ML20235D117

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Addl Questions Requiring Formal Responses.Amended Responses Required to Remainder of Incompletely Answered Questions Listed in Encl 1.Responses Also Needed to Questions Listed in Encl 2.Responses Requested by 751208
ML20235D117
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Marble Hill
Issue date: 11/21/1975
From: Youngblood B
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Coughlin J
PSI ENERGY, INC. A/K/A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF INDIANA
Shared Package
ML20235B454 List:
References
FOIA-87-554 NUDOCS 8709250127
Download: ML20235D117 (6)
v • d • e


Text

_-

) .

k M

,m:-

gf5 u.

. .- i l Docket Mos. sTM W@ r and STN 50-547 a

l

- Public Service of Indiana ATTN: Dr. James Coughlin N..' Vice President - Nuclear

's 1000 E. Main Street .

plainfield, Indiana 46168 Gentlemen

- Our letter of August 22, 1975, transmitted a femal list of questions F to which completely adequate responses were requested by Septester 15.

1975, in order that our proposed review schedule could be est. Two caples af your responses were received with yarr letter dated September 11,

, 1975, and it is .eur iederstanding that substantially the same infomation will be provided in your femal responses in the forthcoming amendeant to the Environmental Report. Houever, about one tenth of the responses were facomplete er inadeguate. Most of the infomation regarding these deficiencies mes obtatoed in phone conversations with yeve staff and some c

-ef these ameeded responses were tremeef tted la your letter of Ihmee6er 14,

., 1975. W responses are required also to the remainder of the in-completely ensuered questicas Ifsted in Enclosure 1.

Some addittamai geestions requiring formal responses have been generated e tyt the staff is the course of its rsries. These are else listed in

'l Enclosure 1.

S Finally, tiensal responses are needed by the staff to the guestions frwm the Indiana Stream Pollution Centrol Board given ja Enclosure 2.

' . Most of the geestions in Encleeure I have been tramonitted informally to jour st:ff several weeks eye, but this formal listing saty clarify any i misunderstandings about the inforestion required. Our review is already l being delayed by the lack of the requested infomation, and the delay l 0' will be significant if completely adequate responses are not provided by December 8,1975. Fe.r.n-17-SSV l .

,l . 2 . v.

if ' 8//6 4

+ nc * ..._ _. _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . - .

un* . - - .

g 92 g / B70922

  • o.....n....n m.m.. ,n. .u. .

MCCREAB7-554 PDR l J

. .' ^. ,

x -

u . J .

1 Public Service of Indiana - 2-4 Your reply to the questions in Enclosures 1 snd 2, and to t$ne EPA questions with our letter of November 14, 1975, should consist of

three signed originals and 197 additional copies as a sequentially j numbered supplement to your environmental report.

E Sincerely, Mginalsignadby B.J. Youngblood B. J. Youngblood, Chief e- i Environmental Projects Branch 3

; Division of Reactor Licensing b

Enclosures:

},, As stated f

cc: Mr. Leonard N. Trosten Esq.

LeBoeuf. Lamb,Laiby & MacRae 1757 N Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Charles W. Campbell, Esq.

Vice Presickmt and General Counsel Public Service Company of Indiana 1000 East min Street 1 Plainfield, Indiana 46168 n

1 DISTRIBUTION _

j Dockets (2)

'- EP-3 Reading File dp NR$ PDR Local PDR lU TIC-OR OELD j DRMuller

^

BJYoungblood SKirslis r GW1111ams ACRS(16) t-y l

c5 . -

n I

.,,,c., RL:EP-3 .RL 3 eva a s * ), d h.MS BJ.,

oava , 11R1#5.._._. 11 , .. 5 . _ . . . . . .

~

Perus AEC.ll8 (Rev,91)) AECM 0240 ero cas se , s ees- s eso-s aa t

ENCLOSURE 1

1. Provide a,more complete description of the proposed intake structure, including:
a. Lergth of extension of the flume into river at 420 f t water level, i and the variation of water depth over this length.
b. Aperture size in the screen covering the fiume, and total area of the screen when just covered with water.

b! 2. Evaluate the possible prcblem of the flume filling with silt, either

(( from data on similar intakes or from data on the concentrations and settling rates of settleable solids in the Ohio River at high flows.

1 Evaluate the possible problem of silt building up on the upstream 3.

\.; side of the fiume, and erosion on the downstream side.

h 4. Evaluate the fish impingement problem with the proposed designs of bar grill, flume and travelling screens. Evaluate the effect of the flume on impingement rate, considering that fish within the flume length of the shore would have to pass the bar grill to pass up or down the river.

5. Report te results of the additional six months' ecological study of the site environs.
6. Provide total water use by the industries listed in previous

> Question 17, rather than use per employee. Also provide copies of

the pertinent pages of the reference quoted at the end of Question 17.

p 7. The reply to previous Question 21 and Tables 6.1-3 and 6.1-4 of the  ;

j Environmental Report contain inconsistencies.

h Table 6.1-3 and 6.1-4 include entries for River Flow Rate (from the

. . Louisville Gaging Station) and the corresponding river linear velocity. .

