ML18088A877
| ML18088A877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1973 |
| From: | Coll N Florida Power & Light Co, McCarthy Steel Hector & Davis |
| To: | Jordan W, Lazo R, Paglin M, Paxton H, Purdom P Drexel Univ, Los Alamos Scientific Lab, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Oak Ridge |
| References | |
| Download: ML18088A877 (134) | |
Text
MCCARTHY STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS ALFRED L.MCCARTHY
( 'ILLIAM C. STECL I LOUIS J. HECTOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING O*RRCY A,DAVIS OWIOHT SULLIVAN WILLIAM S KILLIAN OCOROC L, PATTCRSON MIAMI,FLORIDA 33I3I PAUL R. SCOT'T IOOO IOOT CRN EST J. HCWETT JCRRY S,CROCKETT WILSON SMITH TALDOT D'ALCMSCRTC JAMCS H. SWECHY. ST August 19, 1973 WILL M PRCSTON OI'OVNOCL JOHN EDWARD SMITH O NORMAN A.COLL OCNNIS 0, KIND SHCPARD KINO TELEPHONE ARDEN DOSS. JR. 36II HATTHCW M. CHILDS (3OS) 3T'7 ~
DARRY R. DAVIDSON NOEL H. NATION DRVCC S.RUSSELL STEPHEN A. LYNCH, TS CHARLES A.CITRIN JOSEPH P. KLOCK, JR.
RICARDO MARTINEZ CIO Robert M. Lazo, Esq. Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Chairman, Atomic Safety and Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Licensing Board Panel P., 0. Box 1663 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Washington, D. C. 20545 Max D. Paglin, Esq.
Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Director Alternate Chairman Center for Urban Research & Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Environmental Studies U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Drexel University Washington, D. C. 20545 32nd and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Senior Research Adviser Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. 0. Box X Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re: In the Matter of Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1) Docket No. 50-335
Dear Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find copies of the following:
\ Section A list of exhibits to be offered in evidence by the Applicant together with a proposed exhibit number for each item.
A list identifying Applicant's primary panel of witnesses.
Applicant will also have available a number of speciality technical witnesses in specific subject areas who may be called as required by the course of the proceedings.
it'
~
P
MCCARTHY STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS Prepared written testimony as follows:
Witness ~To 1t: Section Mr. Ellis H. O'Neal, FPL Lead Witness Statement (Lead Witness)
Census Figure Update Effect of Water Line Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question /l4 Shortages of Oil and Transporta-tion Costs Current Costs Re: Alternates Alternate Site Locations Steam Generator Blowdown Rates, Appendix I, EPA Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question III6 Chlorine Residuals and Boron 10 Concentrations Thermal defouling Recommendation in ACRS Letter 12 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 13 Question 87 regarding Environmental Effects of Section 7B of the Final Environmental Statement Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 14 Question 89 on Plant Lighting Mr. William D. Lang, FPL Projected loads and Atomic Safety 15 and Licensing Board Question II11 Generating Capacity Additions 16 Selection of Transmission River 17 Crossing Spans Hydrology in the Savannas and 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question 83
"3e I
MCCARTHY STEEL HECTOR 6 DAVIS Witness ~To ic Section Nancy Walls, Ph. D. Studies on Offshore Currents 19 Plankton Studies 20 Migratory Fish Species Near the 21 Coast Pre-Operational Environmental 22 Monitoring Program Protection of Turtle Nests 23
(
Mr. Murray Weber, Ebasco Erosion From Installation of Intake 24 and Discharge structures Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 25 Question I'II 5 on a Wave Topping the Dune Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 26 Question 8 8 on Septic Tanks Mr. Neil Wilding, Ebasco Use of Velocity Cap Intake at Other 27 Plants and the Effect of Intake Velocity on Small Fish and Atomic Sa'fety and Licensing Board Question
/I 10 Mr. Joe W. Williams, FPL Percent Completion, Labor Force 28 and Schedule Work on Beach and Dune Areas 29 Primary Panel Educational and 30 Professional Qualifications We shall introduce the testimony and exhibits separately at the hearing, having sufficient copies for the reporter. However, this material has been combined in book form for your use at this time.
No n A. Coll NAC/nch
h S
r,I 1I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of: DOCKET NO. 50-335 Florida Power 6 Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing attached letter and the enclosures thereto were served upon each addressee and each of the following by mail this day of 1973:
- 1. Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Branch United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (Original plus 20 copies)
- 2. A. Grey Staples, Esquire Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies)
- 3. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (1 copy)
- 4. Mr. Nathaniel H. Goodrich Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (1 copy)
U J
4
- 5. Mr. John F. O'eary, Director Directorate of Licensing United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies)
- 6. Local Public Document Room Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450
- 7. Jack R. Newman, Esquire Newman, Reis & Axelrad Co-counsel for Applicant 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, Washington, D. C. 20036 McCARTHY STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS Co-counsel for Applicant 14th Floor, First National Bank Bldg.
Miami, Fl ida 33131 By N n A. Coll I
i r,
g V
't i~
II
,t 4
- 4. II h
LIST OF EXHIBITS It PROPOSED EXHIBIT EXHIBIT NO.
- 1. Application
- 2. Final Safety Analysis Report and Amendments 1-14 2(a)-
thereto (Volumes 1-8) 2(h)
- 3. Environmental Report and Supplements 1-9 thereto
APPLICANT'S WITNESSES
- l. Ellis H. O'Neal (FPL)
Lead Panel Witness Sponsor of Application, FSAR, as amended and Environmental Report, as supplemented.
- 2. William D. Lang (FPL)
- 3. Nancy Walls, Ph. D. (Georgia Institute of Technology)
\
- 4. Murray Weber (EBASCO)
- 5. Neil Wilding (EBASCO)
- 6. Joseph W. Williams (FPL)
- 7. Al Jameson (Combustion Engineering)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
=)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 Lead Witness Statement of Ellis O'Neal 10 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. 0. Box 3100, ll Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company Project 12 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and pro-13 fessional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
TESTIMONY OF ELLIS H. O'NEAL My name is Ellis O'Neal. I am the Florida Power & Light Company 2 Project Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational 3 and professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
4 The purpose of this testimony is two-fold: (1) to describe the pro-5 cedure followed in the preparation of the Final Safety Analysis Report 6 and the Environmental Report for the St. Lucie project; and (2) to state 7 the company's position with respect to the items proposed by the AEC 8 staff in the Final Environmental Statement (p. iv) as conditions for 9
10 ,
's the continuation of our construction permit at St. Lucie.
Project Manager for the St. Lucie project I have had general 11 responsibility for supervising the preparation of the Preliminary Safety 12 ~ Analysis Report, the Final Safety Analysis Report as amended and the 13 Environmental Report as supplemented including responsibility for co-14 ordinating and reviewing the input of Florida Power & Light and all of 15 our contractors and consultants in the, preparation of these documents.
16 Specifically, I had responsibility for coordinating the efforts of 17 Florida Power & Light, Southern Nuclear Engineering, Combustion Engi-18 neering'nd Ebasco, as well as several specialized consultants in the 19 preparation of these reports and the answers to the many questions that 20 were asked of us by the staff of the Directorate of Licensing. I also 21 participated in meetings with the AEC staff, on the review of the PSAR, 22 FSAR and the Environmental Report and was generally responsible for the 23 Applicant's conduct of those meetings.
1 24 The Environmental Report and the FSAR obviously represent a con-25 siderable joint effort of many parties. I was responsible for making 26 individual assignments for the preparation of rough drafts of various
1 sections of the FSAR and the Environmental Report. In general, we as-2 signed responsibility to our various contractors to prepare sections of 3 these documents which fell within the scope of their particular activities 4 or supplies. Each organization was given a schedule for the submission 5 of initial drafts. As draft material was completed it was reviewed by 6 me or persons under my supervision. From time to time we scheduled 7 meetings with representatives of each organization to discuss and review 8 each organization's comments on the draft materials. In many cases 9 second drafts were ordered and a comparable review cycle was initiated.
10 As each section reached its final draft, it was approved by Florida ll Power & Light. The final approval was generally made by me or under my 12 supervision.
13 The time involved in preparation of the Final Safety Analysis Re-14 port was approximately one year. Our initial Environmental Report was 15 submitted on May 20, 1971. It was subsequently amended in September, 16 1971 to conform with the Commission's new regulations following the 17 Calvert Cliffs case. The Environmental Report has since been supple-18 mented nine (9) times.
19 I have reviewed the three copies of the Application and the FSAR, 20 as amended, and the Environmental Report, as supplemented which have 21 been provided to the reporter for the record of this proceeding. To 22 the best of my knowledge and belief they are complete copies of these 23 documents as of August 28, 1973. The contents of these documents are 24 true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
25 The staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) proposes three 26 conditions for the continuation of construction of St. Lucie. These 27 appear at p. iv. of the FES. We shall comply with all of these conditions.
1 Specifically, our construction program is being conducted with a view 2 to minimize its impact on turtle nesting activities. Our current pro-3 gram for the protection of turtle nests is described in subsequent 4 testimony. We shall also return the dune area to its original condition 5 following construction and will replant the area with dune stabilizing 6 plants. Finally, as discussed in subsequent testimony, we shall install 7 equipment for processing steam generator blowdown in order to assure 8 that radioactive discharges are "as low as practicable". I might add,,
9 parenthetically, that we would also intend to comply with those condi 10 tions speci. fied by the staff for the issuance of an operating license ll for the St. Lucie project, although I do understand that the staff 12 proposes to delete condition No. 5 on p'. v.
13 Again, we welcome you to Florida and look forward to this oppor-14 tunity to assist in your deliberations.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the, Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll uestion on Census Fi ure U date 12 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. 0. Box 3100, 13 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company, Project 14 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 15 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Question on Census Fi ure U date 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at Page 22, Lines 15-19 of the 3 transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked if there 4 was any basis for updating the population figures beyond the 1970 5 census.
6 There has been no official census taken since 1970 in either 7 St. Lucie or Hartin County. Future population estimates for 1980 8 have been researched with the following results: references in the 9 State of Florida Statistical Abstract 1972 as published by the 10 Bureau of Economic 6 B'usiness Research College of Business 11 Administration, the University of Florida, are contained in the 12 listing below. This study was coordinated with the State of Florida 13 Department of Administration, Bureau of Planning.
14 1970 1980 15 Population Projective 16 (Census) 17 St. Lucie County 50,836 61,800 18 Hartin County 28,035 40,700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll 12 Effect of Water Line and Licensin .Board and Atomic. Safety uestion /34 13 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. O. Box 3100, 14 Miami, Flori,da 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company Project
~
15 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 16 professional qualifications has been previously received in evi,dence.
Response to uestion on Water Line The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at Page 23, Lines 17-22 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked if the water line to 4 the plant has had any effect on development on Hutchinson Island.
The water line to the plant has made possible the development of I
Hutchinson Island as follows: the line has been extended southward to l
serve the Sheraton resort hotel and a campground for travel trailers 8 and recreational vehicles, both of which are now in operation. This 9 extension of the line will also serve a 12-unit motel now under con-10 struction, and another hotel which is now planned. North of the plant, ll a condominium apartment complex is planned and will be served by the line.
12 There are other indications of other developments which will use water 13 from the line, but no other firm plans are known at this time.
