ML19207B039
| ML19207B039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1979 |
| From: | Engel D NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Schutt R HUBER, MAGILL, LAWRENCE & FARRELL |
| References | |
| 80008, NUDOCS 7908230256 | |
| Download: ML19207B039 (13) | |
Text
TEF:i New York State Department of Environmental Conservation n-50 Wolf Road, A!bany, New York 12233
{
]
N M conaEspoxp u g Robert F. Flacke CCCAEi irdMBEd PRCO. & 'JTil, FAC. $0-59(,,fy July 6, 1979,[
= t n
/
cc:49" uw-
/g 33-[g > ~~2 9
1 lM Roderick Schutt, Esq.
(:3 3g i..a Sett#'3' Huber, Magill, Lawrence & Farrell
~
2 SSN' d
99 Park Avenue
\\-
. -(~,h.g 5
gis 7
Re:
Case No. 80008 m
a
Dear Mr. Schutt:
I am enclosing additional interrogatories developed by the staff of the Department of Environmental Cons erva-
~
tion regarding Case 80008.
These interrogatories relate to alternate sites, alternate sources, aquatic ecology, land use and aesthetics and terrestrial ecology.
Sincerely, Y di w
David A. Engel Senior Attorney for Energy Enc.
cc:
All Parties m, o "
' l.0
+
P 7908230 b b
Alternate Site Analisis 1.
Referring to p. 1.4-13 and Table 1.4-2 (and Env.
Report), please justify the estimate of a 30-year life for a nuclear unit.
2.
Referring to p.
1.4-20 and Table 1.4-2, the text discusses transmission losses based upon a factor of 637. of the 1987 peak su=cer load, using the NYPP average load level for the period 1965-74 (a)
Why is a 1987 peak summer load used when the first unit will not be on line until 1990?
(b)
Why are other econocic parameters based upon a 75% capacity factor (Table 1.4-2)?
3.
Referring to p. 2.1-2, are sites located at elevations significantly above the water source (Susquehanna -
400-500 feet; Mohawk River - 800 feet) actually consid-ered viable?
Please discuss the probable derating due to pumping losses.
4.
Referring to p.
2.1-8, it is stated that no migratory routes of fishes were reported in this stretch of the Susquehanna (i.e.,
in the vicinity of the intake and discharge).
Subsequent discussion states fishing pressure on walleye is medium to heavy in this area and that walleye make spawning runs.
DEC is concerned that operation of a plant in this vicinity may interrupt spawning runs of this species.
Please specify river characteristics in the vicinity of the intake and discharge and the expected area of impact of intake and discharge structures.
Please also discuss any possible interference of these structures with walleye migrations.
5.
Referring to p. 2.1-1, indicate the distance between the site and the Newtown Battlefield State Park.
Can plant structures be observed from the Park or local roads leading to the park?
6.
Referring to p.
2.1-11, has the State identified any wetlands within either the Tioga County (site 11-2-35) or Ulster County (site 8-4-2) sites, pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 of the Environmental Conserva-tion Law?
7.
Referring to p. 2.1-12, how does the local New York State Agricultural District classify agricultural soils within this site?
List the major crops produced on-site and within a radius of ten miles.
8.
Referring to p. 2.3-4, did Applicant's site analysis consider that PCB-laden dredg.e spoils from the Hudson will be deposited in a site approved for disposal 'oy 13 0
DEC, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers in order to eliminate PCS runcff and grouncwater contamination, if PCB concentration in sedicents exceeds existing standards (present standard is 50 ppe, effective 2 July 1979).
9.
Referring to p.
2.4-26, the New York City Bureau of Water Supply, Department of Environmental Protection, intervened in the Cornwall pumped storage project hearings because the proposed intake and discharge pipelines were in close proximity to an underground Catskill acueduct which supplies the City.
Please reference and summarize the NYC Water Supply Bureau position in your discussion of potential proble=s associated with the lower Hudson River site (8-4-2).
10.
Referring to p.
2.4-32, present a definition of "high viability farmland" a term used in sections 2.4.11.2 and 2.4.11.3 (site 8-4-2) and indicate how this term relates to farmland classified by the NY State Agricul-tural District.
11.
In the investigation of lower Hudson River sites, was the Lloyd site (originally selected by ASDA) in Ulster County considered?
Please explain the rating consid-erations at this site and specify the reasons for its ranking by NYSE&G.