However, the two tables are not consistent. For example, from Table 6.1-3 for January, a flow of 125,090 cfs corresponds to a river velocity i of 1.70 fps. From Table 6.1-4 for April, a flow of 45,700 cfs corresponds to 1.70 fps. Table 6.1-4 for De: ember states that a flow of 14,900 cfs results in a river velocity of J.30 fps. The answer to Question 21 states that a flow of 14,200 cfs corresponds to a flow of 0.32 fps.

Please clear up these discrepancies. State what flows are used. Is

" Minimum River Flow" the instantaneous minimum for the month, the one day average minimum, the monthly average minimum? What is the period of record? How is river velocity determined?

.- i )

8. Previous Question 169 was not.,di r ectly answered. Although there are no present recreational plans for the Marble Hill site, what is the likelihooti of such developments if there is public demand for them?
9. In. connection with the response to hrevious Question 48, discuss the possibility of asbestos fibres in cooling tower blowdown and drift.
10. Give method in detail by which you estimate your cost for coal.

?

11. Give method in detail by which you estimate your cost for uranium.

I j 12. Reconcile figures which appear on page 1.1-18 of the ER with those which appear on pages 28 and 29 of PSI's 1974 Annual Report.

13. Please reconcile the 1973 and 1974 figures on peak load in the ER with the maximum system demand in the annual report.

- 14. Give the formal peak load for 1975 for NIPSCO. Explain the meaning of the column headed " Energy Requirement" on page 1.1-51 of the ER.

15. Give these figures back to 1960.
16. How much of the energy requirement in regawatt hours did tilDSCO generate and how nuch was purchased for each year since 1950.* Is the ' sum of that generated and that purchased considered to be the system requirement?
17. In the 1970 National Power Survey by the FPC (p. age 11-2-31) 4600

$ megawatts of undeveloped hydro power in ECAR is mentioned. Explain in detail why the use of hydro is not " realistic" as is maintained in 9.2-1 of the ER.

18. Give exact routing and width of the transmission line corridors.
19. Give the proposed fate of: all lay down areas, warehouse, shop, the administrative building and the construction parking lot. These are so labeled in Fig. 4.1-1 of the ER.
20. Discuss the ultimate fate of the settling basins outlined in Fig. 4.1-1.

y l

Specify if each area will be revegetated by seeding, allowed to vegetate naturally, or will be cultivated and r

landscaped with ornamental trees and i grass. -

l

21. Discuss company policy with respect fo avoiding areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, recreation and unique nature areas in planning transmission .  ;

lines. r a 22. Give details of initial cleaning of equipment and buildings, including {

cleaning agents used and their disposal. I O

Provide monthly data since 1965 on kilowatt hour sales, average price

)

23.  !

per kilowatt hour and number of customers by customer class.

24. Provide " temperature adjusted" kilowatt hour sale values as available. f If not available, give kilowatt hour sales as a function of degree days j U (or high, low and average temperatures) for the large cities in the 3

service area.

y 25. Provide available information on the proposed power plant across the p river, giving size, fuel, gaseous emissions, cooling system, etc.

h) '

25. Give linear velocities at the travelling screen surface and through the gede covering the too of tr.e intake fh.me.

i

. 27. Justify the value of 0.1 PPM of residual chlorine in discharge on page

? 3.6-4 of the Environmental Report. Discuss the chlorine levels during i the period when only Unit 1 is operating. )

b j li;" 28. Provide a complete sumary of surface water use in the site vicinity. This i summary should include a list of all water intakes (comercial, municipal, l industrial and cooling water use) and amounts withdrawn for the stretch 9, of the river from Markland Dam to about 50 miles downstream of the plant

- ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~

M intake.. '

29. Provide annual service area population estimates from 1960 to present, i 30. Furnish any infomation available to PSI on other fossil and nuclear
  • plants proposed for the area. 4l 31 . Furnish the routing of the railroad spur and a description of the ecology of the area through which it will pass.
32. Provide a rendition of the plant superimposed on a recent black and white oblique aerial photograph of the site.
33. Indicate the present size of the Columbus substation and its current capacity.

i

.' I

34. Indicate the types and amounts of chemicals which will be used in the filtration and treatment pl. ants for make-up and potable water.
35. Estimate the concentrations of toxic trace elements in regeneration wastes from water treatment plants. 3
36. Discuss the alternative of using single pole towers (like those used by Commonwealth Edison) for the 345 kV loop.

? 37. Discuss plans to evaluate the possible historic significance of the two old structures on the proposed site.

38. Discuss mutual effects of the proposed Marble Hill plant and the proposed Clark Maritime Center 20 miles downstream. Include effects on local
population distribution, need for additional or improved roads and effects on river traffic.
39. Outline plans regarding the old cemetery on the site.

U h

i

[

s

}

I i

1

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235D117&oldid=3274320"