Because the plant has reserved a majority (over 65% of the pre-15 sently installed line capacity, the final contribution for the use by 16 new developments has a lessened effect. As the projected increases upon 17 the demand for water occur, additional development must obtain alternate 18 supplies. The Applicant has learned from the St. Lucie County Utility 19 Authority that they are presently considering supplementing the water 20 supply to Hutchinson Island. The concept under consideration would 21 call for a 12" or 16" main line to enter the island via the South Bridge 22 area.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4 LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335"
,)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll 12 Shortages of Oil and Trans ortation Costs 13 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address iq P. O. Box 3100, 14 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company Project 15 Manager for the St. Lucie Project.- A resume of my educational and 16 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Question Concerning Shortages of Oil and Trans ortation Costs 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 24, lines 7-12 of the transcript of 3 the prehearing conference. 'Dr. Paxton asked about the applicability of 4 the statement in the Draft Environmental Statement concerning threatened 5 shortages of oil'nd increased transportation costs.
6 This statement has been carried to page XI-5 of the Final Environ-7 mental Statement. We would disagree with the conclusion that the oil 8 situation is improving. Our current experience with the procurement of 9 oil as a fuel for electric power generation indicates continuing price 10 increases, actual shortages and increased transportation costs. For 11 example, upon review of FP&L's official Expense Analysis report, the 12 price of a barrel of oil has increased from a price of $ 3.74 in January, 13 1973 to $ 4.15 as of June, 1973.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll Alternates 12 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. 0. Box 3100, 13 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company Project 14 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 15 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Res onse to uestion about Alternates 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 24, lines 13 17 of the transcript 3 of the prehearing conference, Dr. Paxton asked about changes to cost of 4 alternatives since preparation of the Draft Environmental Statement. We 5 have reviewed the alternatives and their costs. In the period since 6 preparation of the cost estimates which were used in the statement, con-7 struction costs have continued on an upward trend. The cost of the 8 cooling tower system, for example, would now be estimated at a ten to 9 twenty percent higher cost than is shown in the Draft Environmental 10 Statement. Cost of other alternatives would be escalated by a similar 11 amount.
12 With regard to the alternative of abandoning the present site the 13 major development is the construction progress made on the plant. Over-14 all, the plant is now 59% complete, and a total of approximately 15 $ 193,932,000.00 has been spent or committed, virtually all of which is 16 irretrievable. The cost of the alternative of abandoning the present 17 site must take this figure into account, as well as the cost of many 18 years of delay in startup of the alternate plant.
19 Similarly, consideration of alternatives to the condenser cooling 20 system and transmission system must take into account the construction 21 work done in the last year. The condenser cooling system is 40% com-I 22 piete, with canal excavation well along, and work on the dune area in 23 progress. The transmission crossing Project of the Indian River is 50%
24 complete. All foundations and pilings for transmission towers have been 25 installed and the towers are ready for erection. Irretrievable costs for 26 the transmission system. are estimated at an additional $ 3,500,000.
UNITED STATES OF AHERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll Alternate Site Location uestion 12 Hy name is Ellis O'Neal. Hy business address is P. 0. Box 13 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company 14 Project Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational 15 and professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Res onse to Alternate Site Location uestion 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 25, line 25, through page 26, line 3 5 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked 4 about alternate site locations.
5 In comparing candidate locations for the PWR unit, the following 6 criteria were employed:
- 1) Distance of the site from population centers
- 2) Availabilty of a large area of land at the site
- 3) Natural characteristics of the site such that the 10 environmental impact would be minimal
- 4) Proximity to load centers 12 5) Convenient access to navigable water ways for the transport 13 of heavy systems components 14 6) Provision for a cooling system with a minimum environmental 15 effect 16 Considerable knowledge was available in regard to each question.
17 It was evaluated that,Hutchinson Island best fulfilled the require-18 ments and uniquely stood out in regard to distance from population centers 19 and in the quantity of land available. The Hutchinson Island site also 20 provided that there would be reliable service to the expanding West Palm 21 Beach area without dependence on long transmission lines.
22 The attached figure is a map showing the locati'ons of the general 23 areas which were considered for siting this unit.
'I
~ tata<<v ('
T GEORGIA l
~t aa<<(It<<
(
Oat((tv ~ vv ala la tv<<ala(l C aalu(O(an (aa I cov>>0 Irtt W ONI utrnt gU (
~ tart(
tvvavvrr lnCat<<IU
'Nyt
,rr ar VLV I~ a tat(OO (OI'trrrtr LI
~ TL(a r(av tt I(all((T IIUKC (
IIVLVNI V ltl K ~ c Lira t V rara<<tat
~ iro(I v((IOII IOTICI Orl (Ilr IILCT tvt tt (
t(La( (4 G
oc \",
carr((1(
ona(LL INC(ta ICaol 0 a<<a Or ~
lrr ~ V(Oe ctvt 'tarv I
'4~ 'p
, Trav NIOI J" ~ L 0
NvT<< la(Nal I(a f car<<I(
vol t(a l
(altar((l
(
cttr ~I&Notvt rrttvt I tvvrro TvvrvLL(
~ <<HT(
Vtta II'OI CI IIIva\ nl
~
oaavtr a(I<<a I
~
D'- LUC TUCI(a vva tt(CO ItL @ra ~ I ~ ca
'la(>>
orr rcor I I I<<,r ~ cccca Kaoa
~ ( ~ (a ~ I ~
Calla I ~
I'I Cal(1
~ allttttt>>V COCOa tati<< v@aaal
~ at Ikr\
vr(00(<<K
~ terr(4 AVUUTO
~ o(La(0 talc U(v lar ttrntt ITKI<< VWIN OIVIV
~ I CTI (ICICLE aatacaatt I<>trr tf I ~ vrC Cr ~
<< II( I f LVCIC CAN Orrw II.Crl KLL(a I <<alf Kav( CICOI
~ lvra TC ~ C Krr r<<avr tnr ~ alrn allan(
(ttrI I ar
~
Aa I( ~
attrt ~ IITT ~ ~ LA(nl
~ ttrcaoI(r Ua I*IT Aar Ila(1 (A vta(( I~ Uaa II
~ a<<aa lrtrtlrl ftt C
'll<< or ~ I t P ('lr laal ~
~ IIL lva(ca lar ~ ULV ITIC I
~ 'TL ~
0 ttor 4 rao <<arv
"'~lj "
Vatic ILL(NT(4 ca<<a KLLI ~ (CIN tt((IIO OOWIOO ILU C<<vrr laJO(~it It(O a <<g "Id rara ALTERNATE SITE LOCATIONS Of(
ICUU g
tlaaoa ON Pfvoatv tcorf tent(
~~ (LICI~ C Cr'tv 4'd
UNITED STATES OF, AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll 12 A Steam Generator Blowdown Rates, endix I EPA Comments and ASLB uestion 86 13 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. O. Box 3100, 14 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company Project 15 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 16 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Questions about Steam Generator Blowdown Rates, Appendix I, EPA Comments and ASLB uestion I/6 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked el I 2 by Mr. Lazo, which appears on page 30, lines 1 13 of the transcript 3 of the prehearing conference. Mr. Lazo asked about steam generator 4 blowdown rates and what committments would be made to meet Appendix I 5 guidelines. This was also the subject of the main EPA comment on the 6 draft environmental statement for St. Lucie and was the basis for a 7 question asked by Dr. Purdom which appears on page 28, lines 10 through 8 12 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Other EPA comments 9 have been addressed by the Regulatory Staff in the Final Environmental 10 Statement.
ll The actual steam generator blowdown requirements will be determined 12 by plant conditions during operation. Blowdown rates are variable due 13 to the variability of dissolved solids entering the secondary system.
14 Dissolved solids concentrate in the steam generators, and blowdown will 15 be used to control their build-up.
16 As of June, 1973 there were two plants in operation using Combustion 17 Engineering nuclear steam supply systems, 'the same manufacturer as St.
18 Lucie. Both of these were operating without continuous blowdown. The 19 Applicant's figure'f 0.14 gallons per minute blowdown discussed in the 20 Environmental Report was based on a rate of 20 gallons per day. The 21 ten gallon per minute rate stated in the Draft Environmental Statement 22 is based upon experience and recommendations for steam generators of 23 another design and manufacture. This condition has now been adopted by 24 the Applicant as a design basis, and a blowdown treatment system will 25 be installed that will be capable of processing a minimum of 10 gallons
1 per minute per steam generator to insure that discharges of I-131 in 2 the liquid effluents are as low as practicable. The capacity of the 3 liquid radioactive waste treatment system will be increased to process 4 the radioactive waste which may appear in the steam generator blowdown.
5 Treatment of the resultant blowdown involves sufficient cooling to pre-6 elude flashing and any subsequent venting via the blowdown tank vent.
The Applicant is evaluating a number of alternatives for the blow-8 down treatment system. A brief discussion of those alternatives is 9 presented below.
10 a) Evaporation-demineralization system. In this system blowdown water ll . passes from the steam generators to an existing flash tank, where
' to 12 the pressure is reduced by a flashing process and vapor vented 13 the main condenser. Liquid from the flash tank is pumped through particulate filters to evaporators effluent is evaporated.
F 14 where the 15 The evaporated distillates are processed through ion exchangers and 16 collected in monitor tanks. From these tanks the processed blowdown 17 can be recycled to the ion exchangers for reprocessing or released 18 to the discharge canal through a radiation monitor. Bottoms from 19 the evaporators are concentrated and passed through a cooler to 20 concentrate storage tanks which serve as a holdup tank for the 21 bottoms. The bottoms are pumped from the storage tanks to a bottoms 22 concentrator for maximum concentration (to dryness) prior to being 23 drummed for offsite disposal. Distillates from the bottoms concen-24 trator are combined with evaporator distillates to be processed by the ion exchangers. Since the ion exchangers are non-regenerable, 26 spent resin is periodically transferred to a resin storage tank and 27 pumped to a drumming station.
1 b) Demineralizer system. Blowdown water is passed through a heat exchanger 2 and a pressure reducing valve. The liquid is then processed through 3 a particulate filter, a series of cation bed demineralizers and then 4
a series of mixed bed demineralizers. The demineralizer effluent then 5 passes through another filter to a surge tank. From this tank the 6 treated water can be either reprocessed, recycled or released to the 7 discharge canal through a radiation monitor. Depleted resins are 8 collected in a separate tank and sent to the solids waste handling 9 system for packaging and ultimate offsite disposal.
10 c) Evaporation system. Blowdown'iquid is passed through a heat ex-ll I changer followed by a pressure reduction station and is collected 12 in waste tanks. The fluid is pumped through a particulate filter 13 to the waste concentrator. The concentrator distillate is processed 14 through an ion exchanger and is collected in monitor tanks. From 15 these tanks the water can be pumped either to recycle via condensate 16 storage tanks or released through a radiation monitor to the 17 discharge canal. Concentrator bottoms are directed to a bottom 18 concentrator for maximum concentration prior to being drummed 19 offsite disposal.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll 12 Chlorine Residuals and Boron Concentrations 13 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. O. Box 3100, 14 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company Project 15 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 16 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
I
Response to Question on Chlorine Residuals and Boron Concentrations 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Purdom which appears at page 28, lines 1-6 of the transcript of 3 the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom asked for further information 4 concerning chlorine residuals and boron concentrations in the cooling 5 water discharge.