Please also list other Huds6n River sites investigated by NYSE&G and note their ranking and liabilities in relation to other sites considered in Phase 3 of your siting study.
12.
Are the sites presented in the Alternate Siting Study the top five alternate sites to New Haven?
If not, identify the top five alternate sites and state their advantages and disadvantages.
Please compare the sites presented in the Alternate Siting Study and/or the top five alternate sites in a matrix ranking specific areas (ex. geology, terrestrial ecology, noise, etc.) and demonstrating why one site is preferable to another via these comparisons.
w
9 ALTERNATE SOURCES 1.
With respect to section 9.2.1.4.5 Wind Enerev.
(a) o.9.2-21, fourth paragraph, states that storage of wind energy is needed to supply a continuous baseload supply of energy.
Hypothetically assuming that 2400 MWe of baseload generation is not needed, and that part of the generation can be peaking power, please provide an assessment of the feasibility of using wind energy from various suitable statewide sites to help fill the pumped storage reservoirs at Gilboa and Prattsville (proposed) - each 1000 tIWe generation capacity.
(b)
- o. 9.2-21, fifth paragraph, states that the Department of Energy cost goals for the small wind-powered generator program and costs which are about 1 to 2 times the cost of conventional power stations.
(1)
Does this estimate factor in the cost of fuel and maintenance for conventional power stations, as well as inevitably higher future capital costs of construction?
(2)
What the the US DOE cost goals for their
~
large wind-powered generator program, com-pared to conventional power stations?
(3)
Please cite these references and provide a copy (or a copy of the summary, if the
~
reference is too lengthy to copy).
(c)
- o. 9.2-21, sixth paragraph, states that the greatest detraction to wind power are probably its visual impact and large area required.
(1)
Has Applicant considered the fact that experiments in southern Sweden indicate that large wind turbines are hardly visible at distances of 5 miles or more, and appear to blend in with the background?
(2)
Please present possible tower designs that would help to mitigate the visual i= pact.
(3)
Please provide a list and assessment for possible multiple uses of land used for wind power generation.
e
(4)
What barriers do you anticipate in the use of transportation (highway and railroad) and transmission line rights-of-way for wind energy systems?
(5)
What percentage of the land used for wind energy " farm" would actually be committed to the wind system?
Specify your assu=ptions.
9,2-21, same paragraph, presents a hypothetical (d) o.
winc energy farm.
(1)
Please cite and provide the reference (or copy of the summary) for this study.
(2)
Please list the specifications for other hypothetical wind farm coc? tnations (cite references).
(e)
Please present your assessment of California's goal to achieve 500 MWe of large scale wind power (into utility grid) by 1987 and 10,000 MWe by the year 2000?
(ref. James Lerner, July 1978 " Wind Electric Power: A Renewable Energy Resource for California", California Energy Commission, 1111 Howe Avenue, Sacramento, California 95825).
2.
With respect to section 9.2.1.4.3 Photovoltaic Solar Energy (a) o.9.2-19.
The second paragraph of this section states that about 38-40 square miles of land would be needed to produce 2500 MW of electricity.
(1)
Please state all assumptions of this esti= ace.
(2)
Please provide a list and assessment of possible multiple uses of land used for photovoltaic solar generation.
(3)
What barriers do you anticipate in the use of transportation (highway and railroad) and transmission line rights-of-way for photo-voltaic energy systems?
(b) o.9.2-19.
The reference for 18 watts /sq. ft.
(rer 33) is not in the list of references.
The list ends on p. 9.2-54 with reference 30.
Please correct this.
-n -
'[
(c) p.9.2-19.
(third paragraph of section) gives rather high costs based on a 1976 reference (3).
Because of the recent interest in solar energy and the numerous contacts awarded by the U'.S.
Depart-ments of inergy, Defense, etc., the costs of phorovoltaics has been decreasing.
Please present esticates based on the most recent costs.
Project a reasonable estimate of costs for the estimated date of construction.
3.
Section 9.2.1.1.3, p. 9.2-3 Natural Gas (a)
The stat.ecent that natural gas reserves have been declining for several years appears to be based on an outdated (1974) reference.
Please provide an assessment of present and predicted natural gas supplies, based on the incentives provided by the presently occurring phased decontrol.
(b)
What is the status of U.S. natural gas exploration in light of decontrol (include deep drilling and geopressure gas)?
