not possible, the principle stress may acrue to the applicant who will be unable to recruit workers and not to the community at large.
The analysis of housing fails to consider that many workers live in house trailers which they bring with them when they accept employment.
This not only has the effect of reducing competition for permanent housing but'of creating additional impacts through possible unplannned' trailer park development. The statement should address the question of the number of house trailers expected and how they will be accomodated and served (with water, power, sanitation roads, etc.).
l Section 4.7.2 1
l Recommendation 2 of the staff evaluation seems unnecessary. This simply f
suggests a technique for gaining the desirable objective of revegetation.
l l
l l
Having obtained a commitment to revegetate from the applicant it hardly seems appropriate to advise him on the cultural methods of doing so.
What would the staff response be if the advice is considered and rejected?
Section 5.1 The use of figures presenting the spatial distribution of isotherms in the Columbia River are of dubious value in that the magnitude of temperature rise predicted will be difficult to confirm due to difficulty in measure-ment techniques.
Section 5.5.2.2 On page 5-26 (paragraph 2, line 1) reference numbers 29 and 45 do not appear to relate to the discussion.
Section 5.5.2.3 The range of concentration factors (i.e., 2 to 12) is not consistent with that presented earlier in Section 3 (i.'e., 2 to 10).
Section 6.2.6 In Table 6.2, all quarterly measurements should be made monthly.
Section 9.3.1.1 The staff analysis appears to point to the conclusion that the once-through cooling system is the preferred alternative. In view of P.he analysis presented, the stnff conclusion is ambiguous and misleading It is not clear what " acceptable i t not preferred" really means. In what sense is this alternative not preferred if there is no scientific evidence
5-against it and it is the lowest cost method of cooling? It is recom-mended that this alternative be reanalyzed in sufficient depth to permit the staff to draw a clear and unambiguous conclusion on a matter of substantial importance.
e 0
e 1
- -..