6 Chlorine is required to prevent fouling of the heat transfer 7 surfaces of the plant, especially the main condenser. If uncontrolled, 8 algae and bacteria form slimes and other deposits on these surfaces would 9 seriously interfere with heat transfer and decrease the efficiency N
10 of the plant. Intermittent chlorination has been found to be an ll effective method of controlling these organisms and maintaining 12 efficient condenser operation.
13 Since only intermittent chlorination will be employed, the 14 amount of chlorine used will be small. The chlorination procedure will 15 be adjusted to provide a concentration of 1 mg/R or less free residual 16 chlorine in the. water leaving the condenser-half being treated. The 17 operational technique of chlorinating only one condenser-half at a time 18 will allow this water to be mixed with the effluents of the other 19 condenser-half prior to discharge. This will allow further reduction 20 in chlorine residual by the chlorine demand of the water from the 21 unchlorinated condenser-half and by dilution.
22 Chlorine residual will be monitored on a scheduled basis, to 23 assure that residual chlorine during chlorination will not exceed O.l/mg/R 24 when measured in the discharge canal, prior to entering the outfall
1 discharge pipe.
2 Boron releases from the plant into the cooling water discharge 3 will be made intermittentl'y and in concentrations which amount to a 4 small fraction of the'aturally occuring boron concentrations in sea 5 water.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No.
1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll Res onse to Thermal Defoulin uestion 12 My name is Ellis O'Neal.'y business address is P. O. Box 3100, 13 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the, Florida Power & Light Company Project 14 Manager for the St. Lucie Project..A resume of my educational and 15 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Res onse to Thermal Defoulin uestion The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Purdom which appears on page 28, lines 4 through 9, of the tran-Ig 3 script of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdon asked about the thermal 4 defouling treatment.
5 The thermal defouling system, is provided as a backup in the event 6 the growth of barnacles and marine life exceeds the one foot fouling 7 allowance that has been provided in each of the two ocean intake conduits.
8 The basis for the system is derived from the experience of utilities 9 located on the west coast of the United States. The process is one of 10 utilizing the plant turbine-condenser to heat water to 120 125'F and 11 then circulating the water to the pipeline which is to be defouled.
12 The process as adapted to the St. Lucie Plant, requires a canal 13 and gate structures from the discharge canal to each of the ocean intake 14 conduits to allow each of, the conduits, in turn, to be filled with 15 heated water for the soak period of approximately four hours. The use 16 of water heated to 125'F for purposes of defouling the intake conduits 17 is considered to be a maximum temperature requirement. If in actual 18 practice, a .lower temperature is found to produce the required amount 19 of defouling, the procedure will be amended accordingly.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 8, Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to ll Recommendations in ACRS Letter 12 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. 0. Box 13 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company 14 Project Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational 15 and professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
h Response to Question About Certain Recommendations in ACRS Letter The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Mr. Lazo which appears at page 30, lines 13-24 of the transcript 3 of the prehearing conference. Mr. Lazo asked if the recommendations of 4 the ACRS letter of March 12, 1970, concerning installation of charcoal 4
5 filters, have been dealt with.
6 The specific paragraphs of the ACRS letter read:
7 "Pump seal and other leakage from emergency core cooling 8 (ECCS) equipment and lines outside the containment may lead to undesirable releases of radioactivity in the unlikely event of 10 a loss-of-coolant accident. The Committee recommends that the atmosphere around the.ZCCS lines and pumps outside the 12 containment be vented through a charcoal filter system.'Further study is required with regard to potential releases 14 of radioactivity in the unlikely event of gross damage to an 15 irradiated sub-.assembly during fuel handling and the possible 16 need for a charcoal filtration system in the fuel handling 17 building. This matter should be resolved in a manner satis-18 factory to the Regulatory Staff."
19 The applicant has acted on the Committee's recommendation that the atmosphere around the ECCS lines and pumps outside the containment be vented through a charcoal filter system. The system will be installed. Section 9.4.3 of the FSAR* describes the system.
The applicant has also acted on the recommendation of further study with regard to potential releases of radioactivity in the. unlikely event of damage to fuel during fuel handling. These studies are described in 26 FSAR section 15.4.3.
- Copy attached
In the April 1970 Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor 2 Licensing, the AEC stated "unless the applicant can provide additional 3 information to demonstrate to our satisfaction that assumptions less 4 conservative than those we now assume for this situation are warranted, 5 we will require the installation of the charcoal filters ...." The 6 system referred to above is the ventilation system for the fuel handling 7 building. Since the AEC issued that statement, they themselves have 8 adopted less conservative assumptions, based on thorough investigation, 9 so that the original contention is no longer valid. Section 15.4.3 of 10 the FSAR fully discusses the assumptions and calculational procedures ll utilized in the fuel'handling accident analysis. The results show that 12 the consequences of such an accident are well within the accepted limits P
13 established in 10CFR 100.
9.4. 3 EMERGENCY. CORE COOLING SYSTEM AREA VENTILATION SYSTEM 9.4.3.1 The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) area ventilation system is designed to provide post-LOCA filtration and adsorption of fission products in the exhaust air from areas of the reactor auxiliary build-ing which contain the following equipment:
a) containment isolation valves b) low pressure safety in)ection pumps c) high pressure safety injection pumps d) containment spray pumps e) shutdown heat exchangers f) piping which contains recirculating containment sump water following a LOCA 9.4.3.2 S stem Descri tion The ECCS area ventilation system air flow diagram is shown on Figure 9.4-1, the P 6 I diagram on Figure 9.4-2 and design data on Table 9.4-6.
The air exhaust system consists of two redundant centrifugal exhaust fans (HVE-9A, B), HEPA and charcoal filter banks, and associated duct work dampers and controls. The exhausted air is vented to the outside atmosphere.
Under normal operation, the reactor auxiliary building main ventilation supply and exhaust system provides the necessary ventilation of the ECCS pump rooms. Under accident conditions when several or all of the pumps are operating, the air supply to the nonessential section of the reac-tor auxiliary building is directed to the pump rooms to provide the ad-ditional cooling air requirement. Dampers are positioned automatically on SIAS signal to provide the proper flow path for supply air to the ECCS area. Simultaneously, the exhaust fans are energized and dampers in the exhaust ductwork are positioned to allow the fans to 'draw all exhaust air from the area through the HEPA and charcoal filter bank before discharge to the atmosphere. Table 9.4-5 lists the components actuated on SIAS and gives the control function of the SIAS on that component.
The ventilation system is sized to maintain a slightly negative pressure of between 1/4 and 1 inch wg in the ECCS area with respect to surrounding areas of the reactor auxiliary building. Access into the ECCS area from other parts of the reactor auxiliary building is through gasketed self-closing or locked closed doors. Opening of locked doors is under administrative controls.
- 9. 4-18
TABLE 9.4-6 DESIGN DATA FOR ECCS AREA VENTILATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS
- 1. Fans Quantity 2 Capacity, cfm 30,000 Static pressure, in. wg 6 (HVE>>9A), 5 (HVE-9B)
Actual air flow at inlet, cfm 30,000 Air density, lb/ft 0.075 Code Class III Type, both systems Centrifugal, variable pitch belt, air foil, non-overloading
- 2. Motors Quantity 2 Type Horizontal, 40 HP, 460 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle Insulation Class B powerhouse Enclosure & ventilation Open, drip<<proof
- 3. HEPA Filters Quantity, per bank 30 flow, cfm 'ir 30,000 Cell size, in. 24 x 24 x ll<
Cell arrangement 5 wide x 6 high Max resistance, clean, in., wg 1.0 Max resistance, loaded, in. wg 3.0 Efficiency 99.97% with 0.3 micron DOP smoke Material Glass asbestos paper separated by aluminum inserts, supported on cadmium plated steel frame Code UL-586, Class 1
- 4. Charcoal Adsorbers Quantity per bank 90 Air flow, cfm 30,000 Cell size, in. 24x8x30 Cell arrangement 6 wide x 15 high Max air resistance, in. wg 1.15 Efficiency 99.9% min of iodines with 5% in the form of methyl iodine, when operating at 70 percent relative humidity and 150 F
- 9. 4-19
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENERGY COMMISSION 'TOMIC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to 11 ASLB uestion /l7 12 My Name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. O. Box 3100, 13 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company Project 14 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and 15 professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question //7 Regarding Possible Environmental Implications Relating'to Part 7b of the Final Environmental Statement 1 The purpose of this testimony is to address the Board's concerns 2 of possible environmental considerations in regard to the approach con-3 cepts as seen by the Applicant.
4 The recommended studies and monitoring programs cover the effect of 5 plant operation on the ocean environment, including entrainment effects 6 and fish entrapment, effects of the discharge plume on turtles, radio-7 logical effects, and chlorine effects. Should an unforeseen problem 8 appear, further studies may be required to determine the primary cause 9 and possible solutions. The types of remedies which may be necessary 10 cannot specifically be foreseen at this time, however a discussion of 11 remote possibilities follows:
12 In the event that the aquatic biological monitoring program reveals 13 adverse effects to plankton or fish as a result of entrapment, possible 14 approaches suggest taking the inlet water from a different level, or 15 the installation of fish repellent devices such as bubble screens or 16 sonic devices at the intake.
17 In the event there is an effect from the discharge thermal plume 18 on turtles, it may be possible to remedy the problem by relocation of 19 nests from the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
20 In the event of radiological problems plant operation and procedure 21 can be altered to minimize or eliminate adverse effects. This might 22 include measures such as better use of holdup capabilities in waste 23 processing, better maintenance of fuel integrity, or shipment of waste 24 'ffsite for disposal.
1 In the highly unlikely event that chlorine disturbs the marine 2 community at or near the discharge, it may be possible to remedy the 3 situation by adding chlorine-neutralizing chemicals to the discharge 4 canal.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
,)
Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Ellis O'Neal 10 Relating to 11 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board uestion //9 on Plant Li htin 12 My name is Ellis O'Neal. My business address is P. O. Box 3100, 13 Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company Project 14 Manager for the St. Lucie Project. A resume of my educational and pro-15 fessional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board uestion //9 on Plant Li htin 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the Atomic Safety 2 , and Licensing Board's question //9 on plant lighting.
3 Compliance with ANSI N18.7 does not impose any unusual requirements 4 for St. Lucie Plant lighting nor for access outside the fence perimeter 5 which is permitted in a manner consistent with emergency procedures.
6 Consistent with ANSI N18.7, lighting is provided within the protected 7 area as well as on the fence. However, the lighting arrangement is such 8 that the illumination outside of the fenced perimeter only extends C
a 9 short distance beyond the fence. The level of lighting is not high 10 enough to require control of lighting during the passage of storm fronts.
11 The statement on page IV-5 of the Final Environmental Statement con-12 cerning control of construction lighting during the passage of storm 13 fronts is not affected since ANSI N18.7 does not apply to construction 14 ligh ting.
UNITED STATES OF APSRICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 'St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of William D. Lan 10 Relating to ll Pro ected .Loads 12 My name is William D. Lan . My business address is P. 0.
13 Box 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am employed by Florida Power 6 14 Light Company as Assistant Chief Engineer of General Engineering. A 15 resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been'6 previously received in evidence.