(c)
What is the capacity of the present and predicted natural gas pipeline system?
(1)
Is there any excess capacity in the present and predicted systems?
(2)
If so, please translate into MWe power production.
g
AQUATIC ECOLOGY New Haven Site 1.
Explain why Butterfly and Catfish Creeks were not examined for fish spawning activity.
(a) is it possible that white sucker and rainbow smelt, which cay spawn in streams, ascend these two streams to spawn during the spring.
(b)
Would any of the gears utilized in sampling these stream have collected larvae of these two species?
(c)
Would it have been practical to use drift nets in these streams in the riffle habitat for a more quantitative (hourly drift) determination of benthos and also a qualitative estimate of fish spawning activity (i.e.,
drifting eggs and larvae?).
2.
Reference Part I, Volume 7, p. 5.1-50.
(a)
Clarify in detail, the statement that "there is no evidence that the study area in Mexico Bay is qualitatively or quantitatively different from the rest of the southern shoreline of Lake Ontario"?
(b)
Please describe the qualitative and quantitative biological similarities between Mexico Bay and Chaumont Bay, Henderson Bay, Sodus Bay and Ironde-quoit Bay.
Provide all references relied upon for this information.
3.
Reference Part I, Volume 7, p.6.1-43.
This section refers to the fact that six species of fish collected in fyke nets were tagged using Floy ancho.: tags; however, this information is not discussed further.
(a)
Please explain the rationale for tagging these fish and not presenting the data in the ER.
(b)
Were tags recovered during subsequent fyke netting, Gill netting, Electro-shocking, or Seining?
(c)
How many were recovered?
(d)
What species of fish were recovered?
(e)
Were Tagged fish from Dr. Storr's research collected?
(f)
How =any and what species?
F, 7
m
(g)
Did Dr. Storr recover any of Nalco's tags?
If yes, where did he collect them, how =any did he c611ect and what species?
(h)
Has the fish tagging data been examined and analyzed; if so, then please forward to DEC.
5.
Reference Part I, Volume 7, p. 6.1-4.1, 42, 46 ; Volume 2,
- p. 2.2-181.
These pages reference the fact that (1) seining was done at night to minimize fish avoidance of the seine, (2) boat electroshocking was done at night to minimize fish avoidance, (3) ichthyoplankton sampling was carried out during both day and night and night densities were higher, and (4) trawling was conducted only during the day.
(a)
Explain why trawling was not conducted also at night.
(b)
Would the numbers of fish collected during night trawling be higher than the numbers obtained during the day?
Why?
(c)
Explain if night trawling at least have been carried out on the same transects and stations as night ichthyoplankton tows?
e v
D G~
D D
kN S
)
r?
[51 ' rE] l ~b b 0 [a n
CJ dJ 63 AOC ATIC 'st. > rM New Haven Site 1.
The New Haven Environmental Report states (page 5.1-20) that plant entrainment will be cro (0) for the period January-March for the life of the facility.
This statement is based upon data from Nine Mile Point for 1976.
Please furnish information as to the total volume of water entrained per plant per day for the Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile Point plants for the dates during which entrainment sampling was conducted (Janu-ary-March 1976).
In addition, furnish the estimated velocity and flow of water at the entrainment sampling locations during the entrainment sampling episodes (January-March 1976).
2.
Indicate the duration of entrainment sampling, i.e.,
the length of time that net remained in water for each sampling effort (an average will suffice) and indicate if this differed from normal (full station load) -
operating procedure.
3.
On Page 5.1-18 of the New Haven Environmental Report, it is stated that plant entrainment estimates are conservative because,."... maximum design flow does not account for reduced flow during scheduled shutdowns".
The infreence drawn from this statement is that reduced flow results in reduced entrainment.
In light of this, explain the validity of using entrainment data from Nine Mile Point under the conditions that existed at those plants from January-March 1976.
4.
Indicate how the use of the highest day / night ratios produce the most conservative estimate of entrainmer._
as indicated on Page 5.1-21, since it seems that the converse would be more accurate as night tows always yielded greater densities of ichthyoplankton.
5.
Explain what is meant by day / night ratios.
Is this the ratio of minutes of day to minutes of night or does it mean rations of numbers of organisms?
Reference page 5.1-20, second paragraph.
6.