Response to uestion of Pro'ected Loads 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at Page 24, Lines 3-6 of the 3 transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxron asked about 4 projections of the need for power.
5 This testimony also answers the question (IIll) asked by the 6 Board in their letter of July 31, 1973, related to the effect 'on 7 power needs of the delay in scheduled commercial operation until 8 December 1975.
9 The applicant has continued to update projections of future 10 load demand. These updated projections do not differ significantly ll from the values shown in Table X-2 located on Pages X-6 and X-7 of 12 the Final Environmental Statement. Attached is a table of the latest 13 projections of future load demand and expected generating capabilities 14 and reserves.
15 As shown on the attached table, generating reserves during 16 the summer of 1975 will be in the order of four percent. Alter-17 native means of power supply for that period are now under study.
18 These alternatives include purchased power, if available, and 19 installation of peaking generation.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SUMMER PEAK LOADS, CAPABILITIES, AND RESERVES (Capability is Summer Peak Gross Capability)
Peak Load Gross Reserve With Gas Turbine 15-Minute Percent Capability Reserve Largest Lar est Unit Out, Percent Year (MW) Increase (MW) Percent Unit Percent 1961 1636 13.9 1963 327 20.0 225 102 6.2 1962 1874 14.5 2263 389 20.8 300 89 4' 1963 2163 15.4 17.3 3.5
'5 2538 375 300 1964 2419 11.8 2938 519 21.5 400 .-
119 4.9 1965. 2693 -'1.3 3597 904 33.6 400 504'0 18.7 1966 3038 12.8 3498 . 460, 15.1 400 2.0 1967- 3338 9.9 3898 560 16.8 400 160 4.8 1968 4004 20. 0 4298 294 7.3 400 (106) (2.6) 1969 4563 14.0 5125 562 12.3 400 162 3.6 1970 5316* 16.5 5569 253 4.7 400 (147) (2.8) 444 8.0 1971 5713* 7.5 6013 300 5.3 400 (100) (1.7) 888 14.8 1972 6513*. 14. 0 6857 344 5.3 400 (56) (0.8) 1332 19.4 1973 7250 11.3 8713 - l)63 20.2 728 735 10.1 1332 15.3 1974 8100 11.7 9396 1296 16. 0 728 -568 7.0 2015 21.4 1975 9000 ll.1 9396** 396 4,4 728 (332) (3.7) 2015 21.4 1976 10000 11.1" 11046** 1046 10.5 850 196 2.0 . 2015 18.2
. 1977 11150 ~ 11.5 12646 ~ 1496 13.4 850, 646 5.8 2015 15.9 1978 12400 11.2 13966 ** 1566 12.6 850 716 5.8 2015 14.4 1979 13800 11.3 15099 ~ 1299 9.4 850 449 3.3 2348 15.6 1980 15400 11.5 16749 ** 1349 8.8 850 499 3.2 2348 14.0 1981 17100 11. 0 18849 ** 1749 10. 2 850 899 5.3 2348 12. 5
- Actual load plus curtailment of interruptible load.
++ Addi.tibnal peaking generation for operation in 1975 is presently being considered but is not included in capability shown.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Hatter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of William D. Lan 10 Relating to 11 Question on Generating 12 Ca acit Additions 13 My name is William D. Lan . My business address is P. O.
14 Box 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am employed by Florida Power 6 15 Light Company as Assistant Chief Engineer of General Engineering. A 16 resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been pre-17 viously received'n evidence.
Response to Question on Generating Ca acit Additions The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at Fage 24, Line 18 through Page 25, 3 Line ll of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton 4 asked about future generation addition plans, for all types of 5 generation.
6 The current schedule for unit additions is given in the attach-7 ed table; it is more current then table X-5 on page X-ll of the Final 8 Environmental Statement. As this table shows, FPL plans, after St.
9 Lucie Unit 1, to add various types of generation. Thea'e include 10 a nuclear unit, fossil steam units, mid-range units, and gas turbines.
ll Each of these represents a different combination of capital, fuel 12 and operating costs, and each is best suited to varying system load 13 requirements. Longer range projections prepared for the period H'4 1983-1993 continue this balance between fossil or nuclear base load 15 units and mid-range and gas turbine generation.
GROSS SUMMER PEAK CAPABILITY AND UNIT ADDITIONS SYSTEM CAPABILITY (MW)
Fossil Gas Turbine, Capability Nuclear Fossil Diesel &
Year Unit Additions (>m) Fuel Steam Steam Hid-Range Total 4,271 27 4,298 1969 5,098 27 5,125 1970 5,098 471 5,569 1971 5,098 915 6,013 1972 5,498 1,359 6,857 1973 Turkey Point No.3 728 Nuclear Turkey Point No.4 728 Nuclear Sanford No.5 400 Fossil 1,456 5,898 1,359 8,713 1974 Ft. Myers Gas Turbines 683 Fossil 1,456 5,898 . 2,042 9,396 1975 1,456 5,898 2,042 9,396*
1976 St. Lucie No.l 850 Nuclear Manatee No.l 800 Fossil 2,306 6,698 2,042 11,046*
1977 . Manatee No.2 800 Fossil Martin No.l 800 Fossil 2,306 8,298 2,042 12,646*
1978 Hartin No.2 800 Fossil 2,306 9,098 2,562 13 Hid-Range 520 Fossil 966'979 South Dade No.l 800 Fossil Gas Turbine 333 Fossil 2,306 9,898 2,895 15,099*
1980 St. Lucie No.2 850 Nuclear South Dade No.2 800 Foss il 3,156 10,695 2,895 16,749*
1981 Steam Turbine 1050 Fossil 3,156 12,798 , 2,895 18,849>>
Steam Turbine 1050 Fossil 1982 Steam Turbine 1050 Fossil Steam Turbine 1050 Fossil 3,156 14,898 2,895 20,949*
~Additional peaking generation for operation in 1975 is presently being considered but is not included in capability shown.
GROSS SUMMER PEAK CAPABILITY SYSTEM CAPABILITY MW Fossil System Year Nuclear Fossil Gas Turbine Capability Steam Steam & Mid-Ran e Total 1983 5276 14898 2895 23069 1984 5276 16998 2895 25169 1985 5276 19098 2895 27269 1986 6336 20148 4075 30559 1987 6336 22548 4595 33479 1988 7536 23748 5255 36539 1989 8736 24948 5775 39459 1990 9936 26148 6435 42519 1991 129 36 26148 6955 46039 1992 1443 6 27648 7475 49559 1993 17 436 27648 8135 53219
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4 LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of William D. Lan 10 Relating to 11 Selection of Transmission 12 River Crossin S ans My name is William D. Lan . My business address is P. O. Box 14 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am employed by Florida Power & Light 15 Company as Assistant Chief Engineer of General Engineering. A resume 16 of my educational and professional qualifications has been previously 1
17 received in evidence.
Response to Question concerning Selection of S an Len ths for Transmission Line River Crossin The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked by Dr. Purdom which appears at Page 26, Line 20, through Page 3 27, Line 8. Dr. Purdom asked about the selection of 2000'pans for the transmission river crossing.
5 The selection of the particular river crossing design, approximately 2000'pan lengths, was made after evaluation of a 7 number of alternatives including shorter spans with concrete H-frames and span lengths of up to 6500 feet. The design requirement 9 was to limit the number of structures in the water, therefore 10 reducing obstructions to boat traffic and minimizing disturbance to the river bottom during construction. This had to be balanced
]2 against the appear'ance of the structures as they become taller 13 and more massive to re-accommodate the longer spans.
14 The optimum combination was determined to be approximately
]5 2000'pan'"lengths with tower heights limited to less than 200'6 feet.
17 By limiting the tower heights to less than 200 feet, it was not necessary to paint or light the towers to meet FAA aircraft 19 warning requirements thereby reducing their visual impact. To 20 improve the appearance, it was decided to install tubular steel towers at a premium cost compared to the lattice design.
22 A single conductor of 2.356" diameter (3400 Kcmil) was 23 selected to give increased strength and reduce sag, thus enabling 24 FPL to use approximately 2000'pans so that only 3 structures, one (1) 25 per circuit, need be placed in the water.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of William D. Lan 10 Relating to ll 12 Effects of Transmission Line Construction on H drolo in the Savannas 13 My name is William D. Lan . My business address is P. 0. Box 3100, 14 Miami, Florida 33101. I am employed by Florida Power & Light Company 15 as Assistant Chief Engineer of General Engineering. A resume of my 16 educational and professional qualifications has been previously received 17 in evidence.
Response to Question Concerning Fffects of Transmission Line Construction on H drolo in the Savannas The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Purdom which appears at Page 28, Lines 13-19 of the 3 transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom asked about 4 the effects of transmission line construction through the Savannas 5 on hydrology and drainage. This will also'espond to questions (//3) 6 raised in the July 31, 1973 letter on the same subject.
7 Construction has been going forward on the three transmission 8 lines which will connect the St. Lucie Plant into the FPL system.
9 The river crossing portions of each of the three lines will terminate 10 in two steel towers on the mainland, near the western shore of the 11 Indian River. From the point, the lines proceed overland to the 12 St. Lucie Switching Station, where they join the existing FPL trans-13 mission system. The overland portions of the transmission route are 14 carried on concrete H-frame structures. The overland portion of the 15 route cross the Savannas, a swampy area. Construction of a diked 16 road across the Savannas was once contemplated, but the plan was 17 dropped and will not be implemented. Construction of this road might
/
18 have affected drainage and surface water hydrology, but since it will 19 not be built, there will be no effect. In addition, the design of 20 this section of the line has been changed to accommodate 1400'pans.
21 This will allow structures to be set on either side of the Savannas.
22 Consequently no structures will be set in these areas and construc-23 tion traffic will be a truck installing a lead or pulling wire for
1 each circuit and a 'minimum of travel in the area.
2 precast foundations for the steel towers on the mainland 3 end of the river crossing (between the Savannas and the Indian River) 4 have been emplaced by hydraulic jetting. Water from the Savannas 5 was used for the jet emplacement procedure. The volume of water 6 withdrawn from the Savannas was about 1 5
~ acre-feet per week, over 7 a construction period of about 7 weeks.
8 The ground water level in a well was monitored during these 9 activities, and no distrubances were noted that could be ascribed to 10 the use of water for setting these piles. Conditions in the Savannas ll were observed by state agencies during this construction period and 12 no problems were found.
13 Because of the fact that no road will be constructed in the 14 area, no transmission structures will be set in the Savannas and the 15 precautions described ab'ove have been and will be taken, we believe 16 there will be no effect on drainage, surface water hydrology, or 17 ground water hydrology in the Savannas.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
Florida Power 6 Light Company
) Docket No. 50-335 6
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
7 Testimony of Nanc Walls Ph. D.
10 Relating to 11 Studies on"Offshore Currents My name is Nanc Walls Ph. D. My business address is 13 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. I am a Research 14 Associate Professor, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology.
15 A resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been 16 previously received in evidence.
Res onse to uestion About Preliminar Data on Off-Shore Currents The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 22, lines 20 through 23 of the 3 transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked for further 4 information concerning preliminary data on off-shore currents.
5 Data have been collected monthly on surface current direction and 6 velocity since the inception of the pre-operational monitoring program in 7 April, 1971. A General Oceanics Flowmeter Model 2030 is being used in 8 this work. This instrument provides instantaneous measurements of these 9 two parameters. Presently, two General Oceanics Model 2010 current meters 10 are being installed offshore at the plant site which will provide ll measurements of current direction and velocity at 15 minute intervals.
12 Sampling stations Number I, II, and III are in a line with the 13 discharge plume and 0.34, 0.93 and 1.81 miles off-shore respectively.
14 Number IV is at the southern tip of Pierce Shoal (0.87 miles off-shore),
15 and Number V is northwest of station Number II, and 0.95 miles off-shore.
16 These locations are shown in the attached Figure I.
17 Results indicate a range of surface current volocity from 0 18 to 47.0 cm/sec and covering most directions of the compass. These are 19 shown in the attached Table 1. The surface current direction as observed 20 in these data is predominately associated with the northern section (63-74%).
21 There is a good deal of apparent consistency of surface current directions 22 over the entire sampling area at any particular sampling time.
23 The mean recorded depth of the water at the sampling stations 24 ranges from 7.1 to 11.2m. The current velocity and directional data are 25 only taken just below the surface, however.
,26 Data will continue to be acquired during the pre-operational phase
1 l of the program and into operation to provide correlation with the bio-2 logical data on the marine environment.
7 jSZFLK Q.
STATIOiN LOCATIONS I II III IV V Vcl /Dir Vel /Dir Vol /Dir Vel /Dir Vel /Dir (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
Sept. 71 ~
17.5/NE 17.4/NE Z3.0/N 23. 0/NE 12. 0/NE Oct. 71 Nov. 71 26. 7/SSE 25. 0/SSE 18. 5/E 35. 0/NW 32. 5/NW Dec. 7 1 17. 0/NW 18.5/N 19. 0/NW 17. 0/NW 17. 0/NW J"n. 72 32. 5/iNW 36. 5/N 29. 0/N 27. 9/N 30. 0/N Feb. 72 31. 5/iNW 38. 0/NNW 36. 5/iJNW 35. 5/NNW 37. 5/N Mar. 72 17. 0/iN 26. 0/N 35.0/N 37. 5/N 33. 5/NNW Apr. 72 26.5/s 26.2/s 29. o'/(var) 25. 5/(Var) 25. 0/(Var)
May 72 19. 6/N 25. 5/NNE 18. 0/E X15. O/S 22. 5/S June 72 0/0 21. 5/SE . 19. 5/SE 19. 4/SSE 18. 0/SSE July 72 32.5/N 36. 0/N 26.0/N 32.5/N 15. 8/N Aug 72 24. 8/NiNW Z7. 5/NNW 33. 6/NNW 28. 5/NNW 29. 3/iNNW Sept. 7Z 21. 5/S 44. 0/S 38;6/s 47. 0/S 34. 5/S Oct. 72 19, 6/S 25. 4/S 19. 7/S 21. 8/S 18. 2/S Nov. 72 32. 4/N 17. 0/N 21. 0/N 26.o/N 27.5/N Dec. 72 26. o/s 48. 6/S 29. 6/S Jan. 73 0/0 0/0 0/0 21. 4/N 30. 0/N-Feb. 73 18. 0/NW 18. 0/NW 0/0 0/0 0/0 Mar. 73 26. 5/NW 32 ~ 5/NNW 3 0.0/N 28. 5/N 27. 5/N Apr. 73 29. 0/N 26.5/N 24.8/N 22. 5/N 20. 7/N
Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4 LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6'lorida Power' Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Nanc Walls'Ph. D.
10 Relating to 11 Plankton Studies 12 My name is Nanc ,Walls Ph. D. My business address is Georgia 13 Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. I am a Research Associate 14 Professor, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology. A resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been pre-
'iously received in evidence.
Res onse to uestion about Plankton Studies 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question t
2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 23 line 23 through page 24 3 line 2 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton 4 asked about the stat'us of plankton studies and results to date.
5 Plankton samples were taken originally every other month and 6 later at monthly intervals. To sample plankton, a bottom to surface 7 step-oblique 10-minute tow is made at off-shore stations with a General 8 Oceanics 0.5 m diameter plankton net of 202 micron mesh (No. 10). The 9 No. 10 net was selected as the most efficient mesh size to sample plankton 10 communities in this area since smaller mesh nets rapidly clog and small 11 organisms pass through nets of larger mesh size. The net is equipped with 12 a General Oceanics Model 2030 Flowmeter to measure the amount of water 13 filtered by the net. Plankton species are identified and counts are 14 made by dilution techniques; the number of organisms per cubic meter is 15 then calculated.
16 These studies are continuing at the present time. Monthly 17 sampling will be continued into plant operation to determine any effect 18 of the plant upon the plankton populations in the marine environment.
19 Net phytoplankton collected at five stations offshore of 20 Hutchinson Island were enumerated and identified. Results from September 21 1971 through April 1973 are shown in Table I. Net phytoplankton densities 22 ranged from 1.0 to 30,532.0 cells per liter for the 65 samples taken during 23 this period, and in general were relatively similar from station to station 24 during any given sampling period. The greatest variation in cell density 25 occurred in Stptember 1971, when a difference of 10 cells per 3
liter 26 was recorded between Station I and Station V. (See Table I) Chlorophyall 27 a data (Table II)
1 indicate that two to three blooms occur yearly. There is a fall bloom 2 characterized by the diatom SKELETONEMA, then a lower winter and spring 3 peak.
Net phytoplankton cell counts should not be used for standing 5 stock levels; the counts only establish diatom and dinoflagellate diversity 6 and abundance, dominants of the communities, and seasonality whereas 7 chlorophyll and other physical and chemical data will be used to assess 8 standing stock and primary production.
In general, the net phytoplankton co-lected at Hutchinson Island 10 have been numerically dominated by diatoms, although five samples contained ll more than 50 percent dinoflagellates and/or blue-green algae.
12 Zooplankton were collected every other month at the five stations 13 off-shore of Hutchinson Island. These results are shown in Table III.
14 Data are available from September 1971 to July 1972. Total zooplankton 15 ranged from 244 to 12,023 organisms per cubic meter and copepods varied 16 in number from 82 to 10,930 per cubic meter. (See Table III).
17 Copepod numbers and total zooplankton counts correlate well, 18 and zooplankton density seems broadly correlated with phytoplankton cell 19 density.
20 These studies are continuing, and results are reported as the 21 data are obtained. Interpretation of plankton and chemical data up to 22 September, 1973 will begin this fall.
TABLE I NET PHYTOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS OFFSHORE OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND, CELLS/LITER STATION NUMBERS Date III IV Sept. 1971 92.8 4655.1 1357.9 449. 9 30,532.9 Nov. 1971 9.6 4.3 19.3 3.6 3.2 Jan. 1972 1088.1 "248.1 763.9 919.3 123.7 Mar.'1972 165.5 83.8 53.2 243.8 12.3 May 1972 122.3 47.3 42.7 90.3 286.1 July 1972 1.0 14.4 3.1 4.3 7.2 Sept. 1972 201. 3 414.7 166.0 238.1 179.7 Oct. 1972 845.9 2111'.6 .664.3 3233.5 5,612.8 Nov. 1972 7.9 15.7 15.2 11.8 24.9 Jan. 1973 5.3 19.0 15.8 14.4 78.9 Feb. 1973 173.4 206.8 164.9 63.7 105.3 Mar. 1973 2.8 92.6 16.4 236.2 467.3 Aprl. 1973 5.6 13.1 126.6 14.4 38.3
TABLE II CHLOROPHYLL-a(MINUS PHAEOPIGMENT) OFFSHORE 3
OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND, mg/M ,
Surface STATION NUMBERS Date Bottom II III IV V Nov. 1971 S/B 2.52/7.70 2.26/1.92 0.76/0.94 2.14/1.85 3.14/2.19 Dec. 1971 S/B 1.09/2'.14 0.88/1.21 0.87/1.71 0.66/2.28 0.51/2.42 Jan. 1972 S/B 1.46/2.06 0.94/2.78 1.57/1.18 0.75/1.12 0.90/2.08 Feb. 1972 S/B 3.99/5.87 2.41/2.89 2.55/2.41 1.68/1.97 2.89/2.75 Mar. 1972 S/B 2.13/1.51 0.97/1.15 0.78/0.93 0.92/1.85 0.10/1.05'.48/3.79 Apr. 1972 S/B 2.76/4.99 1.13/2.04 0.78/1.62 1.77/3.68 May 1972 S/B 1.62/1.21 1.07/2;49 2.03/4.39 3.92/2.57 '.40/3.56 June 1972 S/B 0.86/5.86 0.77/0.31 0.60/0.26 0.61/0.55 0. 47/1. 42 July 1972 S/B 2.20/0.99 0.64/0.56 0.59/0.72 0.53/0.39 0.66/2.35 Aug. 1972 S/B 2.26/1.47 0.64/0.51
- 0.81/0.63 0.75/0.68 0.98/1.30 Sept. 1972 S/B 2.89/4.85 1.66/2.06 2.45/2.75 2.11/1.47 2.27/2.06 Oct. 1972 S/B 6.50/5.24 3.50/3.18 2.14/1.52 2.30/3.41 4.54/5.29 Nov. 1972 '/B 1.09/1.60 1.48/1.64 0.87/0.90 0.95/1.16 0.56/0.74 Dec. 1972 S/B 8.98/3.73 5.37/4.81 2.76/2.94 3.86/4.41 4.66/6.42 Jan 1973 S/B 0.90/1 13
~ 0.70/1.24 0.35/ 0.98/1.50 0.91/1.70 Feb. 1973 S/B 0.59/0.72 0.53/0.49 0.36/0.53 0.38/0.32 0.32/0.43 Mar. 1973 S/B 1.86/4.67 0.63/6.27 1.28/2.49 2.55/5.24 2.23/2.84 Apr. 1973 S/B 0.88/1.47 0.34/0.37 0.29/0.34 0.34/0.08 0.09/0.35
TABLE III
, ZOOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS OFFSHORE OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND ORGANISMS/M STATION NUMBERS DATE I III IV V Sept. 1971 Copepods 178 1128 1206 820 458 Total 299 1416 2638 1211 958 Nov. 1971 C 206 159 82 198 215 T 244 478 249 550 307 Jan. 1972 C 2292 3232 3948 2872 4570 T 3005 4868 5462 4971 7432 Mar. 1972 C 1613, 1111 2207 1895 1082 T 1965 1441 2399 2847 1291 May 1972 C 2576 1085 . 10930 4958 3041 T 3946 1525 12023 4775 3769 July 1972 C 194 958 2303 758 492 T 379 1758 3843 2135 1272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Mane Walls Ph. D.
10 Relating to 11 Mi rator Fish S ecies Near the Coast 12 My name is Nanc Walls, Ph. D. My business address is Georgia 13 Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. I am a Research Associate 14 Professor, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology. A 15 resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been 16 previously received in evidence.
Res onse to uestion About Mi rator Fish S ecies Near the Coast The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked by 2 Dr. Purdom which appears at page 27, line 14 through line 22 of the transcript yl 3 of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom asked for further information 4 concerning what species of fish might be migrating close to the coast 5 either to feed or to breed and what effect the plume might have on their 6 migration route.