Referring to Page 5.1-28 and on page 5.1-29, it is stated that the discharge will be 600 ft, shoreward of the intake.
However, figures 3.1-1 and 3.4-4, indicate the discharge as being only 200 ft. shoreward of the intake.
Which value (200 ft. or 600 ft.) is correct?
3q
7.
Will the 3.5 ft. diameter pipe running from the pu=p to the plant as descrioed on page 3.4-5 be buried?
8.
Section 9.2 indicates that aquatic impacts were not considered in site selection until stage (4) of the process.
Since no site inspections, not to mention site testings, were made until Stage (5), how did applicant rate various sites for the presence of cigratory fish, fish populations, populations of entrainable organisms, and the potential for changing the indigenous coccunity?
9.
What is the basis for the contention on P. 9.2-45
- that,
...the (21) preferred sites were selected to... exhibit a balance of environmental compatibility and costs based on the evaluation performed at ~his t
stage", when the environment was not considered until stage (4), but economics was considered continuously throughout the first 4 stages?
s.
t 10.
It is stated on page 9.2-46 that information gathered during visits to the sites were used to supplement published data to evalute the potential effects of station water use on the water body.
What information is being referred to in this passage?
Is it the 1977 study?
11.
What power did applicant's test have to discriminate the differences between Nine Mile Point (NMP) and New Haven.
How could applicant be certc4.n that the thermal effluents from NMP had no influence on New Eaven in light of the higher densities of aquatic organisms.
7 0,
AQUATIC ECOLOGY Stuyvesant Site 1.
Refer to tables 2.2-248 and 2.2-249, the boat electro-fisher catch for alewives and blueback herring is roughly equal while the seine catch for these two rather similar fish is very ruch dominated by alevives.
Provide an explanation for this discrepancy.
2.
Refer to tables 2.2-281 and 2.2-232 in the ER and table D-16 in the 1973 Fisheries Survey of the Hudson River, the 1973 study utilized (among other gears) a seine with 1/4 inch mesh, a mesh size similar to that used in the Stuyvesant study.
The 1973 seine data indicates the presence of many juveniles between 11 sad 40 ca; this size range was not well represented in the Stuyvesant studies.
Please discuss possible reasons for sacpling so few blueback herring of this size.
3.
Refer to section 5.4.3.9, biomass of zooplankton esti=ated at Stuyvesant greatly exceeds that estimated at Athens which is approximately 15 miles down river.
Since river flow should bring water from the Stuyvesant area to Athens in a few days, can you propose an explanation for the much greater zooplankton biomass measured at Stuyvesant than at Athens?
n'
-O 1
LAND USE 5 AESTHETICS Provide a site perspective of the fossil facility at New Haven looking Northwest and Southwest.
Provide a site section of the Stuyvesant Fossil Facility looking Southwest.
Include background topographical features (i.e., Catskill Mountains).
Referring to page 4.1-1 of Part IV Volute 2 and Part III Volute 2, why is cleaning and grubbing; installing access roads, railroad spurs, construction buildings etc. considered to be site investigation activities?
Aren't these considered to be site preparation activities?
When will these activities begin as indicated in figure 4.6-l?
How does site preparation and excavation "No.
1" relate to the activities listed above (i.e. cleaning and grubbing, installing access roads, etc.) in figure 4.6-1?
G
,e
TERRZSTRIA'm ECOLOGY Stuvvesant Site 1.
Section 2.2.1.6.1.2 refers to bats being observed on the plant site but no effort was expended to determine the species present.
Indiana Bats, an endangered species, are known to winter within 20 miles of th site and prefer wooded areas along rivers and streams as summer habitat.
Since the site lies adjacent to Schedack Creek and coarse barked cottonwoods (possible roost sites) grow adjacent to the stream, please explain why no attempt was made to identify bats utilizing the proposed site and surrounding area.
2.
SYSE&G proposes construction of a barge slip two miles below the proposed plant site which would destroy approximately one acre of tidal wetland.
Since barge at the Port slips and offloading facilities now exist of Rensselaer and Port of Albany, explain the need for constructing a new site for such short term use.
3.
Section 2.2.1.5.1.5 states that "the base of the meteorological tower was checked daily, during field
~
survey periods for birds that had been killed or injured by flying into the tower."
For how many days were field surveys actually conducted?
Were dogs used to help locate injured birds?
How large an area was searched around the tower?
V
,-