There are three species of migratory pelagic fish which predominate 8 in the offshore area close to'the coast in St. Lucie County as confirmed 9 by landings of commercial fishermen. These are the blue fish (Pomatomus 10 saltatrix), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) and the king 11 mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla).
12 The exact spawning grounds of many species of pelagic fishes is 13 unknown. This is true for the Spanish and king mackerel. The paucity of 14 larvae and juveniles collected in the southern portion of their range 15 (the east coast of North America from Florida to Maine) would indicate 16 that this is not an important spawning area. Data obrained from a tagging 17 program show that blue fish spawn off the east coast of Florida but in 18 waters 60 to 300 feet deep. Normally, this depth is achieved only at a 19 considerable distance from shore. There is no evidence that any of these 20 species migrate close to the coast for breeding purposes.
21 All three of these species move north in the spring and early 22 summer. During this period of Northward travel, they are assumed to remain 23 near the coast, presumably because food supplies are better here than in the 24 deeper ocean regions. Since the great variations of water temperature to 25 be found in the range of the population of these species would indicate 26 a wide temperature tolerance, the presence of a slightly warmer plume
l (only 1'F) over a 2860 acre area that does not originate right at the shore, 2 and therefore does not form a complete thermal barrier, presumably would not 3 have a significant effect on the rate or direction of this northward 4 migration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4 LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Mat ter of )
)
Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Nanc Walls Ph. D.
10 Relating to 11 Pre-Operational Environmental 12 Monitorin Pro ram 13 My name is Nanc Walls Ph. D. My business address is Georgia 14 Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. I am a Research Associate 15 Professor, School of Biology. A resume of my educational and profes-16 sional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
RESPONSE TO UESTIONS ABOUT THE PRE-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Purdom which appears at page 27 line 23 through page 28 3 line 2 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom 4 asked about the biological monitoring program.
This testimony also responds to the question asked by Mr. Lazo 6 which appears at page 29 line 11 through 23 of the transcript of the 7 prehearing conference. Mr. Lazo asked for further information concerning 8 the extent of the biological monitoring program and future plans in this 9 respect.
10 The Florida Power & Light Company has implemented a comprehensive 11 biological program to monitor subtle changes in the aquatic biota at St.
12 Lucie. The field program is designed as follows: Five offshore sampling 13 stations were established. Three of these stations were positioned to 14 evaluate any effect of the thermal plume once it begins, and the other 15 two located to provide control stations north and south of the plume. An 16 additional criterion in the establishment of an offshore station was that 17 it was representative of a dominant macrohabitat in the immediate area.
18 Three additional stations were selected near the beach for sampling 19 ichthyofauna near the point proposed for effluent discharge. The program 20 is being conducted by an outside biological sciences consulting firm with 21 cooperation from the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to, 22 a written contract that has been in operation since April of 1971. The 23 baseline information being collected includes studies of benthic organisms, 24 water quality, microscopic organisms and fish. Sea water samples are 25 obtained monthly. Water thus obtained is used for chlorophyll and
particulate matter analyses and to measure several chemical and physical properties. As of February, 1972, surface and bottom water samples were 3 also analyzed for nutrients by the University of South Florida. Nutrients being measured are nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, silicate, and ortho-phosphate.
Plankton samples are also obtained monthly. Species are identified and counts 3
made to provide the density of organisms per m of water. Benthic samples and beach seine samples are obtained bi-monthly. The benthic sampling technique is designed to obtain quantitative samples of samples of small benthic 9 fauna from which the density of organisms can be obtained. A 3 5 minute 10 trynet tow is made at each offshore station to collect fishes and larger invertebrates. Replicate subtotals from three samples at each location are combined for computing abundances of fish at each station. Sediment samples 13 in which any subtle changes may be expected to occur much more slowly, were 14 obtained semi-annually in 1971 and 1972. Starting in January 1973, the 15 sampling frequency of sediments has been increased to once every two months.
The results of these studies to date are described in detail in quarterly 17 progress reports.
18 The St. Lucie Program is intended to provide a realistic evaluation 19 of the present state of the marine biota and to indicate areas of ecological 20 significance where additional studies (during the operational phase) by 21 other techniques may be advisable. For example, some subtle details which 22 involve behavioristic, physiological, or genetic changes of the biota can 23 best be studied by using selected indicator species which tend to maximize 24 the biological effect being studied. The present program, modified and 25 adapted on the basis of data obtained during. the pre-operational phase, 26 will be continued after operation of the St. Lucie power plant begins.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COKKSSION BEFORE TIiE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Hatter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Nanc Walls Ph. D.
10 Relating to ll Turtle Nests 12 ~
My name is Nanc Walls.'Ph.'D. My business address is Georgia 13 Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. I am a Research Associate 14 Professor, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology. A resume 15 of my educational and professional qualifications has been previously 16 received in evidence.
Res onse to uestion About Protection of Turtle Nests The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 -
asked by Dr. Purdom appearing at page 28, lines 20-23 of the transcript 3 of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom asked about protection of turtle 4 nests during construction activities.
5 A turtle nest survey is being performed on Hutchinson Island. There 6 are nine survey areas on the island, one of which includes the areas of 7 construction. Since turtles nest on the beach, the only construction 8 activities which will endanger their nests are those related to the 9 cooling water intake and discharge piping and structures. Turtle 10 survey areas are checked daily during the nesting season. When a ll turtle nest is found which may become endangered by construction 12 activities, eggs are either removed to the Florida Department of 13 Natural Resources Laboratory where they are hatched, and the young 14 turtles released, or the nests are moved to a safe area.
15 As of July 15, 1973, 105 nests have been laid by loggerhead 16 turtles in the plant area this year, approximately the same number of I.
17 nests laid in this area by this date two years ago, when the last 18 nesting survey was conducted. Only one of these nests was dug in a 19 place threatened by intake pipe construction, and this nest was moved 20 to a safe area. All nests laid in the 'construction area are being 21 labeled with nest number, nest type, and approximate date of egg 22 hatching.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Tes timony o f Murra Weber 10 Relating to ll 12 Erosion From Installation of Intake and Dischar e Structures 13 14 New York, New York 10006. I am the Supervising Engineer of Concrete 15 Hydraulic Engineering for Ebasco. A resume of my educational and pro-16 fessional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Question on Erosion From Installation of Intake and Dischar e Structures The purpose of this testimony is to respdnd to the question 2 asked by Dr. Purdom which appears on page 27, lines 9-13 of the trans-3 cript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Purdom asked about possible 4 erosion resulting from installation of the intake and discharge structures.
5 No erosion problems are anticipated for the following reasons.
6 Erosion of the ocean floor will not be caused by the intake of 7 plant cooling water because of a concrete base which surrounds the 8 point of intake. The concrete base prevents erosion because it extends 9 over the area where intake water velocity would exert any influence.
10 In addition, the concrete base rises a minimum of 2 feet above the ocean ll bottom further reducing the potential scour effect of the moving water 12 on the ocean bottom. As a result of the size and height of the concrete 13 base and the velocity reducing design of the velocity cap, the maximum 14 water velocity which the bottom sands would experience due to the ocean 15 intake structure is approximately 0.4 fps. This low velocity is not 16 expected to have any scour effect.
17 Regarding any scour effect caused by a combination of ocean 18 currents and the ocean intake structure, field studies indicate that the 19 maximum longshore current is 1.2 fps with 0.6 fps typical. Since the 20 ocean intake structure is essentially an open structure, it presents 21 little interference to normal ocean current and would not be expected 22 to precipitate any erosion phenomena.
23 Erosion of the ocean floor will not be caused by the discharge 24 structure. The "Y" port discharge at the end of the discharge line is
1 set in an excavated area which has been sized to provide sufficient 2 clearance for the discharging buoyant jet. The bottom of the excavated 3 area is covered with rip-rap to prevent scour.
The only effect ocean currents and the resulting sand movements 5 are expected to have on the discharge area is to slightly reshape the 6 initial excavation.
7 . The hydraulic structure at the discharge end of the pipe is a 8 concrete pipe encasement which is below the ocean bottom except where 9 it projects into the excavated discharge area. No scour effects are 10 foreseen for this structure.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of 9 Murra Heber 10 Relating to ll 12 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board uestion 1/5 on a Nave To in the Dune 13 14 Street, New York, New York 10006. I am the Supervising Engineer of 15 Concrete Hydraulic Engineering. A resume of my educational and professional qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Question //5 Nave To in the Dune The puspose of this testimony is to address 'the Board's concern 2 of a wave topping the dune and resultant effects of wave runup.
3 The results of preliminary calculations to simulate hurricane 4 induced high water levels and wave runup, using the most recent AEC 5 methodology, indicates that the St. Lucie Plant grade elevations of 6 +18 feet will not be reached even assuming that the dune is breached.
7 These results are applicable even for the probable maximum hurricane 8 which approaches the physical upper limits of hurricane intensity.
9 In addition plant structures and components required for plant safety 10 are flood protected to'elevation + 22 feet. Therefore, there will be ll no effect on plant operations.'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of 10 Relating to 11 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 12 Board uestion !38 Re ardin Se tic Tanks 13 14 New York, New York 10006. I am the Supervising Engineer of Concrete 15 Hydraulic Engineering. A resume of my educational and professional 16 qualifications has been previously received in evidence.
Response to Question /18 Re ardin Se tic Tanks 1 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the Atomic Safety 2 and Licensing Board's question //8 which concerns the height of the 3 septic tank leaching field above the water table.
4 The distribution pipes for the leaching fields are installed at 5 elevation +16 (MLW) ocean, which is approximately 16 feet above the 6 ground water table.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of Neil Wildin 10 Relating to ll 12 Use of Velocity Cap Intake at 'Other Plants and the Effect of Intake Velocity 13 On Small Fish and A.S.L.B. uestion 810 14 15 New York, New York 10006. I am the Senior Scientist in the Consulting 16 Environmental Engineeiing Department of Ebasco. A resume of my educa-17 tional and professional qualifications has been previously received in 18'vidence.
Response to Questions About Use of Velocity Cap Intake at Other Plants and the Effect of Intake Velocit on Small Fish The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question asked 2 by Dr. Paxton which appears at page 25, lines 12-24 of the transcript of 3 the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked about experience at other 4 power plants with the same type cooling system intake as will be used 5 at the St. Lucie Number 1, particularly with respect to the use of a 6 velocity cap.
7 Mr. Lazo asked a related question at page 31, lines 6 through 13 8 of the transcript of the prehearing conference concerning the effect on 9 small fish of Y
the intake velocity of 1 ft. per second at the perimeter 10, of the cap.
ll The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board also requested information 12 on the effort involved 'in altering design and construction of the offshore 13 intake to reduce water v'elocity to one-half foot per second or. less 14 (Question 10).
15 Me have investigated further the use of this type cooling water 16 intake, and have learned of the existence of eight velocity cap systems, 17 all in Southern California. One of these is the existing San Onofre 18 unit, as mentioned by Dr. Paxton. A number of additional installations 19 are planned in the same area. There may also be overseas installations.
20 Experience at some of these installations is discussed below.
21 Velocity caps installed at two Southern California Edison plants, 22 namely El Segundo and Huntington Beach, produce velocities of 3.5 ft/sec 23 and 2.0 ft/sec., respectively. The El Segundo plant had been originally 24 designed and operated without a velocity cap but with an offshore intake
1 of the type designed for St. Lucie Unit l. Before the velocity cap was 2 installed, fish entrapment at the El Segundo plant had been a serious 3 problem. Operating experience for the year following the installation 4 of a velocity cap revealed a 94.5 percent reduction in the amount of 5 fish entrapped at El Segundo (Weight, 1958). This successful method>>
6 for reducing fish entrapment is now used at all Southern California 7 Edison plants; El Segundo, Huntington Beach, San Onofre 1, Redondo 8 and Ormond Beach, and will be employed at two units under construction, 9 San Onofre 2 and 3.
10 Xn addition, the city of Los Angeles Department of Water and ll Power has experienced a 90 percent increase in fish entrapment at their 12 Scattergood plant when the velocity cap was removed.
13 While little work has been done on the swimming speeds of marine 14 fish, some data are available for certain anadromous and freshwater 15 fish. Milo Bell (1973) of the Universi.ty of Washington has collected 16 much of the available data on the swimming ability of fishes and has 17 defined three classes of swimming speeds:
18 1, Cruising speed a speed which can be maintained for long 19 periods (hours).
20 2. Sustained speed one that can be maintained for minutes.
21 3. Darting speed a.single effort, not sustainable.
22 The cruising speed of small striped bass, 1 inch long, has been 23 measured at 1 ft/sec. Larger fish posses greater swimming abilities, 24 as shown below.
Swimmin S eeds 2 ~Secies ~Crnis2n Sustained ~Derttn 3 Striped bass 1 fps 2. 75 fps 18 fps 4 Morone saxatilis (1" fish) (5" fish) (22" fish) 5 Alewife 11-12 fps 6 Alosa Pseudoharen us (10" fish) 7 River Herring 15 fps 8 (12" fish) 9 White Sucker 2 fps 5.5 fps 10 fps 10 Catostomus commersoni (12-18" fish) (12-18" fish) (12-18" fish) ll 12 Carp C rinus car io 1.5 fps (30" fish) (30" 4 fps fish) 8.5 fps (30" fish) 13 Eel 4 fps 14 An uilla rostrata (30" fish) (from Bell. 1973) 15 The data given above indicate that, for fish of the same species 16 and equal size, cruising speed approximates 20 per cent of the darting 17 speed. Using this approximation, it appears that the darting speed of a 18 1 inch striped bass would be about 5 ft/sec, fast enough to allow such 19 fish to escape from the <1 ft/sec (0.85) velocity at the perimeter of the St.
20 Lucie intake.
21 Kerr (1953) performed a series of experiments with striped
\
22 bass of various sizes and found that young bass, 1 to 3 inches long, 23 could withstand velocities of 2 ft/sec for 10 minutes with 95 per cent 24 survival. He also investigated the effects of velocity on king salmon 25 and found that 92 percent of the king salmon fingerlings, 1.25 to 1.5 26 inches long, could withstand a velocity of 1 ft/sec for 10 minutes.
27 Kerr concluded that a maximum design approach velocity of 1.5 ft/sec 28 appears reasonable to protect small striped bass and king salmon.
29 Extrapolation of the available information on the swimming speeds 30 of various fishes indicates the <1 ft/sec (0.85) velocity at the perimeter of
1 the St. Lucie velocity cap should prevent entrapment of the great 2 majority of the fish which may occur there.
3 The ocean intake structure now planned for St. Lucie Unit 1 cannot 4 be altered to accommodate an approach velocity of 0.5 ft/sec or less 5 without major redesign. Such a redesign effort would incur a substantial 6 cost increase and a six month construction delay.
I 7 Two schemes could be used to provide a 0.5 ft/sec approach velocity.
8 The first scheme would retain the existing cap and substructure, but 9 would require two such structures and would require additional piping 10 to connect the second ocean intake to the intake pipeline.
The second scheme would require that the velocity cap and 12 associated substructure be changed to a rectangle approximately 50 ft by 13 110 ft which would provide the increased area required to reduce the 14 approach velocity to 0.5 ft/sec.
It appears that an approach velocity of <1 ft/sec (0.85) will provide 16 adequate protection to fish which may occur near the ocean intake 17, structure. In fact, Weight (1958) has implied that very low approach 18 velocities may be insufficient to "warn" fish of impending entrapment.
REFERENCES 1 Bell, M. C.
2 1973 Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and 3 Biological Criteria.
Fisheries Engineering Research Program, Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.
6 Kerr, J. E.
1953 Studies on fish preservation at the Contra Costa steam plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
9 Department of Fish and Game of California, Fish Bulletin 10 No. 92.
ll Weight, R. H.
12 1958 Ocean cooling water system for 800 MW power station.
13 J Power Division, Proceedings from American Society of 14 Civil Engineers, Paper 1888.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 In-the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 Testimony of J. W. Williams 10 Relating to 11 uestion Re ardin Percent Com letion 12 Labor Force and Schedule 13 My name is J. W. Williams. My business address is P. 0.
14 Box 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power 6 Light Company 15 Project General Manager for the St. Lucie Pro)ect. A resume of my 16 educational and professional qualifications has been previously 17 received in evidence.
,Response to Question on Percent Completion Labor Force and Schedule The purpose of this testimony,is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at Page 22, Line 24, through Page 3 23, Line 10 of the transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton 4 asked about % completion, number on the labor force, and schedules.
5 The percentage completion of St. Lucie Unit 1 is 59% as of
'I 6 August 15, 1973. The labor force on site, including all classes of 7 personnel and all shifts, is now,between 1350 and 1450. Current 8 projections are that it will remain at about that level until the 9 reactor coolant system hydrotest and then decrease rapidly.
10 Hydrotest is expected to occur in February 1975.
Our current estimated dates are as set forth in the Final 12 Environmental Statement on Page IV-1. Fuel loading is scheduled for 13 September 1975 and commercial operation December 1975.
14 The applicant, however, is continuing in its field efforts 15 to achieve these milestones at desired earlier dates.
~
~,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 4 LICENSING BOARD 5 In the Matter of )
)
6 Florida Power 6 Light Company) Docket No. 50-335
)
7 St. Lucie Unit No. 1 )
Testimony of J. W. Williams 10 Relating to 11 Regarding
'uestion 12 Work on Beach 13 My name is J. W. Williams. My business address is P. O.
14 Box 3100, Miami, Florida 33101. I am the Florida Power & Light Company 15 Project General Manager for the St. Lucie Prospect. A resume of my 16 educational and professional qualifications has been previously received 17 in evidence.
Response to question Regarding Work on Beach The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the question 2 asked by Dr. Paxton which appears at Page 23, Line 11-16, of the 3 transcript of the prehearing conference. Dr. Paxton asked about 4 progress and completion dates for work in the dune area and on the 5 beach.
The work in the dune areas and beach consists of emplace-7 ment of the cooling water intake and discharge pipes and construc-8 tion of the associated structures. The work will be carried out 9 in a manner which we'll continuously maintain the integrity of 1O the dune line as a protective barrier against wave and storm damage 11 to the island. The procedure for doing this is described on Page 12 IV-5 of the Final Environmental Statement.
13 The construction work in the vicinity of the dune began 14 in June 1973 for the on-shore structure. At present, the concrete 15 headwalls for both the'ntake and discharge water lines are 16 complete. The temporary dune has been completed for the intake 17 water lines and excavation of the dune started on August 15, 1973.
18 lt is estimated that all the work in the dune area, both intake 19 and discharge, will be completed by October 1974.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ELLIS H. O'NEAL PROJECT MANAGER FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY My name is Ellis H. O'Neal. My residence address is 8701 S. W. 82' Court, Miami, Florida. I am Project Manager for Florida Power & Light 3 Company for the St. Lucie Unit /I1 nuclear plant. I am responsible for 4 .direction and coordination of all engineering, design and quality assu-5 rance work performed by Florida Power & Light Company, Ebasco Services, 6 Inc. and Combustion Engineering, Inc. on this project.
7 received a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree with high 8 honors from the University of Florida in 1949 and have taken, graduate 9 courses conducted by the University of Florida in Elements of Vibration, 10 Nuclear Engineering, Advanced'uclear Technology and Nuclear Power 11 Reactors.
12 Upon graduation from the University of Florida I joined General I
13 Electric Company and held test engineering and design assignments on 14 jet engines, steam turbines, and aircraft instrumentation, among others.
15 In 1950 I joined Florida Power & Light Company and have been in-16 volved with the design engineering and project coordination as project 17 engineer for 19 steam electric generating units. Since 1967 I have been 18 Project Manager for the St. Lucie nuclear plant.
19 I am a member of the American Nuclear Society, American Society of 20 Mechanical Engineers, Florida Engineering Society, National Society of 21 Professional Engineers and am a licensed professional engineer in the 22 State of Florida.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS WILLIAM D. LANG ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1 My name is William D. Lang. I am employed by Florida Power & Light, 2 Company as Assistant Chief En'gineer. In this position, my areas of re-3 sponsibility include substation engineering, substation systems and 4 equipment design, protective relay control and design, drafting, and 5 system planning. I have served in this capacity since July, 1972.
6 I have been employed by Florida Power & Light Company since June 7 25, 1951. Prior to July, 1972, I served as Manager of System Planning 8 with the primary responsibility for planning the expansion of our electric 9 system.
10 I received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering Degree from Georgia ll Institute of Technology in 1951. From 1951 until 1961 I served in 12 various capacities in Engineering and Operating Departments of Florida 13 Power & Light Company. In 1961 I was transferred to General Engineering 14 Department of Florida Power & Light Company with a primary responsibility 15 in distribution planning. In 1966 I was made Section Head of Planning 16 and assumed responsibilities for expansion of the transmission and dis-17 tribution systems.
18 I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida, 19 Senior Member of IEEE National Society of Professional Epgineers and 20 Florida Engineering Society.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS NANCY W. WALLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF BIOLOGY GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY My name is Nancy W. Walls. I am a Research Associate Professor in, the School of Biology at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, 3 Georgia. My present academic responsibilities include teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate educational levels, research in the field of microbial ecology, and direction of graduate student research and thesis writing.
I received my educational training at the University of Michigan 8 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in
.9 botany (with a minor in chemistry) in 1952; a Master of Science degree IO in microbiology in 1953; and a Ph.D. Degree in radiation microbiology 11 in 1959.
12 I have been associated with the Georgia Institute of Technology
]3 since October, 1959. I was an Assistant Research Biologist in the 14 Engineering Experiment Station at this Institute from 1959 through 1961.
15 In 1962 I was promoted to the'ank of Research Biologist in the Engi-neering Experiment Station and, simultaneously, given an academic appoint-17 ment as Research Assistant Professor in the School of Biology. In 1967 18 I became a Senior Research Biologist in the Engineering Experiment Sta-19 tion and continued to hold the rank of Assistant Professor in the School 2O of Biology. In 1969 I was promoted to Associate Professor in the School of Biology and became Acting Director of the Department. I held this 22 administrative post for 18 months (1969 1970) and then resigned to 23 become a full-time Associate Professor in the School of Biology. I have 24 held this title and position from 1970 to the present time.
1 I have administered as principal investigator research grants 2 on the following topics: 1) factors affecting the radiation sensitivity 3 of bacteria; 2) effects of irradiation on protein molecules; 3) physio-4 logical studies on Clostridium botulinum; 4) microbiological studies in the Southern Ocean; 5) ecology of anaerobic bacteria in blue crabs; and
- 6) microbial ecology of a sub-tropical terrestrial biome; and have 30 7 major reports and publications on the results of these investigations.
8 The scientific studies performed in connection with number 5 above 9 included six months in the field aboard the National Science Foundation's 10 research ship, Eltanin, operating in the Antarctic Ocean between South ll America and New Zealand. Our research was part of an integrated program 12 on the ecology of this cold ocean. My current research involves energy V
13 cycles and material transfer in ecosystems.
14 I have taught courses in Animal Behavior, Botany, Ecology, Evolution, 15 Experimental Cell Biology, Microbiology, Physiology, Radiobiology, and 16 Taxonomy.
17 I hold membership in the following professional and honor societies:
18 American Association for the Advancement Of Science, American Institute 19 of Biological Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, Association 20 of Southeastern Biologists, Georgia Academy of Sciences, New York Academy 21 of Sciences, Phi Sigma, Radiation Research Society, and Society of the 22 Sigma Xi. I have served on numerous academic committees and have been 23 a consultant to industry in the field of ecology since 1970.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS MURRAY WEBER SUPERVISING ENGINEER CONCRETE HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING EBASCO SERVICES$ INC.
My name is Murray Weber. My business address is Ebasco Services, 2 Inc., Two Rector Street, New York, New York. I hold the position of 3 Supervising Engineer Concrete Hydraulic Engineering with Ebasco Ser-4 vices, Inc. I am responsible for the supervision of engineering and 5 design of all concrete and hydraulic structures .for the St. Lucie Nuclear 6 Power Plant.
7 I was graduated from the City College of New York in 1942 with a 8 B. S. degree in Civil Engineering. I was graduated from Brooklyn Poly-9 technic Institute in 1952 with a Master of Civil Engineering degree.
10 I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York, Mary-11 land and Washington. I am a Fellow in the American Society of Civil 12 Engineers and a member of the American Concrete Institute.
13 I am an Assistant Professor at Pratt Institute in the Civil Engi-14 neering Department.
15 I was employed as a Junior Structural Engineer with the TVA in 1942 16 and as a Junior Civil Engineer in 1943. My responsibilities included 17 the design of reinforced concrete highway bridges and inspection of con-18 struction of the Fort Loudon Dam.
19 I was a First Lieutenant in the U. S. Army Air Force from 1943 to 20 1946.
21 From 1946 to 1951 I was a Structural & Project Engineer with Ken-22 nedy Van Saun Manufacturing & Engineering Company in New York City. I 23 was responsible for design of cement plants, rotary ki,lns, concrete 24 aggregate plants, conveyors, ball mills, rock crushers, vibrating screens,
hammer mills and waste heat power plants utilizing heat from cement kilns.
From 1951 to 1965 I was a Principal Civil Engineer with Burns and Roe, Incorporated in Hempstead, New York. I was responsible for portions of civil design of Hanford Nuclear Station for Washington Public Power Supply System, including 500 kv transmission line; Jersey Central Con-ventional Steam Plant; Danskammer Point Conventional Steam Station;
\
diesel electric power stations for Project SAGE; blast resistant faci-9 lities for SAGE; Nike Zeus missile system, Bomarc missile system; jet 10 engine testing facility for Naval Testing Station; communications system and large radar antenna foundations, coal unloading crane 2000 ton per day capacity and jet engine test stand.
13 From 1965 to 1966 I was the Chief Civil Engineer with Walter Kidde 14 Constructors in New York, New York. I was responsible for engineering 15 and design of industrial facilities, hospitals, commercial buildings and 16 warehouses.
17 From 1966 to 1967 I was a Project Engineer with Pope Evans & Robbins in New York City. I was responsible for various testing facilities at 19 Bet tis Atomic Laboratory and National Reactor Testing Station, including 20 test'cells, shipping casks, fuel handling, fire protection, materials handling, cranes and monorails, railroad facilities. 7 also was a Pro-ject Engineer for 7500 kw diesel generating station, on Midway Island, 23 landfill sanitary disposal and, incinerator plants.
24 From 1967 to 1973 I was a Principal Engineer with Ebasco Services, Inc. in New York, New York. My responsibilities included portions of 26 civil design of four (4) units of 900 mw PWR Nuclear Power Plants for
Carolina Power & Light Company; BWR Nuclear Power plant for Tokyo Elec-2 tric Power Company, Fukushima Units 1 and 2; BWR Nuclear Power plant for 3 Chubu Electric Power Company; circulating water system study for Mill-4 stone BWR Nuclear Power Plant, and study of various containments for 5 BWR type reactors.
6 I have served in my present capacity as Supervising Engineer 7 Concrete-Hydraulic Department on the St. Lucie Project since May 1, 1973.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS NEIL J. WILDING SENIOR SCIENTIST EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
My name is Neil J. Wilding. I was born in Newark, New Jersey in 2 1938 and I am currently employed by Ebasco Services, Inc. as a Senior Scientist in the Consulting Environmental Engineering Department.
4 I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Zoology and Entomology from the Pennsylvania State University in 1960 and a Master of Science 6 Degree in Marine Biology from the University of Miami in 1968. I also 7 spent one year as a Predoctoral Student in Life Sciences at the Univ-ersity of California.
9 My professional experience as a biologist spans a period of 13 years and includes studies performed while a member of the U. S. Armed Forces as well as in positions with the E. R. Squibb Company, the Uni-versity of Miami, the University of California, and Ebasco Services, Inc.
13 Since 1969, I have been employed by Ebasco Services, Inc. engaged 14 in the performance of biological and ecological studies related to the determination and minimization of environmental impact from both nuclear and 'fossil-fired generating plants. My principal responsibilities have included the supervision, design and direction of ecological monitoring 18 programs; the prediction of ecological impact due to the release of 19 pollutants, including heat, from power plants; the assessment of environ-2O mental alterations due to power plant construction and operation, the 21 development of guidelines and design criteria to minimize such environ-22 mental impact; and the preparation of ecological data for power plant environmental reports.
1 Major assignments have included the preparation, organization and 2 supervision of a preoperational ecological monitoring program on the 3 Lower Mississippi River in the vicinity of Louisiana Power & Light 4 Company's Waterford site, the design and supervision of a marine fouling 5 study as related to the design of an offshore intake for a nuclear power 6 plant constructed for Florida Power and Light; analysis of data and de-7 velopment of predictions on the effects of power plant operation on the 8 ecology of Galveston Bay; investigations of fish deflection and bypass 9 devices for power plant intake structures; and environmental field 10 studies of proposed sites for nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants.
11 From 1964-1968, while performing research for my thesis on the 12 water balance, osmotic behavior and physiological ecology of Acantho-13 pleura diranulata, an intertidal chitcn, l served as a research assistant 14 engaged in the collection and organization of data on the distribution 15 of phyt'oplankton in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. While at 16 the University of Miami, I also participated in a survey of on-shore 17 marine sediments, assisted in the development of enumeration 'techniques for marine bacteria, and investigated the potency of various marine 19 toxins by determining their lethal dose concentrations in fiddler crabs.
20 I then spent a year at the University of California as a Teaching Assis-21 tant responsible for laboratory experiments and lectures for an intro-22 ductory course in biology.
23 During the period 1960-1963, I served as a Microbiology Technician 24 for the United States Army at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 25 Washington, D. C. My principal activities during this time included 26 the culture and identification of various strains of intestinal bacteria 27 as well as developing preparations for the separation of bacterial proteins 28 by column chromatography and gel electrophoresis.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOSEPH W. WILLIAMS PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER ST. LUCIE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1 My name is Joseph W. Williams. I am employed by Florida Power &
2 Light Company as Project General Manager St. Lucie Project. In this 3 position I am responsible for the coordination of the engineering, con-4 struction, and operating departments in so far as they relate to the 5 St. Lucie Project. I have served in this capacity since July 1, 1973.
6 I graduated from the University of Florida in 1950 with a Bachelor 7 of Chemical Engineering Degree.
8 I have twenty-one years of experience in the operation, maintenance, 9 and supervision of modern oil and gas fueled high pressure steam power 10 plants, including participation in the start up of three high pressure ll boilerand turbine generator units. In addition, I served as Manager 12 of Quality Assurance for one year and two months, during which time I 13 had the responsibility for Florida Power & Light Company's Quality Assu-14 rance program for nuclear plants. This experience is summarized as 15 follows:
16 (a) Student Engineer, Training and Operations Departments 17 June 1950 to September 1951.
18 (b) Betterment Engineer, Plant Betterment Foreman, and Plant 19 Results Foreman, Palatka Plant, 128 MW capability September 20 1951 to April 1955.
21 (c) Assistant Plant Superintendent Operations, Riviera Plant, 22 130 MW capability April 1955 to October 1955.
(d) Assistant Plant Superintendent Operations, Palatka Plant, 128 MW capability October 1955 to June 1957.
(e) Assistant Plant Superintendent Operations, Cutler Plant, 400 MW capability June 1957 to January 1960.
(f) Plant Superintendent, Palatka Plant, 128 MW capability January 1960 to September 1962.
(g) Plant Superintendent, Cutler Plant, 400 MW capability September 1962 to March 1966.
10 (h) Plant Superintendent, Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 864 MW capability March 1966 to May 1972.
12 (i) Manager of Quality Assurance May 1972 to July 1973.
13 (g) Project General Manager St. Lucie Plant July 1973 to 14 Present.
15 I have completed the following educational courses related to the 16 nuclear industry:
17 (a) Nuclear Power Reactor University of Florida, 1966.
18 (b) Nuclear Fuel Management - NUS, 1966.
19 (c) Radiological Health PHS, 1966.
20 (d) Reactor Safety & Hazards Evaluation PHS, 1967.
21 (e) Advanced Nuclear Technology University of Florida, 1967.
22 I am a Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a 23 Member of the Florida Engineering Society, and a Member of the National 24 Society of Professional Engineers. I am a Registered Professional En-25 gineer in the State of Florida (Certificate No. 4058).
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS A. S. JAMESON NUCLEAR PROJECT MANAGER COMBUSTION ENGINEERING My name is A. S. Jameson. I am employed as the Project Manager by '
Combustion Engineering, Inc., the supplier of the Nuclear Steam Supply 3 System and fuel for the St. Lucie Plant. I,have been serving in this 4 capacity since Project inception in early 1968. I have been associated 5 with Combustion Engineering since 1957 and have been engaged in the 6 Nuclear field for the past 24 years.
7 I am a graduate of Stevens Institute of Technology and received a 8 Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1940.
9 From 1949 to 1957 I was a member of the reactor engineering division 10 of Argonne National Laboratory where I had assignments starting as a A
11 designer and operator of heat. transfer test facilities and successively I
12 leader of the experimental group in the heat transfer section, head of 13 the heat transfer section, project engineer for the Experimental Boiling 14 Water Reactor (EBWR) and plant operating supervisor EBWR.
15 In 1957 I joined General Nuclear Engineering, which later became 16 part of Combustion Engineering and served as Project Manager in the 17 design of the Boiling Nuclear Superheat (BONUS) reactor in Puerto Rico 18 and as Project Manager during construction and operation until plant 19 turnover to the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority.