ML19263B111
| ML19263B111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New England Power |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1979 |
| From: | NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ENVR-790102, NUDOCS 7901050183 | |
| Download: ML19263B111 (470) | |
Text
REVISION INSTRUCTIONS The incorporation of Revision 5 to the Environmental Report (ER) is accomplished by completing the following 3 steps. (In addition, there are some corrections to earlier revisions included.)
- 1. Accomplish all of the removals and insertions tabulated below and on the following pages for Volumes 1 thru 5.
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Title Page Title Page REVISION HISTORY TAB a thru i before Revision 4 pages a thru i INTRODUCTION TAB 0-i 0-i TAB 1.1 1.1-1/l.1-2 1.1-1/1.1-2 1.1-11/1.1-12 1.1-11/1.1-12 T1.1-2 (cont) /T1.1-3 T1.1-2 ( cont) /T1.1-3 T1.1-3 ( cont) /T1.1-4 T1.1-3 (cont)/T1.1-4 T1.1-7/T1.1-8 T1.1 -7/T1.1-8 T1.1-23/T1.1-24 T1.1-23/T1.1-24 Fl.1-1 (9 sheets) thru Fl.1-3 Fl.1-1 (8 sheets) thru F1.1-3 TAB 1.3 T1.3-1/T1.3-2 T1.3-1/T1.3-2 TAB 2.1 T2.1-18/T2.1-19 T2.1-18/T2.1-19 T2.1-19C/T2.1-19D T2.1-19C/T2.1-19D F2.1-14 F2.1-14 TAB 2.2 2.2-1/2.2-2 2.2-1/2.2-2 2.2-29/2.2-30 2.2-29/2.2-30 7 @ l05 0\% 3 R5-1
REVISION INSTRUCTIONS (Cont)
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 2 Title Page Title Page TAB 3 3-iii/3-iv 3-tii/3-iv 3-vii/3-viii 3-vii/3-viii TAB 3.1 F3.1-1 F3.1-1 TAB 3.3 T3.3-1 T3.3-1 F3.3-1 F3.3-1 TAB 3.4 3.4-5 3.4-5 TAB 3.9 3.9-19/3.9-?0 3.9-19/3.9-19A, 3/)-20
-- F3.9-29 TAB 4 4-i thru 4-iv 4-1 thru 4-iv TAB 4.1 4.1- 1/4.1-2 4.1-1/4.1-1A,4.1-2 4.1-5/4.1-6 4.1-5/4.1-6 TAB 4.5 4.5-1 thru 4.5-3 4.5-1 thru 4.5-4
-- F4.5-1 and F4.5-2 TABSJ 5.1-1/ 5.1-2 5.1- 1/ 5.1-2 5.1-5 thru 5.1-7 5.1-5 thru 3.1-7 TAB 6.1 6.1-17/6.1-18 6.1-17/6.1-18 6.1-18A/6.1-18B 6.1-18A/6.1-18B TAB 8.1 8.1-1 thru 8.1-4 8.1-1 thru 8.1-4 8.1-7 --
T8.1-11/T8.1-11A T8.1-11/T8.1-11A RS-2
REVISION INSTRUCTIONS (Cont)
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 3 Title Page Title Page TAB 9 9-i/9-ii 9-i/9-ii TAB 9.2 9.2-9 thru 9.2-20B 9.2-9 thru 9.2-20C T9.2-1/T9.2-2 F9.2-19A thru F9.2-23 F9.2-19A thru F9.2-23 TAB 9.3 T9.3-1 T9.3-1 TAB 10 10-iii/10-iv 10-iii/10-iv TAB 10-2 10-2.3 thru 10.2-6 10.2-3 thru 10.2-6 T10.2-2/T10.2-3 T10.2-2/T10.2-3 TAB 11 ,
11.0-1 11.0-1 TAB 11.3 11.3-1 11.3-1 T11.3-1/Tll.3-1 (Cont) Tll.3-1/Tll.3-1 (Cont)
TAB 12.1 12.1-1 12.1,-l T12.1-1/T12.1-2 T12.1-1/T12.1-2 TAB 12.2 12.2-1 12.2-1 APPENDICES TAB i i/ii RS-3
O REVISION INSTRUCTIONS (Cont)
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 4 Title Page Title Page TAB C Tab C Tab C, Tab C.1
-- Tab C.1A C. A-iii thru C. A-v C.1A-iii thru C.1A-v C. lt.-17/ C.1 A-18 C.1A-17/C.1A-18 C.1A-31 thru C.1A-46 C.1A-31 thru C.1A-46 C.1A-49 thru C.1A-56 C.1A-49 thru C.1A-56 C.1A-59/C.1A-60 C.1A-59/C.1A-60 C.1A-65 thru C.1A-70 C.1A-65 thru C.1A-70 C.1A-77/C.1A-78 C.1A-77/C.1A-78
-- Tab C.2
-- Tab C.3 TAB D
-- D.3-D.3-37 TAB F F-iii thru F-viii F-iii thru F-x F.0-1 thru F.0-8 F.0-1 thru F.0-9 TAB F.1
-- F.1-18A thru F.1-18Q
-- F.1-26A thru F.1-26T F.1-31 thru F.1-34 TAB F.2 F.2-31/F.2-32 F.2-31/F.2-32 TAB F.3 F.3-1/F.3-2 F.3-1 thru F.3-2 F.3-16A/F.3-16B F.3-16A/F.3-16B TAB F.5 F. 5-1/ F.5-1A F.5-1/F.5-1A O
RS-4
REVISION INSTRUCTIONS (Cont)
Move Sections F.9 thru F.A with accompanying tabs and place them in front of Volume 5 after the title page.
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 5 Title Page Title Page TAB F.9 F.9-3 thru F.9-6 F.9-3 thru F.9-153 TAB F.10 F.10-1 thru F.10-3 F.10-1 thru F.10-3 -
TAB F.A F.A-1 F.A-1 TAB G.4 TG.4.1-1/TG.4.2-1 TG.4.1-1/TG.4.2-1 FG.4.1-1 FG.4.2-12 FG.4.2-12 FG.4.2-54 FG.4.2-54 FG.4.2-57 thru FG.4.2-58 FG.4.2-57 thru FG.4.2-58 TAB H H .0-1/H.0-2 H.0-1/H.0-2 <
H.0-3/H.0-4 H.1-1/H.1-ii .
- 2. Using the Revision 5 List of Effective Pages (LEP)
(following the " Revision History" tab in Volume 1) ,
check for the occurrence and proper placement of the Revision 5 pages inserted in step 1 above. Revision 5 pages are indicated on the LEP pages by asterisks.
- 3. After verifying that all of the ER pages are present in the ER Volumes according to the LEP for Revision 5, discard both these Revision Instruction Sheets and the pages of the ER removed per these instructions.
R5-5 L
Revision 5 Environmental Report NEP 1 & 2 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 REVISION HISTORY INTRODUCTION The permanent Revision History of the Environmental Report (ER) for NEP 1 & 2 consists of all current and super-seded List of Effective Pages (LEP) which follow this page. The LEP pages for the latest revision to the ER immediately follow this page and appear before the LEP pages which they supersede. All superseded LEP pages are etained as permanent records of previous revisions to the ER.
ER PAGES Revision Notice. On each revised or added page of the ER there is a revision notice. This notice appears in the upper. outer corner of the page and states the latest revision number which effected the page. l3 Added Pages. Pages added to the text between two existing pages are numbered with the page number of the page which they follow and a capital letter suffix. The first suffix number uses "A," the next,"H," and so on through the alphabet. Double letters are used to increase the number of possible suffixes, e.g. A A. AH, et cetera. Later addi-tions between two suffixed pages use arabic numbers as additional suffixes. For example, page 3.1-5HI would appear between pages 3.1-5B and 3.1-5C. The same numbering method applies to the numbers of tables (or figures) added between two existing tables (or figures).
Deleted Pages. Deleted Pages are not retained in the ER but are removed at the time when the revision which deletes them is incorporated into the ER (Set itevision Instructions, below). The LEP records the deletien of these pages. A note on the bottom of the page preceding the deleted page(s) indicates the page(s) tieleted. This note receives a revision bar for the revision which deleted the page.
Revision Bars. All text and tabular pages which have been revised bear a revision bar (or bars). The revision har appears in the outer margin of the page perpendicular and opposite to the line(s) of print which have been revised or added. Superscript numbers relate the whole bar or parts of the bar to the revision number (s) which revised or added the lines so indicated. Added tables and figures do not receive revision bars: The LEP indicates their addition.
However, where a new sheet is added to an existing table or figure revision bars are required: Such a revision results in the renumbering on the original ER pages of the " sheet of" number and the addition of the new sheet. On the ER pages revision bars are applied opposite the "(Sheet of 1" on each changed and added page of the table or figure so effected.Added appendices h not receive revision bars, but pages added to or changed in existing appen-dices do receive revision bars.
REVISION INSTRUCTIONS A set of tabular removal and insertion instruction pages accompanies the package of revised and added pages to be incorporated into the ER for each revision to the ER. The ER pages removed per these instructions include deleted pages. and pages remosed and replaced with revised pages. After all removals and insertions for the revision are completed, the deleted and removed (replaced) pages of the ER and the tabular instruction pages are discarded.
PUBLICATION DATES The following table, entitled Dates of Publication, lists the dates of publication for the originalissue of the ER and for all of the revisions to the original issue.
Dates of Publication Original issue . . September 1976 Revision ' . March 1977 3 Revision 2. July 1977 Revision 3 . . December 1977 !
Revision 4. . May 19'i8 Revision 5. . December 1978 b a
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES 2l The total number of pages in this ER is 3,168 Page Number # Revision Page N ?-ber # Revision volume 1
- Title Page 5 2 xA ( Added) 2 Divider, Revision IIistory (Added) 1 2 xi 4
- a thru i 5 2 xil 1 Divider, latroduction 1 2 xiii 1
- 0-i 5 2 xiv 3 Divider, Chapter 1 0 2-xv thru 2 xvi( Added) 1 1 i tbru l iii 4 2.0 1 0 1.0 1 0 Divider, 2.1 0 Divider,1.1 n 2.1 1 0 1.1 1 4 2.1-2 1 1.1 2 0 2.1 -3 0 1.13 thru 1.1-4A 4 2.14 1 1.15 thru 1.1-6 0 2.1 4 A 1 1.17 thru 1.110 4 2.1 -4 B 4
- 1.1 11 5 2.15 thrn 2.1-7 1 1.1 12 thru 1.1 13 4 2.1 -8 0 Tables 1.1 1 thru 1.1-2 (1 of 2 Sheets) 4 2.1-9 thru 2.1-10 1 Table 1.12 Cont. (2 of 2 Sheets) 4 2.1 10A thru 2.1-10D ( Added) 1 Table 1.13 (2 Sheets) 4 2.1-11 1 Tables 1.14 thru 1.1 12 4 2.1 12 3 Table 1.1 13 (2 Sheets) 4 2.1-13 thru 2.1-14 0 Tables 1.1-14 th u 1.1 17 4 2.1 15 thru 2.1 17 1 Table 1.1 18 (2 Sheets) 4 2.1-18 0 Table 1.1 18A ( Added) 4 2.1-18 A thru 2.1 18B ( Added) 1 Table 1.1 19 4 2.1-19 1 Table 1.120 (8 Sheets) 4 2.120 thru 2.1-22 0 4 2.1 23 3 Table 1.1-20 A (7 Sheets)( Added)
Table 1.121 (3 Sheets) 4 2.1-24 1 Table 1.121 A (3 Sheets) ( Added) 4 2.1-25 thru 2.126 ( Added) 1 Tables 1.122 thru 1.123 4 Table 2.1 1 (3 Sheets) 1
- Table 1.1-24 5 Table 2.1 1 A (Added) 1 Figure 1.1-1 (8 Sheets) 4 Table 2.1-2 (2 Sheets) 1
- Figure 1.1-2 5 Tables 2.13 thru 2.15 0 Figure 1.1 3 4 Tables 2.1-5A thru 2.15(* .Added) 1 Divider,1.2 0 Table 2.1-5D (6 Sheets)( Added) 1 1.1 1 0 Table 2.15E ( Added) 1 Divider,1.3 0 Table 2.16 1 1.3-1 4 Table 2.17 0
- Table 1.3-1 5 Table 2.17A (Added) 1 Table 1.3-2 4 Table 2.18 0 Divider, Chapter 2 0 Table 2.19 1 21 4 Table 2.1-10 (6 Sheets) 0 2-ii 4 Table 2.1 11 (2 Sheets) 0 2 iii 0 Table 2.1 12 (5 Sheets) 0 2-iv 1 Table 2.113 0 2-v 4 Table 2.114 1 2 vi 1 Tables 2.1 14 A thru 2.1-140 ( Added) 1 2-vii 1 Tables 2.115 thru 2.1-18 0 2 viii 4 Table 2.1 19 0 2-ix 4 Table 2.1 19A (3 Sheets)( Added) 1 2-x 3 Table 2.1 19B (3 Sheets) ( Added) 1 Table 2.1-19C ( Added) 1 s A zero in the Revision column indicates original issue.
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
b
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision 4 Table 2.2-65 (8 Sheets) 0 Table 2.1 19D ( Added) 1 Table 2.2-66 thru 2.2-69 0 Table 2.1-19E (Added) 0 Table 2.1-20 thru 2.121 0 Table 2.2 70 (2 Sheets) 1 Tables 2.2 71 thru 2.2-73 0 Table 2.122 0 Table 2.2-74 (10 Sheets) 0 Tables 2.123 thru 2.127 Figure 2.1-1 1 Table 2.2-75 (5 Sheets) 0 3 Tables 2.2-76 thru 2.2-82 0 Figure 2.12 Figures 2.13 thru 2.1-4 1 Figures 2.21 thru 2.2-2 0 2 Figure 2.2 3 (2 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.15 Figures 2.16 thru 2.1-13 0 Figures 2.2-4 thru 2.2 25 0
- Figure 2.1 14 4 Figure 2.2-26 (2 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.1-15 thru 2.116 0 Figure 2.2 27 thru 2.2-60 0 Figure 2.1 17 (3 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.2-61 (2 Sheets) 0 F:gures 2.118 thru 2.1-21 0 Figures 2.2-62 thru 2.2-69 0 Figure 2.1-22 1 Figure 2.2-70 (2 Sheets) 0 0 Figure 2.2-71 (2 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.1-23 Figure 2.1-23A ( Added) 1 Figure 2.2 72 (2 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.124 0 Figure 2.2-73 (2 Sheets) 0 Figure 2.1-25 thru 2.1-27 (Added) 1 Figure 2.2 74 (2 Sheets) 0 Divider, 2.2 0 Figure 2.2-75 (2 Sheets) 0 5 Figure 2.2 76 (2 Sheets) 0
- 2.21 0 Figures 2.2 77 thru 2.2-88 0 2.2-2 thru 2.2 28 4 Divider,2.3 0 2.2-29 2.3-1 3 2.2-30 0 4 2.3 2 3 2.2-30A ( Added) 3 0 2.2-3 thru 2.3-5 2.2-31 4 0 2.3-6 2.2 32 3 1 2.37 Table 2.21 (5 Sheets) 0 1 Tables 2.31 thru 2.3-5 Table 2.2 2 (5 Sheets) 4 0 Table 2.3-6 Tables 2.2 3 thru 2.2-4 3 0 Table 2.3-6A Table 2.2-5 (2 Sheets) 0 0 Table 2.3-7 Table 2.2-6 3 0 Table 2-3-8 Table 2.2 7 (2 Sheets) 3 0 Table 2.3-8A (Added)
Table 2.2-8 (3 Sheets) 3 0 Table 2.3-9 Table 2.2-9 (2 Sheets) 0 Tables 2.2-10 thru 2.2-15 0 Table 2.310 thru 2.313 0 Table 2.314 3 Table 2.216 (2 Sheets) 3 Tables 2.2-17 thru 2.2 21 0 Table 2.314A (7 Sheets) 1 Table 2.2-22 (2 Sheets) 0 Table 2.3-14B (Added) 1 Tables 2.2-23 thru 2.2 25 0 Table 2.3-14C (7 Sheets) ( Added)
Table 2.314D (6 Sheets)( Added) 1 Table 2.2 26 (4 Sheets) 0 0 Tables 2.3-15 thru 2.3-19 0 Tables 2.2 27 thr 2.2 30 4 0 Table 2.3-20 Table 2.2 31 (2 Sheets) 0 0 Table 2.3-21 Tables 2.2-32 thru 2.2-35 3 Table 2.2-36 (4 Sheets) 0 Table 2.3-22 thru 2.3-24 3
Table 2.2 37 thru 2.2 39 0 Table 2.3 25 (8 Sheets) 0 3 Table 2.2 40 (3 Sheets) Table 2.3-26 (8 Sheets) 0 3 Tables 2.2-41 thru 2.2-47 Table 2.3-27 (8 Sheets) 1 Table 2.2-48 1 Table 2.3 27A (8 Sheets)(Added) 1 Table 2.2 49 0 Table 2.3 27B (8 Sheets)( Added) 1 Table 2.2 50 (2 Sheets) 1 Table 2.3 27C (Sheets 1 thru 4)( Added) 2 Tables 2.2-51 thru 2.2-52 1 Table 2.3-27C (Sheet 5) 1 Tables 2.2-53 thru 2.2 54 0 Table 2.3-27C (Sheets 6 thru 8)( Added) 1 Table 2.2-55 (3 Sheets) 0 Table 2.3 27D (8 Sheets)(Added) 0 0 Tables 2.2 56 thru 2.2 63 Tables 2.3-28 thru 2.3 30 1
Table 2.2-64 (5 Sheets) 0 Table 2.3 30A (Added)
A zero in the Revision columr. Indicates original issue.
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
c
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision Table 2.3 31 0 *3 iii 5 Table 2.3-32 (2 Sheets) 3 3-iv thru 3-v 1 Table 2.3-33 (2 Sheets)(Added) 3 3-vi thru 3-vii 0 3 3-viii 5 Table 2.3-34 (2 Sheets)(Added)
Table 2.3-35 (2 Sheets)(Added) 3 3.0-1 0 Table 2.3-36 (2 Sheets)(Added) 3 Divider, 3.1 0 Table 2.3-37 (2 Sheets)(Added) 3 3.1 -1 0 Table 2.3-38 3 Figures 3.1 1 4 Tables 2.3-38A thru 2.3-38B (Added) 3 Figure 3.1-2 0 Table 2.3-39 (Deleted) 3 Divider, 3.2 0 Figures 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 3 3.21 thru 3.2-2 0 Figures 2.3-4 thru 2.3-12 (Added) 1 Figures 3.21 thru 3.2-2 0 Figures 2.3-13 thru 2.o-14 3 Divider, 3.3 0 Figures 2.3-15 thru 2.3-21 (Added) 1 3.3-1 4 Divider, 2.4 0
- Table 3.3-1 5 2.41 thru 2.4 2 1
- Figure 3.3-1 5 2.4-2A thru 2.4-2B (Added) 1 Divider, 3.4 0 2.4 3 thru 2.4-4 1 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 3 1 '3.4-5 5 2.4-4 A ( Added) 2.4-5 thru 2.4-8 1 Figures 3.4-1 thru 3.4-3 3 2.4-9 thru 2.4-13 0 Figure 3.4-4 3 1 Figure 3.4-5 0 2.4-14 ( Added)
Table 2.4-1 0 Figure 3.4-6 3 Table 2.4-2 (3 Sheets) 0 Figure 3.4-7 (2 Sheets) 3 Tables 2.4-3 thru 2.4-6 0 Figure 3.4-8 0 Table 2.4-7 (4 Sheets) 1 Divider, 3.5 0 Tables 2.4 8 thru 2.4-9 0 3.5-1 0 Figures 2.4-1 thru 2.4-11 0 3.5-2 1 Figures 2.4-11 A ( Added) 1 3.5-3 thru 3.5-5 0 Figure 2.411B (4 Sheets) ( Added) 1 3.5-6 thru 3.5-7 1 Figures 2.4-11C thru 2.411D (Added) 1 3.5-8 thru 3.5-11 0 Figures 2.4-12 thrt 2.4-15 0 Tables 3.5-1 thru 3.5-4 0 Figure 2.416 (3 Sheets) 0 Tables 3.5-5 1 Table 3.5-6 thru 3.5-7 0 Table 3.5-8 (2 Sheets) 0 Volume 2 Table 3.5-9 thru 3.5-12 0 Table 3.5-13 (2 Sheets) 1 Title Page 5 Table 3.5-14 (2 Sheets) 1 Divider, 2.5 0 Table 3.5-15 (2 Sheets) 1 2.5 1 0 Table 3.5-16 thru 3.5 20 0 Figures 2.51 thru 2.5-3 0 Figures 3.5-1 thru 3.5-2 0 Divider, 2.6 0 Figure 3.5-3 1 2.6-1 thru 2.6-7 0 Figure 3.5 4 (3 Sheets) 0 Figure 2-61 0 Figure 3.5-5 0 Divider, 2.7 0 Figure 3.5-6 (3 Sheets) 0 2.7-1 thru 2.7-2 0 Figure 3.5-7 thru 3.5-8 0 Tables 2.7-1 thru 2.7-2 0 Figure 3.5-9 (2 Sheets) 0 Figures 2.71 thru 2.7-3 0 Figure 3.5-10 1 Divider, 2.8 0 Figure 3.5-11 0 2.81 thru 2.8-3 0 Divider,3.6 0 Tables 2.8-1 thru 2.8-9 0 3.6-1 -3. 6-2 3 Figures 2.81 thru 2.8-4 0 3.6-3 0 Divider, Chapter 3 0 Table 3.6-1 0 3-i 4 Divider, 3.7 0 3 il 0 3.71 thru 3.7-2 0
- A zero in the Revision column indicates original issue.
0
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
d
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision Divider, 3.8 0 Divider, 4.5 0 0 4.5-1 0 3.8-1 0
- 4.5 2 thr's 4.5 4 5 Table 3.81 Divider, 3.9 0
- Figure 4.51 (Added) thru 4.5-2 (Added) 5 3.91 thru 3.9-2 0 Divider, Chapter 5 0 1 5-i 3 3.9-2A ( Added) 3.9-3 thru 3.9-17 0 5-il 0 5-iii 3 3.e 18 1 1 5-iv 0 3.9-18 A ( Added) 5 1
- 3-9-19 thru 3.9-19A ( Added) 5-v ( Added) 3.9-20 thru 3.9 22 0 5.0-1 0 3.9-23 3 Divider, 5.1 0 0 '5.1 1 thru 5.12 5 3.9 24 5.1-3 thru 5.1-5 3 3 ')-25 1 0 *5.1-6 thru 5.17 (Added) 5 Table 3.91 (6 Sheets) 0 Table 5.1 1 (4 Sheets)( Added) 1 Table 3.9 2 (3 Sheets) 0 Figure 5.1-1 0 Table 3.9-3 (3 Sheets)
Table 3.9-4 0 Divider,5.2 0 0 5.2 1 1 Table 3.9 5 (4 Sheets) 0 5.2-2 3 Table 3.9 F (4 Sheets)
Table 3.9 ' (4 Sheets) 0 5.2-3 1 0 5.2-4 3 Table 3.9 8 (3 Sheets)
O t..*l-5 thru 5.2 6 1 Table 3.9-9 (3 Sheets)
Figures 3.9-1 thru 3.9-16 0 Table 5.2-1 3 Figure 3.917 (4 Sheets) 0 Tables 5.2-1 A thru 5.2-1C 3 Figures 3.918 thru 3.9-28 0 Table 5.2 ID thru 5.2-1(Added) 3
- Figure 3.9 29 ( Added) 5 Tables 5.2 2 thru 6.2-5 1 0 Table 5.2-5 A ( Added) 1 Divider, Chapter 4 5 Tables 5.2-6 thru 5.2-8 1
+4 i thru 4 il Table 5.2-8 A ( Added) 1 4-iii 4 5 Tables 5.2-9 thru 5.2-10 1 4 iv 0 Tables 5.2-10A thru 5.2-10C ( Added) 1 4.0-1 Divider, 4.1 0 Tables 5.2-11 thru 5.215 1
'4.1-1 thru 4.1-1 A 5 Tables 5.2-16 thru 5.2 20 (Added) 1 4.1-2 thru 4.13 3 Figures 5.21 thru 5.2-2 0 4.1-4 0 Divider,5.3 0
'4.1-5 thru 4.1-6 5 5.3-1 1 4.1-7 thru 4.18 3 Divider,5.4 0 4 5.4-1 0 Table 4.1-1 4 Divider, 5.5 0 Table 4.12 0 5.5-1 thru 5.5-2 0 Tables 4.13 thru 4.15 Figure 4.1 1 3 Divider,5.6 0 Figure 4.12 0 5.6-1 thru 5.6-3 0 Figure 4.13 (Deleted) 3 Tables 5.6-1 thru 5.6-4 0 Figures 4.1-3A thru 4.1-3B ( Added) 2 Figures 5.6-1 thru 5.6-2 0 Figure 4.1-4 0 Divider, 5.7 0 Divider, 4.2 0 5.71 0 0 Divider, 5.8 0 4.2-1 3 5.81 thru 5.8-2 0 4.2-2 4.2 3 0 Table 5.81 0 Divider, 4.3 0 Divider, Chapter 6 0 0 6-1 4 4.3-1 Divider, 4.4 0 6-ii thru 6-iii 0 0 6-iv 3 4.41 thru 4.4-2 0 6.01 0 Tables 4.41 thru 4.4 3
- A zero in the Revision column indicates original issue.
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
e
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision 0 8 ii 4 Divider, 6.1 6.1 1 thru 6.12 1 8 iii 0 8.0 1 0 6.12A thru 6.12B ( Added) 1 6.1-3 thru 6.14 1 Divider, 8.1 0 0 8.1 1 4 6.1-5 thru 6.1 15 3 8.1-2 3 6.116 6.1 16 A 4 8.1-3 thru 8.1-6 1 6.116B 4 8.1-7 (De'eted) 0 6.1 17 4 Tables 8.1-1 thru 8.1 10 0 4
- Tables 8.1-11 5 6.1 18 4 ' Table 8.1-11 A 4 6.1 18 A 6.1 18B thru 6.1 18D 4 Tables 8.112 thru 8.112A 4 6.1 18 F 1 Tables 8.1-13 thru 8.115 0 6.1 18F 4 Figure 8.1 1 0 6.1-18G thru 6.118K 4 Divider, 8.2 0 4 8.2-1 4 6.1-19 6.120 thru 6.128 0 8.2 2 1 3 8.2 3 2 6.1 29 6.130 thru 6.131 1 8.2 4 1 6.1 32 4 8.2-5 thru 8.2 6 0 0 8.2 7 4 Tables 6.1 1 thru 6.14 0 8.2-8 4 Table 6.1-5 (2 Sheets)
Tables 6.16 thru 6.1 11 0 8.2 9 1 1 Tables 8.21 thru 8.2-5 0 Table 6.1 12 (4 Sheets)
Table 6.1 13 0 Table 8.2-6 1 Figure 6.1 1 0 Tables 8.2-7 thru 8.2-10 0 Figures 6.1 1 A thru 6.1 1B ( Added) 1 Table 8.211 1 Figures 6.12 thru 6.1-3 0 Table 8.212 0 Figure 6.1-1 1 Figures 8.21 thru 8.2 3 0 Figures 6.1-4A thru 6.14B 3 Figures 6.1-5 thru 6.110 0 Divider, 6.2 0 Volume 3 6.21 thru 6.2 2 0 0 Title Page 5 Table 6.21 Divider, 6.3 0 Divider, Chapter 9 0 0 *0-i thru 9 il 5 6.3 1 Divider, 6.4 0 9 lii 4 6.4 1 0 9.01 0 Divider, Chapter 7 0 Divider, 9.1 0 71thru 7 li 3 9.11 0 0 9.1-2 2 7.01 Divider,71 0 Divider,9.2 0 0 9.21 thru 9.2 2 0 7.1 1 7.1 2 3 9.2-3 3 7.1 3 0 9.2-4 thru 9.2-8 0 3 9.2 9 2 7.14 thru 7.15 0 *9.2 10 5 7.1-6 7.17 thru 7.112 3 9.2 11 0 3 *9.212 thru 9.2-20C 5 Tables 7.1-1 thru 7.1 1B Tables 7.1 2 3
- Tables 0.21 (Added) thru 9.2 2 (Added) 5 Tables 7.13 thru 7.17 0 Figures 9.21 thru 9.2-5 0 Divider,7.2 0 Figure 0.2-6 4 0 Figures 9 2-7 thru 9.219 0 7.21 thru 7.2 3 Divider, Chapter 8 0 Figures 0.219A thru 9.2-19B 4 8i 4 Figures 3.2 20 thru 9.2-23 (4 Sheets)( Added) 4
- A zero in the Itevision column indicates original issue.
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
f
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision Divider,9.3 0 Divider,10.7 0 9.31 0 10.7-1 0
- Table 9.31 5 Divider,10.8 0 Figure 9.3-1 0 10.8-1 0 Divider, Chapter 10 0 Divider,10.9 0 10 i- 10-ii i 10.9-1 0 10-iii 2 Divider,10.10 0
- 10 iv 5 10.101 thru 10.10-3 3 10-v 4 Figures 10.101 thru 10.10-3 2 10 vi 3 Figure 10.10-4 (Deleted) 3 10.0 1 2 Divider, Chapter 11 0 10.0-2 thru 10.0 3 0 11-i thru 11-ii 4 Divider,10.1 0 11.0-1 4 10.1 1 3 Divider,11.1 0 10.1 2 4 11.1 1 thru 11.1-2 0 10.1-2A ( Added) 4 Divider,11.2 0 3 11.2-1 0 10.1-3 thru 10.1-5 .
4 11.2-2 4 10.1-6 3 11.2-3 0 10.1-7 thru 10.1 13 4 Divider,11.3 0 10.1-14 3 11.3 1 4 10.1-15 thru 10.1-17 4 Table 11.3-1 (2 Sheets) 4 10.1-18 1-26 3 Divider,11.4 0 10.1-19 thr 4 11.4 1 4 Table 10.11 s ..eets 1/2 of 6) 4 Table 10.1-1 (sheets 3/6 of 6) 3 11.4-2 3 Table 11.41 (5 Sheets) 4 Table 10.1-2 0 Table 11.4-2 4 Table 10.1-3 Figures 10.11 thru 10.1-4 3 Divider,11.5 0 Figures 10.1-5 thru 10.1-22 0 11.5 1 0 Divider,10.2 0 Divider, Chapter 12 0 3 12-1 0 10.21 thru 10.2-2 3 12-il 4 10.2 3 4 Divider,12.1 0 10.2-4 thru 10.2-5 2 *12.1-1 5 10.2 6 4
- Table 12.1-1 5 Table 10.2-1 (Sheets 1 of 6) 3
- Table 12.1-2 (1 of 3 Sheets) 5 Table 10.2-1 (Sheets 2/6 of 6)
Table 10.2 2 4 Table 12.1-2 (2 of 3 Sheets) 0 4 Divider,12.2 0 Table 10.2 3 3 *12.2-1 5 Figures 10.21 Figure 10.2-2 0 Divider, Appendices 0
- i thru ii ( Added) 5 Figure 10.2-3 3 Divider,10.3 0 Divider, A 0 3 Exhibit 1.14.1 (22 Unnumbered Pages) 0 10.31 thru 10.3-2 4 Exhibit 1.1.4.2 (8 Unnumbered Prges) 0 Table 10.31 Figure 10.31 thru 10.3 2 3 Exhibit 1.1.4.3 Title Page 4 Divider,10 4 0 Exhibit 1.1.4.3 Letter 4 10.4 1 0 Exhibit 1.1.4.3 (Pages 1 & 2) 4 2 Exhibit 1.i.* ~1(12 Unnumbered Pages) 2 10.4 2 10.4 3 0 (Deleted) 2 Exhibit 1.1.4.4 (Title Page) 0 Table '.0.41 Figure 10.4-1 0 Exhibit 1.1.4.4 (Pages 1 thru 6) 0 Divider,10.5 0 Divider, B 0 3 B.1-1 thru B.1-21 0 10.51 thru 10.5 3 2 Tables B.1-1 thru B.1 10 0 Table 13.5-1 bi<i<ie ,10.6 0 Figures B.11 thru B.1-13 0 10.61 thru 10.6-3 ')
s A sero in the Revision column indicates original issue.
'An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
g
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Page Number # Revision Page Number # Revision O
B.21 thru F F19 0 C.316 thru C.3-17 2 B.3-i 1 Divider, D 0 B.3-ii 3 D.1 thru D.2 0 B.3-1 thru B.3-41 1 *D.3 thru D.3-37 (Added) 5 B.3-41 A thru B.3-41 AAD 3 Divider, E O B.3-42 thru B.3-81 1 E.1-1 (Was E.1) 2 B.3-81 A thru B.3-81 AAD 3 E.1-2 (Added) 2 B.3 82 thru B.3-121 1 E.3-i ( Added) 1 B.3-122 thru B.3-177 3 E.3-1 thru E.3-3 (Added) 1 B.4-i thru B.4 ii(Added) 1 Divider, F (Added) 1 B.4-1 thru B.4-214 ( Added) 1 F-i (Added) 1 F-iii 2 F-iv thru F x 5 Volume 4 F.0-1 5 F.0-2 thru F 0-9 5 Title Page 5 Divider F.1 (Added) 1 Divider, C 0 F.1-1 2 3 F.1-2 (Added) 1 C.1 3 F.1-3 2 C.1-i thru C.1-v 3 F.1-4 ( Added) 1 i.1-1 thru C.1 160 4 F.15 thru F.1-6 2 C.1 A ( Added) 5 F.1-7 thru F.1-8 (AdJed) 1
- C.1 A iii( Added) 4 F.1 9 2 C.1A-iv thru C.1 A-v (Added)
C.1 A-1 thru C.1 A 16 ( Added) 4 F.1-10 thru F.113 (Added) 1 5 F.1-14 thru F.1-15 2
- C.1 A-17 ( Added) 4 F.1-16 ( Added) 1 C.1 A IS thru C.1 A-31(Added) 5 F.1-17 2
- C.1 A 32 thru C.1 A-34 (Added) 4 F.1-18 4 C.1 A-35 (Added)
- C.1 A-36 thru C.1 A-42 (Added) 5 *F.1-18A thru F.1-18Q (Added) 5 4 F.1-19 thru F.1-22 2 C.1 A-43 ( Added) 5 F.1-23 thru F.1-26 (Added) 1
- C.1 A-44 thru C.1 A 46 (Added)
C.1 A 47 thru C.1 A 48 (Added) 4 *F.1-26A thru F.1-26T ( Added) 5
- C.1 A-49 thru C.1 A-53 (Added) 5 F.1-27 thru F.130 (Added) 1 4 *F.131 thru F.1-34 (Added) 5 C.1 A-54 (Added)
- C.1 A-55 (Added) 5 Divider, F.2 ( Added) 1 C.1 A 56 thru C.1 A-59 (Added) 4 F.2-1 thru F.2-l'.e 1
- C.1 A-60 ( Added) 5 F.2-20, F.2-20A, F.2-20B 3 C.1 A-61 thru C.1 A-65 ( Added) 4 F.2-21 thru F.2-26 1 5 F.2 26A-26B 3
- C.1 A-66 thro C.1 A-69 (Added) 4 F.2 27 2 C.1 A 70 thru C.1 A-76 ( Added)
- C.1 A 77 (Added) 5 F.2-28 thru F.2-30 (Added) 1 C.1 A-78 thru C.1 A-83 ( Added) 4
- F.2-31 5 F.2-32 t' ru F.2-34 (Added) 1 C.2 i thru C.2 ii(Added) 1 C.21 thru C.2-10 (Added) 1 F.2-34 A ( Added) 2 Figures C.2-1 thru C.2-4 ( Added) 1 F.2-35 2 Figure C.2-5 (3 Sheets) ( Added) 1 F.2-36 thru F.2-43 (Added) 1 Figure C.2-6 (3 Sheets) ( Added) 1 F.2-43 A - 43P 3 Figure C.2-7 (2 Sheets) ( Added) 1 F.2-4 4 1 Figure C.2 8 thru C.211 (Added) 1 F.2 F.2-74 3 C.3 i 2 F.2-75 -- F.2-78 1 C.3-ii ( Added) 1 F.2-79 1 1 F.2-80 thru F.2-95B 3 C.3-1 ( Add ed)
C.3-2 2 F.2 96 1 C.3-3 thru C.3-6 (Added) 1 F.2-97 thru F.2-98 1 C.3-7 2 C.3-8 thru C.315 (Add d) 1
- A zero in the Revision column indicates original issue.
- An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
h
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (cont)
Paga Number # Revision Page Number # Revision F.2 P .2-100 3 Volume 5 F.2-101 - F.2102 1 Title Page F.2103 - F.2108B 3 5 F.2-109, F.2-135 1 Divider, F.9 ( Added) 1 Figure 301.32-1 F.9-1 4 3
Divider, F.3 ( Added) 1 F.9-1 A thru F.9-1B ( Added) 4 5
F.9-2 1
- F.3-1 thru F.31B (Added)
F.3-2 2 F.is-2A thru F.9-2B (Added) 2
- F.9-3 5 F.3-2A thru F.3 2B (Added) 2 F.3-3 2 *F.9-153 ( Added) 5 F.3-4 thru F.3-15 (Added) 1 Divider, F.10 ( Added) 1 F.3-16 2 F.10-1 4 F.3-16 A 3 *F.10-1 A thru F.10-2 5
- F.3-1 SB 5 F.10 3 4 F.317 thru F.3 20 ( Added) 1 Divider, F.11 ( Added) 1 Divider, F.4 (Added) 1 F.11-1 ( Added) 1 F.4-1 thru F.4-1E 4 Divider, F.12 ( Added) 1 F.4 2 1 F.121 ( Added) 1 F.4 3 - F.4-10 1 Divider, F.A 3 Figure 301.641 4
- F. A-1 5 Divider, F.5 ( Added) 1 Divider, G ( Added) 1 F.5-1 thru F.5-1 A ( Added) 4 Cover thru G-ix (5 Sheets) 4 F.5-2 (2 Sheels) Divider, G-1 1 3
F.5 F.5-3B ( Added) 3 G.1-1 4 F.5-3C - F.5-3D (2 Sheets) Divider, G 2 1 4
F.5-4 3 G.2-1 thru G.2-8 4 F.5-4 A ( Added) , Table G.2.0-1 thru G.2.0 2 4 F.5-5 thru F.5-6 (Added) [ Table G.2.1-1 thru G.2.1-6 Table G.2.3-1 thru G.2.3 3 4
4 Figure 301.66-1 thru 301.66-3 (Added) 3 Divider, F.6 ( Added) g Figure G.2.0-1 4 F.6-1 thru F.6-8 (Added) Divider, G.3 1 1
F.6-9 thru F.6-10 G.3-1 4 2
F.6-11 ( Added) 1 Table G.3.0-1 4 F.6-12 Divider, G.4 1 2
F.612A thru F.6-12B (Added) 2 G.4-1 thru G.4110 4 F.6-13 thru F.6-15 o Table G.4.1-1 4 Divider, F.7 ( Added) [
- Table G.4.2-1 Figure G.4.1-1 thru G.4.2-59 5
4 F.7-1 ( Added J 1 Divider, F.8 ( Added) 1 Divider, G.5 1 F.8-1 thru F.8-3 ( Added) 1 G.5-1 thru G.5-3 4 F.8-4 2 Divid er, G.6 1 F.8 4 A thru F.8-4C (Added) 2 G.6-1 thru G.6-15 4 F.8-5 tbru F.8-9 ( Added) 1 Divider, II 4 F.8-10 2 Cover 11 thru II.1-28 (Added) 4 2 Photo #1 thru Photo #5 ( Added) 4 F.810 A thru F.8-10B ( Added)
F.8-11 thru F.8-16 (Added) 1 Divider, I 4 F.8-17 thru F.8-20 2 Cover I thru I.1-26 (Added) 4 F.8-20A thru F.8-20J ( Added1 2 Figure I.1 1 thru I.14 ( Added) 4 F.8-21 ( Added) 1
- A zero in the Revision colurnn indicates original issue.
' An asterisk preceding a Page Number entry indicates an entry effected by the latest revision.
i
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 INTRODUCTidh This Environmental Report Constitutes one portion of an application to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) for a Class 103 (utilization facility) construction permit and operating license for a two-unit nuclear power plant. Its purpose is to supply to the NRC certain information the NRC requires in order to discharge its obligation under National Environmental Pclicy Act of 1969 (Pub. Law 91-190,83 Stat. 852). This report is organized in the manner set forth in the NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.2. Revision 1, dated January,1975. The table of contents which follows this Introduction presents an overview of the report. A summary cost / benefit analysis is presented in Chapter 11. I*
Docket Nos. STN. 50-568 and STN. 50-569 have been assigned to this application by the NRC. The other material l3 separately tendered as part of this application includes:
- 1. General and financial information about Applicant (s).
- 2. Information requested by the Attorney General for antitrust review. l'
- 3. A preliminary safety analysis report.
Applicants As described more fully in the " general information" portion of the application, the nuclear units to which the applica-tion relates will be jointly owned by a number of New England utilities, and are being planned as part of a regional construction program for generation facilities. In keeping with the practices of the New England Power Pool, all mainland New England electric utilities were offered an opportunity to participate in the units, and all those respond-ing affirmatively have been granted the ownership interest requested. All participants have executed or will execute a " Joint Ownership Agreement, NEPCo Nuclear Units" which specifically delegates to New England Power Com-pany, the majority or " lead" owner, the sole authority for determining design, construction, operation and mainte-nance of the units. At the time of preparation of this application, New England Power Company (NEP) owned in excess cf 80% of the two units. Unless the context indicates otherwise, the word " Applicant" in this repe* b intended to refer to NEP, acting as agent for the owners of the units.
NEP is a subsidiary of New England Electric System (NEES). NEES is a public utility holding company regulated by the S.E.C. pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act. NEES is tne parent of not only NEP, but also of three operating retail electric utilities serving approximately 1 million customers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. NEP is the wholesale supplier of substantially all the electric energy requirements of the aforemen-tioned three retail electric utilities.
The Site In 1973 the United States Navy discontinued operation of its Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) in Charles-town. R.I. This facuity was built in the early 1940's and served as an auxiliary landing field for the Quonset Point Naval Air Base. The Charlestown site appeared to be an ideallocation for a nuclear power station. A program of detailed studies was drawn up and begun in tarly 1974, to see if this initial assessment ws.s correct and to provide sup-porting evidence for future permit applications.
In accordance with law, supervision of the disposition of the landing field is the responsibility of the administrator of the United States uneral Services Administration (GSA). NEP and its Rhode Island affiliate, The Narragansett l5 Electric Company, has undertaken to obtain the property. However, determination of the disposition of the property has not been made by the GSA which, as a result of litigation, is preparing an evironmental impact statement in con- l3 nection therewith. I Rtions 3.9,4.2,5.5 and 10.9 of this Environmental Report deal with off-site transmission lines needed in connetion with NEP. NEP believes this material falls outside the regulatory authority of the Ndear Regulatory Commission and supports the position taken by Detroit Edison Company, Inc. et al,in their petition for review of the NRC's c enial 5 of their petition for rule making filed with NRC on September 15,1975. However, NEP submits this material ou off-site transmission in order to enable the NRC to carry out the mandate of the National Environmental Policy A t by considering the effects of said transmission lines in order to acquaint other governmental bodies which de have regulatory jurisdiction with respect thereto with information to assist them in carrying out their functions 0-i
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 1.1 NEED FOR POWER Bulk power system planning for the New England area is coordinated through the New England Power Pool, com-mmdy referred to as NEPOOL. The New Englaml Power Company (NEP) is a participant in NEPOOL, as is vir-tually every other electric utility serving mainland New England. As stated in the NEPOOL Agreement.
~
"The objectices of NEPOOL are, through joint planning, central dispatch, cooperation in environonental nmtters and coonlinated construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation and transmis-sion facilities mened or controlled by the participants and through the provision of a means for more effective coordination ocith other porrer pools and utilities situated in the United States and Canada:
- 1. To assare that the bulk pmrer supply of Near England and any adioining areas served by the par-ticipants c<mforms to proper standards of reliability; and,
- 2. To attain unt.rimam practicable economy, consistent orith such proper standards of reliability. in sm h balk pmrer supply and to providefor criaitable sharing of the resulting bemfits and costs."
To implement its objectives, NEPOOL has formed various committees and working groups which are involved in
<pecific aspects of regional cooperation. Bulk power j'lanning studies are the responsibility of the NEPOOL Planning Committee. under the direction of ~ he 51anagement Committee of the pool organization. The Planning Committee is composed of representatives of the me nber utilities and is supported by NEPLAN, a full-time professional staff, and by task forces made up of planning engineers from the NEPOOL participants.
The in%dlation of generating units in New England is coordinated to meet pool-wide power requirements, but the owne rship of generating units is necessarily vested in the individual utilities. However, to obtain economies of scale, large size umts are increasingly owned jointly by a number of pool members or are shared through purchase and sales agreements for the capacity and output of the individual units. These joint ownership arrangements allow the smaller utilities to obtain the economies inherent in large units, while at th i same time, all utilities spread economic risk over several units. The proposed facility is shared in this manner. ND' & 2 are part of the coordinated effort by the par-ticipants in the pool to provide an adequate and reliable bulk power system to meet the electric needs of New England.
The studies of the facility, conducted by the New England Power Company, have adhered to NEPOOL guidelines for providing adeouate generating capacity in New England at the lowest overall cost. In addition, the planning for the units has been reviewed by the Planning and Executive Committees of NEPOOL and, as a consequence thereof, these units wera officially designated as " Pool-Planned Units" by the NEPOOL Executive Committee on Slay 30,1975.
1.1.1 Load Characteristics As noted in the introduction to this report, New England Power Company (NEP) is the wholesale supplier of power for the other subsidiaries of the-New England Electric System and 6es not serve ultimate consumers directly, with minor exceptions. Because load characteristics are analyzed in terms of the patterns of consumption by ultimate users, Sections 1.1.1.1 Load Analysis and 1.1.1.2 Demand Projections have been written in terms of the aggregate load of the retail subsidiaries of the New England Electric System. Where distinctions between NEP and other subsidi-aries of the New England Electric System are pertinent, they have been explicitly noted.
1.1.1.1 Load Analysis.
4 Applicant's System. Table 1.1-1 provides historical annual peak demand and energy requirement data for Appli-
. ant's system for the period 1965-1977, and projected future annual peak demands and energy requirements for the period 1978-1990.
Tables 1.1-2 and 1.1-3 provide comparisons of actual vs. forecast monthly peak demand and energy requirements from i October,1972 through December 1977.
N E PO O L. Tables 1.1-.1,1.1-5 and 1.1-6 provide data for the New Englard Power Pool similar to that supplied in the previoas paragraph, Applicant's System.
1.1 .
N E P 1 & 2 ER 1.1.1.2 Demand Projections.
The Regional Forecast.
- a. Present Methodology. Applicant participates in regional planning through its representation on various New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) committees and task forces, one of which is the Load Forecasting Task Force (LFTF) of the NEPOOL Planning Committee. The LFTF is composed of representatives from the major utilities in New England plus the forecaster from NEPLAN, the full-time planning staff of NEPOOL.
The LFTF is charged with developing forecasts of electric load for NEPOOL for regional capacity planning purposes.
The NEPOOL forecast is currently developed in three parts: The first consists of summation of the forecasts of summer and winter peak loads prepared by the individual Pool-member companies for their individual service territories. Historically-derived diversity factors for total-New England are then applied to the sum-of-the-company peak projections. Finally, estimated S15 KV transmission system losses for New England are added producing a projection of total-New England < , incident peak-load. A projection of annual net-energy require-ments is also developed for New England from summation of individual company projections. Projections developed in this manner inherently reflect the expectations of the individual company forecasters for their syst"ms based on their analyses of those factors held to be significant for their particular areas. The familiarity of the individual forecasters with their territories gives substantial benefit to assembling a regional force:'st from system forecasts.
Secondly, independent projections of New England summer and winter peak loads are made by the NEPLAN forecasting staff. The development of the peak load projection begins with the analysis of the following histori-cal data:
- 1. Hour-by-hour load for total New England, dating from 1962.
- 2. A weather data file that represents the major load centers in New England. This file dates from 1953.
By the use of statistical analysis techniques, the magnitudes and growth rates of historical weather-sensitive and non-weather-sensitive loads in New England are determined. Presently, dry-bulb temperature is used as the explanatory variable for the variation of load in response to weather for the winter period, while a variable factoring-in-heat-buildup over several days and the heat-content of air (humidity sensitive) is used for the sum-mer period. Both the non-weather-sensitive component and the long-term weather data are further analyzed for deviation patterns. Next. projections of New England summer and winter peak loads are produced based upon separate statistical extrapolations of the weather-sensitive and non-weather-sensitive load components.
A projection of net energy requirements for total New England is then developed from the application of pro-jected annual load-factors to the above projection of peak loads. The projection of annual load-factors is based upon analysis of historical daily load shapes, seasonal peak-load relationships, and of the above-mentioned weather-sensitive and non-weather-sensitive load components.
The final step of the current forecasting process involves a review by the LFTP of the two sets of preliminary load projections, that developed from summation of the individual company forecasts and that developed at the total-New England level. The LFTP also reviews those major demographic and economic factors expected to influence electric consumption in New England during the forecast period. Based upon these reviews the LFTP develops the final forecast.
Itecause it is believed that individual company forecasters are in the best position to assess and interpret the many factors affecting load growth in New England during this time of great uncertainty, the load forecast for total New England presented in this application is the summation of individual company forecasts with diversity recognized and 315 KV transmission system losses added.
- b. Current Forecast. The current forecast of power needs for the New England area is presented in Table 1.1-7. The forecasted power requirements shown are net energy for load and the coincident summer and winter peak loads for the total New England area. These values exclude self-generation by end-users of electricity.
9 1.1-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 New England. A statistical analysis of the net hourly loads in New England over a five-year period is used to deter-mine peak load variation (i.e., the calculated normal probability distribution of the weekday peak loads in each of the 13 periods),
The capacity model takes account of the characteristics of the existing units, authorized units (i.e., approved by the Company Board of Directors and NEPOOL), planned units (i.e., facilities which have been publicly announced), and the unit additions under study (i.e., facilities in the early planning stages).
The mature equivalent forced outage rates, which are presently being used in New England planning, are listed in Part 1 of Table 1.1-22. They are based on actual industrial data obtained from the Edison Electric Institute and from New England 2xperience. Most new units have a " breaking-in" or immature period wL.;e the equivalent forced out-age rates can te expected to be higher than the mature operation rate. Therefore, appropriate equivalent forced out-age r,te multipliers have been developed for the first 5 years of operation of the new units and are tabulated in Part 11 of Table 1.1-22.
Maintenance input to the model includes a planned maintenance cycle for each type of generating unit. Table 1.1-23 contains a tabulation of the maintenance cycles currently being sed. However, the Planning Committee,in conjune-tion with the Operations Committee, is reviewing the planning assumptions for scheduled maintenance, and it is anti-cipated that the information in Table 1.1-23 may change to reflect experience with maintenance overruns. This infor-mation will be made available upon completion of the review.
The availability (A) of any unit can be computed b substituting the appropriate mature equivalent forced outage rate (EFOR) and immature multiplier (C) from Tal a 1.1-22 and the number of weeks of annual planned maintenance (M) from Table 1.1-23 into the following equation:
A = [1 -(C)(EFOR)] 1-4 The New England Power Company's and the New England utilities' capability positions for the years 1986 th eh 1988. basni on the current forecasts, are tabukted in Table 1.1-24. As previously noted in Section 1.1.2, the work w date indicates a need for a NEPOOL objective reserve in the range of 23% over the winter peak load for the period l 2.4 1986 through 1988. For the purpose of creating Table 1.1-24,23% objective reserve was assumed for New England I 3 and 21% for NEP. I d
To this point, the discussion of the New England Power Company and NEPOOL generation planning has been based on what,in our judgment, is the most reasonable load forecast. As noted in Section 1.1.1.2, the New England Power Company, due to tremendous uncertainties introduced since the 1973 energy crisis, has chosen to adopt a " bandwidth" approach to planning; i.e., to consider the impact on capacity planning of a range of possible rates ofload growth. The range which NEP considers to be reasonable for planning purposes has a maximum overall rate of 8.1% per year load growth and a minimum overall rate of 3.4% per year load growth, starting with actual 1974-1975 winter peak loads and extending through the 1993-199 8 winter peak. This range is also applied to the total New England load. The NEP "best estimate" for planning purposes has an overall rate of 5.2% per year load growth starting with actual 1971-75 winter peak loads and extending through the 1993-1994 winter peak.
Figure 1.1-2 is a graphic display of " bandwidth" planning under several load growth scenarios. The present NEP commitments fit its "best estimate" planning projection and, except for the years 1984,1985, and 1987, can meet 2A those requirements through 1959. For 1984,1985, and 1987 NEP can buy capacity from other New England utilities (See Figure 1.'-3). If NEP realizes a high load growth,it would require substantial added capacity with short lead- 4 time charaOristics, like gas turbines, regenerative gas turbines, or combined-cycle units, in the 1980's and another major base :oad addition in 1987. The possibility of a low load growth has also been censidered. If NEP experiences this load growth, it is reasonable to assume that New England would also be experiencing a similar depressed growth and that many of the presently scheduled units would be deferred for up to three years. Under these circumstances, NEP would be able to meet its responsibilities and would require no new construction until 1989. The addition of NEP f#
1 & 2 in 1989 and 1991 would provide adequate capacity into the 1990's. The benefits of being in excess of capacity l4 requirements, when that excess is nuclear capacity, and the exposure,if short of requirements, will be discussed later l in this sectitn.
Figure 1.1-3 demonstrates the New England plan subject to the same load growth range.The current load projection reflected in the January 1,1978 Load and Capacity Report is what New E.., land's pool authorized capacity is l2.4 designed to support. This NEPOOL authorized capabihty will meet New England's requirements until 1987. This exhibit clearly shows that the New England utilities
- present plans are well below what wouhl be needed to supply he 1.1-11
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER high load growth from the actual 1974-1975 peak. If such a load growth develops, substantial amounts of short lead-time capacity, such as gas turbines, will have to be installed, in addition to presently authorized additions, in order to meet reliability standards. If New England experiences the low load growth, on the other hand, Figure 1.1-3 shows that the presently authorized NEPOOL units, maintained on their present schedule, would cause significant capacity excesses. The option to defer, if circumstances warrant, exists, however, and the three-year delay expansion plan shown on Figure 1.1-3 is a likely development if the low load growth materializes.
Planning decisions must be based upon the current forecast, recognizing various exposures if the forecast proves to be in error in either direction.
The exhihits have shown that both New England and NEP are planning to meet their respective current forecasts with litle or no excess through the late 1980's. This approach is sound, in light of the uncertain load growth, for the following reasons:
- 1. It takes a minimum of eight years to build a nuclear unit and substantially lenger when licensing time is included. Units can be deferred, but their schedules cannot be accelerated.
- 2. The best way to eliminate New England's near-total dependence on foreign oil is with nuclear power.# Coal is much more expensive in New England and has greater environmental impacts.
- 3. The fuel cost savings a>sociated with nuclear plants provide an economic benefit which justifies their con-struction, even if the capacity is not immediately needed from a reliability standpoint.
4 The last point can be illustrated by comparing actual 1977 power costs from comparable nuclear and fossil units that NEP owns or participates in:
2.3.4 1977 Power Costs (Mills per Kilowatt-Hour)
Nuclear Fossil Difference
- Capital Cost 7.32 5.03 + 2.29 Operating Cost (Fuel and Operation and Maintenance) 6.19 22.12 -15.93 Total 13.51 27.15 -13.64 The foregoing table demonstrates that the operating savings created by the nuclear plants (13.64 mills) offset the entire capital cost of these plants (7.32 mills). Therefore, existence of these plants ie economically advantageous despite the fact that they can be considered surplus today from a capacity standpoint, due to the absence of load growth following the oil embargo.
This advantage is expected to continue in the future. In a recent study performed for NEP by Arthur D. Little (Eco-nomic Comparison of Base-Load Generation Alternatives for New England Electric - dated March,1975), the following fifteen-year levelized power costs were estimated:
1985-2000 Power Costs (Mills per Kilowatt Hour)
Fossil Nuclear (Oil) Difference Ca pital Co.st 26.90 16.29 + 10.61 Operating Cost (Fuel and Operation and Maintenance) 9.32 35.59 -26.27 Total 36.22 51.88 -15.66 Again, the operating cost savings (26.27 mills) offsets the capital cost of the nuclear units (26.90 mills), and the con-strucWn of a substantial amount of new nuclear generation can be justified on the basis of operating cost alone, even if such capacity is not naeded exactly on the scheduled startup date from a reliability standpoint.
1.1-12
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Table 1.1-2 APPLICANT'S SYSTEM MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND (Cont)
Actual (1) Forecast (2)
Year Month MW MW 1976 Jan 3032 2875 Feb 3083 2764 Mar 2788 2600 Apr 2637 2555 May 2447 2424 June 2918 2622 July 2706 2920 Aug 2899 3070 Sept 2520 3023 Oct 2633 2633 Nov 2862 2870 Dec 3155 3070 1977 Jan 3109 3117 Feb 2972 2895 Mar 2701 2717 Apr 2645 2654 May 2684 2602 June 2656 2694 July 3028 2832 Aug 2983 3125 Sept 2803 2797 Oct 2561 2772 Nov 2785 3042 Dec 3178 3290 (1) Actual figures are as reported in FPC Form 12, Schedule 14; (2) Forecast figures are taken from most current forecast appearing in FPC Form 12, Schedule 19.
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 1.1-3 APPLICANT'S SYSTEM MONTHLY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Actual (l) Forecast (2)
Year Month KW Hrs (Millions) KW Hrs (Millions) 1972 Oct 1174 1245 Nov 1271* 1285 Dec 1522** 1457 1973 Jan 1461 1523 Feb 1350 1382 Mar 1373 1447 Apr 1243 1306 May 1237 1274 June 1253 1269 July 1282 1291 Aug 1391 1365 Sept 1238 1316 Oct 1302 1394 Nov 1306 1440 Dec 1321 1636 1974 Jan 1411 1663 Feb 1292 1508 Mar 1349 1572 Apr 1207 1412 May 1213 1381 June 1197 1386 July 1232 1410 Aug 1321 1487 Sept 1216 1427 Oct 1292 1511 Nov 1346 1617 Dec 1431 1832 1975 Jan 1484 1573 Feb 1342 1412 Mar 1403 1505 Apr 1266 1350 May 1230 1327 June 1231 1314 July 1318 1336 Aug 1325 1365 Sept 1213 1352 Oct 1298 1442 Nov 1277 1497 Dec 1523 1635 IIIActual figures are as reported in FPC Form 12, Schedule 14; (2) Forecast figures are taken from most current forecast appearing in FPC Form 12, Schedule 19.
- Subtract 42 for comparison to forecast;
" Subtract 47 for comparison to forecast.
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Table 1.1-3 APPLICANT'S SYSTEM MONTHLY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (Cont)
Actual (l) Forecast (2)
Year Month KW Hrs (Millions) KW Hrs (Millions) 1976 Jan 1618 1481 Feb 1405 1344 Mar 1494 1402 Apr 1295 1260 May 1262 1233 June 1376 1236 July 1317 1259 Aug 1333 1322 Sept 1275 1273 Oct 1384 1349 Nov 1410 1397 Dec 1642 1580 1977 Jan 1688 1636 Feb 1434 1486 Mar 1485 1550 Apr 1279 1393 May 1361 1363 June 1313 1368 July 1306 1391 Aug 1468 1461 Sept 1312 1407 Oct 1330 1491 Nov 1516 1545 Dec 1524 1746 (1) Actual figures as reported in FPC Form 12, Schedule 14; (2)Forecase figures are taken from most current forecast appearing in FPC Form 12, Schedule 19.
Re/ision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 1.1-4 TOTAL NEW ENGLAND ANNUAL PEAK DEMAND AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Energy Requirements Calendar Peak (millions of Year Demand (MW) KW hrs)
Historical (l) 1965 8,155 40,596 1966 8,699 43,196 1967 8,942 47,362 1968 10,045 51,310 1969 10,000 56,699 1970 11,643 62,005 1971 12,135 65,208 1972 13,548 70,587 1973 12,852 76,202 1974 12,891 73,216 4 1975 13,908 73,379 (R) 1976 14,725 77,918 1977 14,846 79,785 Forecast (2) 1978 15,775 83,689 1979 16,516 87,664 1980 17,277 91,869 1981 18,051 96,116 1982 18,845 100,45G 1983 19,674 105,004 1984 20,558 109,748 1985 21,484 114,700 1986 22,443 119,809 1987 23,443 125,150 1988 24,467 130,697 1989 25,544 136,448 1990 26,667 142,451 (1)llistorical figures are from various New England Mad and Capacity Reports, and NPCC Load and Capacity Reports.
(2) Forecast figures through 1988 are from NPCC and Capacity Report dated 4/1/78. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are from direct extrapolation of the published figures.
INIRe vised.
Table 1.1-7 TOTAL NEW ENGLAND NET ENERGY FOR LOAD AND SEASONAL PEAK LOADS (Actual 1971-1975, Forecast 1976-1985)
Net Energy Requirements For Load Summer Peak Load Winter Peak Load Load Factor Based Annual Chg. Annual Chg. Annual Chg. on Winter Peak Year GWil % MW % MW % %
Actual 1971 65,208 10,915 12,135 61.3 1972 70,587 8.2 11,464 5.0 13,548 11.6 59.3(R) 1973 76,202 8.0 13,079 14.1 12,852(R) -5.1 67.7 1974 73,216 -3.9 12,141 -7.2 12,891(R) 0.3 64.8 1975 73,379(R) 0.2(R) 12,822(R) 5.6(R) 13,908 7.9 60.2(R)
- 2. 4 1976 77,918 6.2 13,085 2.1 14,725 5.9 60.2 1977 79,785 2.4 14,234 8.8 14,846 0.8 61.3 g Forecast (1) 1978 83,689 4.9 14,502 1.9 15,775 6.3 60.6 m 87,664 15,184 16,516 4.7 60.6 '
1979 4.7 4.7 1980 91,869 4.8 15,944 5.0 17,277 4.6 60.7 1981 96,116 4.6 16,679 4.6 18,051 4.5 60.8 [
1982 100,456 4.5 17,451 4.6 18,845 4.4 60.9 m 1983 105,004 4.5 18,222 4.4 19,674 4.4 60.9 2 1984 109,748 4.5 19,028 4.4 20,558 4.5 60.9 1985 114,700 4.5 19,854 4.3 21,484 4.5 60.9 1986 119,809 4.5 20,724 4.4 22,443 4.5 60.9 1967 125,150 4.5 21,628 4.4 23,443 4.5 60.9 1988 130,697 4.4 22,540 4.2 24,467 4.4 61.0 1989 135,448 4.4 23,487 4.2 25,544 4.4 61.0 1990 142,451 4.4 24,473 4.2 26,667 4.4 61.0 Compound Average Annual Growth Rate- %
1978 - 1990 4.5 4.5 4.5 (R) = Revised II) Demand forecast figures through 1988 and energy forecast figures thro igh 1988 are from NPCC Ioad & Capacity Report dated April 1,1978.
Forecast figures for 1989 and 1990 are from direct extrapolation of the published figures.
r.
- s Zb
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 1.1-8 APPLICANT'S BANDWIDTH PROJECTIONS (Annual % Change Over Previous Year)
Year Low-Growth High-Growth 1976 0 6 1977 2 9 1978 3 9 1979 4 10 1980 4 10 1981 4 10 1982 4 8 1983 4 8 1984 4 8 1985 4 8 1986 4 8 1987 4 8 1988 4 8 d
1989 4 8 1990 4 8 O
O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Table 1.1-23 PLANNED MAINTENANCE CYCLES 1st Partial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Year Year Year Year Year (Weeks) (Weeks) (Weeks) (Weeks) (Weeks)
Nuclear 0 9* 7 7 7 Fossil: up to 599 MW 0 4 4 4 4 600-1000 51%7 0 5 5 5 5 greater than 1000 MW 0 6 6 6 6 Internal Combustion 0 2 2 2 2 Combined Cycle 0 2 2 2 2 Conventional Hydro 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Hydro 0 4 1 1 1 Nuclear units are assumed to have a 9-week overhaul only once. All other overhauls are assumed to be 7 weeks.
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 1.1-24 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY AND NEW ENGLAND UTILITIES CAPABILITIES Dec. Dec. Dec.
I. NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY 1986 1987 1988 Peak Load (MW) 4,900 5,165 5,444 2.4l Required Installed Reserve (%) 21 21 21 15[
'A5 Required Capacity to Meet Reliability Criterion (MW) 5,929 6,250 6,587
l Planned Capacity * (MW) 6,012 6,012 6,916 2^5 Excess (+)
or Deficiency (-) (MW) +83 -238 +329 II. NEW ENGLAND UTILITIES Peak Load (MW) 22,440 23,440 24,470 Required Installed Reserve (%) 23 23 23
'l 2.4 Required Capacity to Meet Reliability Criterion (MW) 27,601 28,831 30,098 Installed Capacity * (MW) 28,918 28,917 30,066 Excess (+)
or Deficiency (-) (MW) +1,317 -86 -32 4l 'See Table 1.1-21 A for New England Power Company and Table 1.1-20A for New England Utilities.
O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1970 71 WINTER PEAK (MW) 2578 DATE 12/22/70 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM N00N PM PM NIGHT 100 , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 g
90 90 -
, ~
80 .
80 N N r .
70 e
m 70 - .. ,
e U U z
z E E g 60 60 g a u 6 0
$ 50 - , - 50 5 e e e e E 40 -
40 E S S E E 30 $
~
y 30 -
g -
ea a -
20 20 10
- 10 0 0 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE lilSTOltlCAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SilEET 1 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1971 72 WINTER PEAK (MW) 2777 DATE 12/22/71 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT 100 , , 100 q, , . ,_ g g
g , g 90 -: " E J -
90 6
'~ ~
80 80 -
w x 5
5
$ 70 -r 70 $
= *E E E 9
g 60 -a ~
- 1- 60 g 8 .
E 5 5 g 50 c ~
- -= . :- 50 5 8 8 e E E 40 -- -
" ~ ' ~
- - 40 E e <
S
,e_ E 30 $<
g 30 -
3 3 20 - -
20 10 -.' '
- 10
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 0
MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGH1 AM AM N0ON PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE IIISTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SHEFT 2 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 19721973 WINTER PEAK (MW) 3058 DATE 1/8/73 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM N00N PM PM NIGHT 100 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100
^ ~ '
90
^
90 - - : .
~
80 - ,' -" -
~ '
80 g x 5 -
~
' ~ ' ' '
0
$ 70 -~'y'. 7.-
i ~
70 $
g ...
g g .
3 E g 60 . . ii. ~-* .
.c -' , ^
60 g w w a
, a
?
$ 50 -
, N - -
50 $
e g
= ,
E 40 - " - , -
/
'-' ~
- 40 Eo o .
y c lJ Y g <
$ 30 - ~ - Jr - ~.
~ ~^ *
- :- 30 $<
3 3 20 -- - -
- - 20 s
10 -~ . - . . - . , 10 0
0 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM N00N PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE HISTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SIIEET 3 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1 1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1973 74 WINTER PEAK (MW) 2858 D ATE 1/185/.
MID- 4 8 4 8 Milt NIGHT AM AM N00N PM PM NIGHT 100 ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 90 - - - , .
90
~ ^ '
80 - ,
- '- 80 x x W
70 4 l .~ 70 IE .
I E
g 60
- m ~ -
' f _- 60 g
& E
$ > 6 g 50 - ,
50 $
e - M t t E 40 -
' ~--
- -- 1 - 40 E o
s 5 y 30 s ,- ,. - 1'^ -
30 $
g e a
a 20 - ~
20 10 -
- 10 0
0 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID.
NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PitOFILE IIISTOIllCAL WINTEll NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SIIEET 4 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGUltE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
- , / y N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 i
WINTER OF 1974 75 WINTER PEAK (MW) 2883 0 ATE 11/26/74 A
- i s
MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AI AM NOON PM PM NIGn 100 , , , , . , , , , , , y , ., 100,,
g g , ;- ,
/
90 - .
.- 90
't rt x 80 -
80
.T ;Q
- x w }
3 y t 3
. j t' 70 $
$ 70 -. -
[3 ,.
[
5 i ,
A, g 60 -
60 g w
w 50 - - 50 M a:
E > E ,
E 40 - --' :- 40 E S S e
s
,W Q
r y 30 - -
30 o
). :o>$
a _
.? )J -
)
20 - ;- 20 10 - - '10 i
0 0 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID ' y NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT
\
\'
/k t
i NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE IIISTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SIIEET 5 OF 8) ,
(
Environmental Report F JURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2 l
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1975 76 WINTER PE AK (MW) 3099 D ATE 2/2/76 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT 100 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 90 - 90 I
80 -
80 N N t E 70 - -
70 m m _
W < W z
z E E g 60 - : -
60 g u 8 5 5 5 50 50 5 M M e E E 40 - -
40 E S S oi ;
g 5 30
30 E E S S 20 - -
20 10 - - 10 0 0 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE lilSTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SilEET 6 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1976-77 WINTER PE AK (MW) 3196 D ATE 12/13/76 MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NCON PM PM NIGHT 100 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 g g., ;
90 - -
90 80 80 5 E
- =
$ 70 -
70 $
= *E 5 5 a
g 60 - 60 g E E 5 50 -
50 5 M r e
? E E 40 -
- - 40 E S S e E y 30 - .- 30 $
5 sa a
20 - -
20 10 -
10
' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' '
0 o MID- 1 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM N00N PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE IIISTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SilEET 7 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 WINTER OF 1977 78 WINTER PE A K (MW) 3191 DATE 12/12/17 M10- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT 100 100
, , , g g
, ,y , , ,
90 - J -
90 80 - -
80 5 w U
m
$ 70 -- -
70 $
= *E 5 3 5
g 60 -
60 g E E
$ 0 g 50 - -
50 $
M M e E E 40 - 40 E S S e Q g 30 - -
30 $
a a a
a
- 20 20 -
10 -. - 10 0
O MID- 4 8 4 8 MID-NIGHT AM AM NOON PM PM NIGHT NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY LOAD PROFILE lilSTORICAL WINTER NEP1&2 PEAK DAY (SIIEET 8 OF 8)
Environmental Report FIGURE 1.1-1 NEP1&2
/ 3 3 3 33 3 b 3 e e be b b b 2 JOINTLY OWNED
- : := = = =
l
$ COMMITMENTS 7 7 7 7 m NEP00L < w w
" w w w m '
o
$ AUTHORIZED UNITS O 5, 5 5
- - p m m > >
m m i i gZz g g y gg g g g gmo (
, m m sg z s s B -g ,
y o m o m o 12' m I I 1 I 1 i I I l l 1~ 8 E
D' z 13 --
4 CAPABILITY Z
RESPONSIBILITY m
HIGH o 11 N'
p NEP go
$ DECEMBER PLANNING N m $ CAPABILITY PROJECTION m 5 g9 -
'j m C CZ 2 W ec M 47 o '
M 8 l
~ PQ ~
i l
I
~> 1 _ - -
ca l
I 5 -
' l l AUTHORIZED CAPABILITY I
z g 3-YE AR DELAY CASE m
d 3 l
" 5 z 78 79 80 01 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
$ WINTER POWER PERIOD BEGINS [
- lNSTALLATION DATES STILL UNDER REVIEW BY NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND EXPECT A TWO TO FOUR YEAR DELAY FROM THE @-
LAST OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF 1986/88. WE HAVE ASSUMED A THREE-YEAR DELAY. 3 us
r B B R 333 E R R s s s sss s s s S S S S88 8 8 S
, ; ; ; ::= ; ; ;
y NEP00L '
- m n o - a m AUTHORIZED f I I 8 z ' '
m i s.
r-CAPABILITY I 5
o 5
o N-hh ~
m h
az> = = =
_ a i =- i -
3 ,m 5
(
5
=
5 m
5 a szm db5 S z
5 s
5 s
h h h h h h
{ $ o:Ewf 2
80 g , , , , y g. , , g. , y ,
E
$ 70 -
i CAPABILITY RESPONSIBILITY HIGH 2 60 -
(
m
^Z $
~ tr: < 50 -
- N e 3
$N $ NEP00 L AUTHO RIZED SUM OF COMPANY PEAKS c $$ $ CAPABILITY 1/78 L & C REPORT P eo g 40 -
M
- S >F i-4 Z O U 30 -
3 - ' LOW GROWTH h
20 7 AUTHORIZED CAPABILITY z 5 3-YEAR DELAY CASE m
- I I I I I I I
, m to I I I I I I O 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 y ] WINTER POWER PERIOD BEGINS @
z *lNSTALLATION DATES STILL UNDER REVIEW BY NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND EXPECT A TWO TO FOUR YEAR DELAY I FROM LAST OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF 1986/88. WE HAVE ASSUMED A THREE-YEAR DELAY. s b
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 1.3-1 DELAY IMPACT
SUMMARY
Dec. Dec. Dec.
I. NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY 1986 1987, 1988 Peak Load (MW) 4,900 5,165 5,444 l2.4 Required Installed Reserve (%) 21 21 21 l1.5 Required Capacity to Meet Reliability Criterion (MW) 5,929 6,250 6,587 l
Installed Capacity (MW)
One-Year Delay 5,108 6,012 6,012 Two-Year Delay 5,108 5,108 6,012 Three-Year Delay 5,108 5,108 5,108 Excess (+)
or Deficiency (-)
One-Year Delay -821 -238 -575 Two-Year Delay -821 -1,142 -575 Three-Year Delay -821 -1,142 -1,479 II. NEW ENGLAND UTILITIES Peak Load (MW) 22,440 23,440 24,470 l2.4 Required Installed Reserve (%) 23 23 23 l1 Required Capacity to Meet Reliability Criterion (MW) 27,601 28,831 30,098 2.4 Installed Capacity (MW)
One-Year Delay 27,768 28,917 28,916 Two-Year Delay 27,768 27,767 28,916 Three-Year Delay 27,768 27,767 27,766 Excess (+)
or Deficiency (-)
One-Year Delay +167 +86 -1.182 Two-Year Delay +167 -1,064 -1,182 Three-Year Delay +167 -1,064 -2,332
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 1.3-2 ADDITIONAL BARRELS OF NO. 6 OIL
- FOR REPLACEMENT ENERGY IF NUCLEA2 PLANT DELAYED One Year Delay Two-Year Delay Three-Year Delay 1987 8,014,337 8,014,337 8,014,337 1988 2,413,307 10,427,644 10,427,644 1989 8,525,157 10,938,464 18,952,801 1990 3,092,766 11,617,923 10,938,464 1991-1997 2,889,745 8,872,256 22,869,104
- Note: NEP, in 1977, used 18,938,667 barrels of No. 6 to generate 62% ofits total energy production.
9 O
N E F 1 & 2 ER Table 2.1-18 PRINCIPAL WATER BODIES WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE SITE Approximate Approximate Approximate Ponds __ Area (acres) Direction Distance (miles)
Ninigret*(l) 1490 NNE-W Ad3 :ent to Site Foster Cove
- 60 W-WNW Adjacent to Site Green Hill
- 420 ENE-E 2.0 Trustom
- 157 dNE E 3.5 Card
- 38 E 4.5 Quonochontaug* 763 WSW 3.0 King Tom *
- 4.5 N 1.5 Deep *
- 19 N 2.0 Schoolhouse *
- 102 N 2.2 Pasquisett*
- 79 NNE 4.2 Cross Mill ** 17 NNE 1.5 Perry *
- 4 NE 2.0 Hanna Clarkin** 4.5 NE 2.7 Bullhead *
- 4.8 NE 4.0 Factory *
- 28 ENE 3.5 Mill *
- 6 ENE 4.5 Dam *
- 2.5 W 4.7 Watchaug*
- 462 NW 1.5 Saw Mill *
- 4.7 N 4.7 Other Block hiand Sound
- E-WSW 0.8
- Salt Wster
- Fresh Water (1) Excludhg Foster Cove
Table 2.1-19 RHODE ISLAND LANDINGS, COMMERCI AL FISHERIES,1971,1972 AND 1973 1971 1972 1973 Millions Thor .nds Millior Thousands Millions Thousands Species of Pounds of Dollars of Pounds of Dollars of Pounds of Dollars Fish Butterfish 1.1 205 0.3 84 1.3 354 Cod 2.3 295 2.4 462 3.0 491 19.0 2,591 26.5 4,266 25.3 5,054 Flounders Ilerring 2.9 62 5.1 111 9.3 241 Menhaden 19.2 209 17.7 204 16.0 304 Scup 2.7 776 2.3 609 3.3 844 Whiting 2.9 228 2.8 285 3.1 310
]
go Unclassified for Industrial 17.6 136 14.0 109 24.1 338 w Other Fish 2.7 298 3.3 670 4.1 875 $
Total Fish 70.4 4,800 74.4 6,800 89.5 8.811 Shellfish 5.4 6,038 3.3 4,253 2.6 4,018 Lobsters 2.8 1,128 2.4 1,156 2.4 1,353 Clams 0.'4 234 1.0 191 2.: 535 Other 9.0 7,400 6.7 5,600 7.1 5,906 Total Shellfish 79.4 12,200 81.1 12,400 96.6 14,717 Grand Total Source: Rhode Island Landings. AnnualSummary 1972 (and 1973), U.S. Department of Commerce. April.1974 and January 1975, respectively.
- O O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 1
.) Table 2.0-19C ESTIMATED 1975 DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL LANDINGS REPORTED FOR NMFS STATISTICAL AREAS 537,538,539,611 AND 613' (THOUSANDS OF POUNDS)
NMFS NMFS NMFS NMFS NMFS 537 538 539 611 613 TOTAL Angler 44 11 51 8 12 126 Bluefish 96 28 113 10 23 270 Butterfish 1,276 13 119 15 113 1,536 Cod 743 349 231 23 40 1,386 Eel 11 -
9 -
0 20 Winter Flounder 1,077 586 823 205 55 2,746 Summer Flounder 2,077 1,248 345 67 58 3,795 Witch Flounder 29 1 7 -
7 44 Yellowtail Flounder 1,751 40 443 16 300 2,550 American Plaice 3 1 2 - -
6 Windowpane-Sand Dab 532 200 15 1 3 751 Flounder (NK)
IIaddock 31 -
6 - -
37 Red llake 123 1 281 45 54 904 White llake 9 -
7 - -
16 Sea tierring 96,597 209 2,094 271 434 99,605 Mackerel 162 1 6 6 16 191 Menhaden - -
15,798 - -
15,798 Ocean Pout - -
4 - -
4 Pollock 2 -
2 -
2 6 Scup 980 746 282 154 416 2,578 Black Sea Bass 44 155 9 1 10 219 Squeteague (Weakfish) 35 5 25 7 6 78 American Shad 1 -
1 - -
2 Dogfish 2 -
17 1 1 21 2 -
6 1 1 10 Skates (Unc.)
Striped Bass 1 22 28 1 -
52 0 - - -
1 Sturgeons 1 Swordfish 85 - - - -
85 Tautog 8 14 27 - -
49 Tilefish 533 - - -
2 535 3 - -
3 Bluefin Tuna - -
White Perch - -
14 - -
14 Silver llake 1,494 12 2,900 351 505 5,262 Wolffish 2 - - - -
2 Ground Fish Mixed 86 4 34 2 -
126 Ground Fish Mixed 4,693 15 4,661 803 1,220 11,392 Red Crabs 657 - - -
8 665 Jonah Crab 47 - - -
12 59 Lobster 1,517 1 29 -
11 1,558 1
Shrimp - -
1 Conchs 15 106 - - -
121 Sea Scallops 333 1 582 8 5,782 6,706 240 248 72 229 1.533 Squid __ 744 Totals 115,843 4,010 29,622 2,068 9,320 160,863
' Source: NMFS statistical area landings data obtained from Mr. R. K. Mavo, Woodshole Oceanographic Institute 7/7176 for 1975 period, con-verted metric tons to nearest thousand pounds by factor of 2 7346 lbs./T. and represent principle off shore landings. Estimates repres,ent live weights.
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 2.1-19D RHODE ISLAND LANDINGS, COMMERCI AL FISHERIES 1971-1975*
(MILLIONS OF POUNDS)
Selected 5 Yr.
Species 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Average Fish Butterfish 1.1 .3 1.3 1.8 1.8 1; Cod 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.2 1.9 2.6 Flounder 19.0 26.5 25.3 20.8 15.0 21.3 Herring 2.9 5.1 9.3 6.4 8.9 6.5 Menhaden 19.2 17.7 16.0 20.7 15.6 17.8 Scup 2.7 2.3 3.3 4.0 4.4 3.4 Whiting 2.9 2.8 3.1 5.2 5.3 3.9 Unclassified for Industrial 17.6 14.0 24.1 23.6 11.9 18.2 Other fish 2.7 3.3 4.1 3.1 6.2 3.9 Fish Totals 70.e 74.4 89.5 88.8 70.9 78.8 Shellfish Lobster 5.4 3.3 2.6 3.1 3.6 3.6 Clams (meat) 2.8 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.4 2.3 Other' .8 1.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.7 Shellfish Totals 9.0 6.7 7.1 7.1 8.4 7.6 Grand Totals 79.4 81.1 96.6 95.9 79.3 86.4 Source: Rhode Island Landing, AnnualSummary 1972, 1973 & 1975 U.S. '=partment of Commerce, April 1974, January 1975, and February 1976.
' Includes meats for scallops, mussels, conchs, and whole weight for crabs and sqaid.
- Totals reflect the state in which the fish were landed and does not necessarily reflect the area in whwh the fish were caught.
O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 130 490 371 NNW NNE 1 0 079
__18 155 33 0 to 5 MILES 6,377 185 0 165 4
/ 2,761 70 40 159 ENE 300 20 238 80 241 1,574 3,020 3,192 0 0 0 57 58
/
618 g ISO 35 40 361 2 75
[1899 8 984 234 896 1,069 E 3,191 83 14 10 71 81 21 992 2 g
879 78 2 I 495 1,641 13 ESE WSW 536 6 8 1,065 2,449 2 8 133 17 ' 34 37 17 SW SE 22 22 2,689 166 SSW SSE 194 8 143 163 XXX Tetal Segment Population POPULATION TOTALS RJG, MILES TOTAL MILES
^'
POPU A ION ULATlON O-1 614 0-1 614 1-2 7,810 0-2 8,424 2-3 8,326 0-3 16,750 34 2.848 04 19,598 45 2,306 0-5 21,904 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY ESTIMATED 1975 PEAK TRANSIENT NEP1&2 POPULATION 0-5 MILE RADIUS Environmental Report FIGURE 2.1-14 N EP 1& 2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 2.2 ECOLOGY 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology The following description of the terrestrial ecology of the former Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF), Charles-town, Rhode Island and the land immediately surrounding it was derived primarily fmm information gathered during 5
intensive field investigations between April 1 and November 18,1974. Winter quarter data i* located in Appendix F.2 as a response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) 301.32.
2.2.1.1 Flora. The ecosystems included in the study area (Figure 2.2-1) are in a large measure present as a result of secondary succession following some type of human land use Utilization of approximately 600 acres of the study area as NALF has been the greatest source of disturbance. Residences, both on the barrier beach and the main-land, agriculture and recreation have also made significant contributions to the present status of the vegetation. The flora has been divided into eleven different vegetation communities. Plant communities within the study area (approximaW" I mile radius from the project site) are depicted on Figure 2.2-1, and a vegetative cover-type map illustrating the communities within a 5-mile radius is presented en Figure 2.2-2. A description of the soils within the study crea is presented on Figure 2.2-3. Seasonal values for percent frequency, percent relative density, percent ground cover and importance value are presented for woody species in Table 2.2-1 and for herbaceous species in Table 2.2-2. The two letters following each vegetation community heading will be utilized to designate that community in tables throughout the terrestrial ecology section.
Oak Forest Community (OF). An oak forest in a late seral stage of secondary succession occurs on a terminal moraine north of U.S. Route 1. Prior to 1900, oak-chestnut forests were common in southern New England. However, between 1908 and 1920, chestnut blight eliminated the American chestnut (Castanca dentata) as a dominant tr~.1 Repeated cuttings and fires have favored oaks, which sprout readily from stumps and roots, over Canada hemiock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), bRek birch (Betula lenta), and yellow birch (B. lutea), which were probably important trees in the original climax forests.1 This oak forest is typical of those found in southern New England in that it has comparatively few species but great structural complexity - there are seven layers of synusiae (overstory, understory, small trees, high shrubs, low shrubs, herbs, and mossm-lichens).
The overstory vegetation is composed predominantly of red oak (Quercus rubra) and white oak (Q. alba). Other important species are scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) and black oak (Q. relutina). White oak and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominste the understory with red and black oak following in importance. Halvorson and Dawson 2 reported that white oak is the most characteristic and usually the most abundant species in the oak forests of New England's south coast.
Throughout most of the oak forest, there is a thick layer of dry leaflitter. In this area, the black huckleberry forms a dense, medium tall shrub tyer. C'her species which individually account for greater than 10 percent of the shrub vegetation are the common greenbrier (Similar rotundifolia) and saplings of black cherry (Prunus serotina) and white oak. Few herbs are found in these areas.
In those areas where leaf litter accumulation is limited, the most important shrub is the lowbush blueberry (Vac-cinium sp.) while the most important herbaceous species are the Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadene) and the starflower (Trientalis borealis). The hayseented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula) is the most important her-baceous species in the less xeric lowland areas of the forest floor.
Barring further development activity, the oak forest should retain its basic community structure.
Grassland Community (GR). South of the oak forest and U.S. Route 1 is the abandoned NALF, which supports a variety of plant communities. As a result of disturbances caused by establishment and maintenance of the station, these communities represent various stages of secondary succession. The areas close to the runways and taxiways, pb a large field at the N.E. corner of the station were obviously mowed and, therefore, persisted as grasslands domi-aated by fescues ;Festuca spp.) and beardgrass (Andropogon scoparius). Since mowing has ceased, woody species, primarily bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) and brambles (Rubus spp.), have begun to invade the grasslands.
2.2-1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Shrubland Community (Sh). Unlike the grassland areas, most of the vegetation on the N ALP has been allowed to progress into later st:.ges of secondary succession. Ily far the largest and most diverse cover type is shrubland.
Several variations of the shrubland vegetation type were found on and adjacant to the abandoned air station. Ilayber-ry dominated areas were most extensive and, therefore, were sampled most in'ensively. Ilayberry dominated shrub-lands are common in the coastal areas of southern New England.1 Hayberry is a key species in coastal plant succes-sion.4and this shrubland type often persists for years in Rhode Island.3 Ited cedar (Juniperus virginiana) was a con-spicuous member of the shrubland in certain areas on the site, and since it is important to wildlife, this type of shrub-land was sampled separately. In lowland areas, shrubs typical of wet habitats, such as alder ( Alnus spp.) and swamp azalea (Rhodmlendron riscosum), were common. These wet areas were limited in extent on the air station and, therefore, were not sampled. However, larger alder-dominated areas were found to the east of the air station.
The shrubland community on the site varied in height and species composition. Ilowever, all the shrublands repre-sented intermediate stages in secondary succession. The shrubland community types were not distinct from one another, but graded into each other due to environmental gradients. Itepresentative shrubland areas w ere chosen for quantitative analysis.
Shrubs as high as 3 or 4 meters are found in the shrubland in contrast to the low shrubs less than 1 meter high found in the grasslands. Bayberry had the highest importance value in both spring and summer in the shrublands. Compared to the grasslands, the importance values of grass species in the shrublands decrease relative to the importance" values of other perennials and annuals. Certain wetland shrub species such as swamp azalea (Rhododendron riscosum), are present due to the more hydric habitats in the vicinity of the scattered ponds throughout the southwestern part e !".e NALF.
Red Cedar Community (RC). This community type is basically shrubland which has as its most visible (5 mtters or more high) but not its most dominant member the red cedar, Juniperus virginianus. The presence of red cedar on abandoned agricultural land is indicative of the land-use history of the area. Grazing by cattle eliminates competing vegetation, thus favoring the establishment of red cedar seedlings, which are distasteful to cattle.1 Also, red cedar tends to invade bare areas, such as in between bunch grasses.
As in most other shrub areas, the habitat is xeric and the dominant woody plants are bayberry and the brambles. The grasses (Gramineae) were the dominant herbaceous species.
Phragmites Community (Ph). Many of the numerous wetland areas which exist in the southwest quarter of the air station are dominated by the reed grass (Phragmites communis). This grass forms tall, dense stands which effee-tively reduce the light available to the plants beneath. Between the spring and summer sampling periods, the reed grass grew from an average height of 3.0 to 4.1 meters (the average height of the fall sample was 3.9 meters). This rapid growth plus a continually increasing relative density of the Phragmites resulted in a continually diminishing importance value for the other herbaceous species and even such woody species as the Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica).
Throughout most of the Phragmites community the only other important plant is the spotted touch-me-not (Impa-tiens capensis). However,in hummocks (elevated dry areas), the quaking agen (Populus tremuloides), blackberries and other brambles become important species and the spotted touch-me-not .'s less important.
Red Maple / Black Cherry / Alder Swamp (RM). The eastern and northern sides of Foster Cove support a red maple / black cherry / alder swamp that has formed in ; small depression. During the spring, the more central portions of the swamp were completely saturated; in some places, there was standing water (Figure 2.2-1). The open area sur-rounding the creek abruptly gives way to the forested swamp. Along the dry upland perimeters of the swamp, red maple (Acer rubrum) is gradually being replaced by black cherry (Prunus serotina) as the dominant species in the overstory. Speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) dominates the understory and red maple and black cherry are com-paratively less important. Among the shrub and tree transgressives, sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) is the most important species followed by black cherry and arrowwoods (Viburnum spp.). Black cherry is the most important species in the shrub and tree seedling class, follawed by sweet pepperbush and arrowwood. Red maple, sweet pepper-bush, speckled alder, and swamp azalea are all characteristic species of freshws .r wetland areas.5 The touch-me-not, skunk cabbage (Symplocarpusfoetidus) and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea), which are characteristic of wet and swampy areas, were the most important herbaceous species during the spring and summer.
2.2-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Cod are fished by means of long line (locally known as tub trawls) and gill net close to the Charlestown Breachway on either side of it, and more or less parallel to the beach to the westward of the breachway, always in depths of 36 or 42 feet or less.
Sizable hauls of cod by commercial gill netters have been observed in the immediate neighborhood of sampling Station 4 A in Block Island Sound. The success of commercial gill netters and the lack of success in the gill netting portion of the sampling program is attributed to the difference in mesh sizes between the gears.
The gill nets used during the sampling program were composed of five 100-foot by 10-foot panels. Each panel was a different mesh size. The five mesh sizes used were 1.5,2.0,2.5,3.0 and 3.5 inches. The me sh size used by commercial gill netters was substantially larger. The small meshes used in the sampling program were selected in order to sample juvenile fish. The small size of the meshes contributed to the rate and degree of fou'ing on the nets and, hence, a poor fishing efficiency. As a result, gill netting activities were termin-ted. However, realizing that information from gill nets was valuable, beginning in September 1975, a commercial gill netter was engaged to make twice weekly sets at two stations in Ninigret Pond and record his catch. Results of this survey are briefly summarized in Appendix G, Sec-tion G.2.3.
One of several cod fishermen interviewed supplied records for January through April 1975. During this period, fish-ing four tubs of trawl (some 1,200 hooks), this man took about 3,800 cod, about 70 percent of them steak cod (exceed-ing some 10 pounds) and the rest market cod (up to 10 pounds). Average catch per two-hour set (in the daytime) was about 380 fish.
Another fisherman, in the 1974 season, fished 8 tubs of ttawl,160 hooks per tub, in water 14 feet deep parallel to Charlestown Beach, taking 1,200 to 1,300 fish on his best days.
In the opinion of the cod fishermen interviewed, fishing is best in the vicinity of the breachway during periods when water issuing from Charlestown Pond is near freezing temperature.
All species of finfish taken with 31RPs gear, or reported by the two commercial skippers, are listed in Table 2.2-70, which indicates whether they were caught in the Ninigret Pond, Block Island Sound, or in both places. The limitations of a sampling method based upon regular tows at fixed stations are suggested by the absence of any Ninigret Pond records for striped bass, and records from either the sound or the pond of white perch (Morone ameriennn). Both were almost certainly present at times.
In all,42 species of juvenile and adult finfish were found in Block Island Sound during the course of the year, and 27 species m Ninigret Pond. Only 14 species were found in both bodies of water. Stolgitis recorded 36 species in all from the Pond based upon a one-year study begun in July 1970.41 Of these,13 are listed as caught rarely. His data cannot be directly compared with 31RI's quantitatively, since his sampling regime included (as 31RI's did not) gill net sets in the Pond and overnight sets of fyke nets. He used a beach seine similar to 31RI's, but did no otter trawling.
Whiting made up the mcst important part of the catch recorded by the two commercial draggers in Block Island Sound (Table 2.2-80). Hake, ling, skates, winter flounder and scup were among the other more abundant fishes. Squid were an important component of the invertebrate catch. Certain species which are not normally considered of com-mercial value do, in fact, contribute to the economic success of the Point Judith fishery since that part of the catch which is not utilized directly for food is shipped for processing into meal at this port.
2.2.2.6 Rooted Aquatic Vegetation, Sampling procedure for obtaining rooted aquatic vegetation is de-scribed in Section 6.1.1.3. The only spermatophyte collected at the five stations was eelgrass (Zostera marina).
The density of eelgrass in the pond underwent a marked seasonal variation, reaching a peak during mid-summer from minimum concentrations in late winter. The relative scarcity of eelgrass near Stations NP A and D is noteworthy and may be attributal in part to the reduced rate of tidal flow in these two areas. 31onthly mean values are listed below:
2.2-29
N E P 1 & 2 ER Grams of Zostera marina /m 2 (wet weight)
Station April June August October December February A 0 33.5 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 B 0 726.0 2432.8 1232.3 755.1 321.1 C 0 889.7 2771.1 1509.6 493.'! G19.1 D 0 53.7 301.2 439.2 0.t. 0.0 E O 2036.0 1220.0 740.4 28.0 427.7 2.2.2.7 Water Quality. Water quality measurements considered to be biologically related were taken in con-junction with the aquatic ecology measurements.
Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Sampling procedures for obtaining data on temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH are described in Section 6.1.1.3. Much data has been accumulated relative to these parameters, and the information provided in this section can be considered a summary. Mean monthly values are plot-ted on Figures 2.2-70 to 2.2-77.
The innuence of Block Island Sound water was evident at Station NP G during the summer, where water tem-peratures were several degrees lower and salinities higher than at any of the other stations in the Pond. Water tem-peratures at NP C,in turn, were considerably higher than those in Block Island Sound during summer where, even at the inshore stations, bottom temperatures failed to reach 20*C.
Salinity readings recorded at Station NP E throughout the year were generally lower than at the other stations.
These reduced salinities accompanied by higher concentrations of nitrate and silicate, reflect the influence of surface runoff that, in turn, may have contributed to periodic phytoplankton " blooms" in Green Hill Pond during the year.
The marked decline in oxygen concentrations at the Pond stations during the summer montl s is similar to that de-scribed by Conover (l!Hil) for the year 19'i7/'" A corresponding seasonal cycle was observed at the Block Island Sound Stations.
With the exception of Foster Cove, which was also characterized by periodic phytoplankton blooms during the sum-mer months, pH readings were quite stable at the Ninigret Pond stations and particularly at the Sound stations throughout the year.
Inorganic Nutrients. The procedures employed for analysis ofinorganic nutrients-nitrate (NO3 ), nitrite (NO),
ammonia (NH3), phosphate (PO4 ) and silicate (SiO3)-are given in Section (i.1.1.3. Mean monthly concentrations of these nutrients are plotted on Figures 2.2-78 to 2.2-88.
In certain respects, these results tend to confirm the findings of previous investigators working in this area (Conover, II.J.19tilf'" Phosphate concentrations, for example, were generally higher in Block Island Sound and at Station NP G
- th, Pond station nearest the breachway and characterized by relatively high salinity - than at the other Pond sta-tions. toth nitrate and silicate, on the other hand, tended to be inversely correlated with salinity, suggesting that these two nutrients may derive mainly from land runoff.
Also in agreement with R.J. Conover's findings was the seasonal nitrate cycle in Green Hill Pond (Station NP E) that was not so evident at the other Pond stations nor in the Sound.
Concentrations of ammonia appenred to increase at all stations during the summer and early fall when water tem-peratures and biological activity were at a maximum.
O 2.2-30
Revision 5 Environmental Report NEP 1 & 2 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section No. Title Page No.
- 1.9 TRANS51ISSION FACILITIES. . . . .................. 3.9- 1
- .9.1 Phasing of Environmental Stmlies. . . . . . .. ............ 3.9- 1
- ).9.2 Int roduct ion. . . ..... . . ... ...... .............. 3.9-2
- .9.3 Project Description-Phase 1. . ... .. . . ....... . ..... 3.9-2 3.9.3.1 Syst e m s O p t ions- Ph ase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.92
- .9.3.2 Connections to Existing System-Phase 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9- 3 3.9.3.
- 1 Right -of-Way Requirements-Phase 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 ,
3.9.:1.4 Routing Options-Phase 1. . .. . ... ................... . 3.9-:s
- 1.9.3.5 Transmission St ruct ures . . . . . . . . . . ............. ........ 3.9-4
- !.9.3.6 Substations ... ... ... . .. .......... ............ 3.9-4
- ).9.4 Defining the Phase 1 Study Area . . . .... . . ... ........ 3.9-5 3.9.5 Characteristics of the Phase 1 Region . . . . . . ........ .... 3.9-5 3.9.6 Transmission Facilities Siting . . .. ... . ... ......... 3.9-5 3.9.7 Environmental Invent ory-Phase 1 Study Area. . . . . . . . .. .. 3.9-fi 3.9.7.1 Base Slap. . . . ...... .. .. .. .... . 3.9-6 3.9.7.2 Inventory Alaps. .. . . . . ....... . ..... ... 3.9-6
- 1.9.7.3 Laml Use . . . ... .... .. . .... . .. ..... .. 3.9-6
- 1.9.7.4 Nat ural Feat ure.s . . . .. . . ..... ...... ..... 3.9-7 3.9.7.5 Visual ami Scenic Features . . ... ... . ...... . ... 3.9-8
- 1.9.8 Route Selection Process . .. . .... . .. ...... .. :1.9-9
- .9.8.1 iloute Selection Criteria . . . . . .. . .. .. ....... 3.9-9
- 1.9.8.2 Impact Elements. . . . ... . .... .. .... 3.9-10
- i.9.8.3 Duration of lmimets. . . .. . ..... .... ...... . 3.9 19 3.9.8.4 Impact Slat rix. . . .. . ..... ... .......... 3.9-10
- ).9.9 Alternate Routes .... . .. . ........... . 3.9-11
- ).9.9.1 Route Selection. .... . . . . .... .. .... 3.9-11
- ).9.9.2 Description of Selected Route ... . . .... . ...... 3.9-11
- i.9.9.3 Route Impact Analysis .. .... .... ... ... ..... . 3.9-14 3.9.9.4 Comparison of Phase 1 Routing Options. . ........ . 3.9-16
- ).9.10 Description of the Preferred Phase 1 Routing . ... ......... 3.9-17
- !.9.11 Electrical Impacts ... . .. .. . ....... ..... ...... 3.9-18 3.9.11.1 Radiated Electrical Noise. . .. . . ...... .... ... 3.9-18 3.9.11.2 Auilible Noise . . . .... . . .. .. .... .... . 3.9-18
- 1.9.11.3 Ozone Production . ... ... . .. . . . . . . 3.9-18
- !.9.11.4 Induced mnl Conducted Ground Currents .. . ......... 3.9 18 3.9.12 Charlestown Substation. . . ... ... . . .. ..... ... 3.9-19 5
- 1.9.13 Joint Use of t he Right-of-Way . . . . ....... .... .. ... 3.9-19A 3.9.14 Project Description-Phase II . . ... . . ........... 3.9-19A 3-iii
Revi; ion 1 N E P 1 & 2 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section No. Title Page No.
3,9.11.1 Systems Options apil Right-of-Way Requirements-Phase II . . 3.9-20
- 1.9.14.2 Connections to Existing System-Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9-20
- .9.1r, Pha.se II Stuity Proceilure. . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 3.9-20
- 1.9.1(; Characteristics of the Phase II Stuity Region. . . . . .......... 3.9-20
- 1.9.1 *7 Environmental Inventory-Phase II Stmly Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9-21
- .9.18 Alternate Routes-Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 21
- 1.9.18.1 Danielsen Rou te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......... 3.9-21
- i.9.18.2 Direct Rout e . . . . . . . . . ..................... ........... 3.9-21
- .9.18.3 Comparison of Phase II Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 3.9-23
- 1.9.18.1 Description of Preferreil Phase II Routes . . . . . . . ... .... .. :1.9-24 1] 3919
.. Re fe re nces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ...... 3.9-25 O
O 3-iv
N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title No.
3.1 - 1 Plot Plan 3.1 -2 Plant Profile 3.2- 1 Schematic Diagram of Main Power Generating System 3.2-2 Plant Heat Rate vs Condenser Back Pressure 3.3- 1 Plant Water Use Diagram 3.4- 1 Schematic Layout of Circulating Water System 3.4-2 Profile of Circulating Water System 3.4-3 Circulating Water Piping and Instrumentation Diagram 3.4 -4 Circulating Water Intake Structure 3.4-5 Service and Circulating Water Pump House at Elevation 21'-0", General Arrange-ment 3.4-6 Service and Circulating Water Pump House-Plan Below Elevation 21'-0", General Arrangement 3.4-7 Service and Circulating Water Pump House-Sections, General Arrangement (2 Sheets) 3.4-8 Circulating Water Multiport Discharge Diffuser 3.5-1 R uliation Transport Schematic 3.5-2 Radioactive Liquid Release Points 3.5-3 Liquid Waste System Schematic 3.5-4 Liquid Waste System Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (3 Sheets) 3.5-5 Boron Recovery System Schematie 3.5-6 Boron Recovery System Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (3 Sheets) 3.5-7 Sources of Gaseous Waste 3.5-8 Gaseous Waste System Schematic 3.5-9 Gaseous Waste System Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (2 Sheets) 3.5-10 Effluent Release Points 3.5-11 Solid Waste System Piping and Instrumentation Diagram 3.9-1 Bulk Power Supply System Interconnected New England as of April 1,1975 3.9-2 Right-of-Way Cross-Sections 3.9-3 Routing Options-Phase I 3.9-4 345 KV Transmission Structure Types 3.9-5 Existing Substations 3.9-6 Utility Right-of-Way 3.9-7 Existing Land Use-Urban 3-vii
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont)
Figure Title N o.
3.9-8 Existing Lanil Use-Historic an<l Open Space 3.9-9 Zoning and Proposed Land Use 3.9-10 Natural Features-Land 3.9-11 Natural Features-Veg 'ation 3.9-12 Visual Exposure 3.9-13 Scenic Quality 3.9-14 Combining Overlays for Itoute Selection 3.9-15 Alternate Itoutes in Charlestev;n, It.I.
3.9-Iti Link Diagram 3.9-17 Itight-of-Way Cross-Sections (4 Sheets) 3.9-18 Option 1 3.9-19 Option 2 3.9-20 Option 3 3.9-21 Option 4 3.9-22 Preferred Phase I Itouting 3.9-23 Alternate Itoutes to Card Street 3.9-2 t A New Itight-of-Way Portions of Component 1 3.9-24 H Component 1 in Norwich 3.9-25A Upper Portion of Component 1 3.9-25B Component 4
- .9-2fi Danielson to Card Street Environmental Inventory Composite 3.9-27 Direct Itoute to Card Substation 3.9-28 Preferred Phase II Itoutes
- l 3.9-29 Proposed Location of Underground Electrical Leads and Concrete Duet Banks G
3-viii
C AN 'N d
s 77 s
'x s '
N n:P '
x '
[ // [\
k:?
r x;;
j ,
(x #< -
'yy :
.s
\ xx f
'kx ,
~'
- s >
.e
'N CHA N L8NK FENCE ~g-V _
\
W) 4 n . . . .. -
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 103,000 N LEGEND A = HEATER BAY B = TURBINE BUILDING
/+ C = ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE BUILDING
/ +
D = OlESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
+
E = CONTROL BUILDING F = DEMIN WATER AND CONDENSATE STORAG E TANK 4
G = EQUIPMENT VAULT H = PRIMARY AUXILIARY BUILDING
\ g'*
I = FUEL STORAGE BUILDING s
"'""#" J = WASTE PROCESSING BUILDING K = CONTAINMENT UNIT NO.1 Ns
)
- L = CONTAINMENT UNIT NO.2 l
M = CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE N = SERVICE WATER PUMP HO USE O = G ATE HO USE P = COOLING TOWER
/ ,f 102.000 N Q = FUEL DIL STORAGE TANK R = INTAKE AND DISCHARGE TRANSITION l
ll STRUCTURES S = REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK ll l*fi N
- A 8
r
'N ? ?
L 2m SCALE IN FEET am NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY NEP1&2 PLOT PLAN Environmental Report FIGURE 3.11 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 3.3-1 PLANT WATER USE Condition
- Condition
- Condition
- A B C Point Flows Flows Flows Notes 1 68 gpm 43 gpm 59-200 gpm Maximum continuous flow from well field is (98,000 gpd) designed for 200 gpm. Average use from wells is expected to be approximately 68 gpm.
2 856,000 gpm 450,000 gpm 0-856,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B 3 812,000 gpm 406,000 gpm 0-812,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B 4 44,000 gpm 44,000 gpm 0-44,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B 5 812,000 gpm 406,000 gpm 0-812,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B 6 44,000 gpm 44,000 gpm 0-44,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B 7 16,000 gpd 16,000 gpd 85,000 gpd Intermitte:.t now (average) (6verage) (averap) 20,000 gpd 20,000 gpd 14 5,000 gpd Intermittent flow (maximum) (maximum) (maximum) 8 57-200 gpm 32-200 gpm 0-200 gpm Maximum flow of 200 gpm 9 As required As required As required Required in the event of fire 10 30,000 gall 30,000 gall 0-30,000 gal / Intermittent flow rate is 3.5 days 3.5 days 3.5 days 50-100 gpm.
11 51-200 gpm 26 200 gpm 0-200 gpm Maximum flow of 200 gpm 12 10 gpm 5 gpm -
Continuous for conditions A & B 13 7500 gal 7500 gal - Batch flow, typically once a week 14 16,000 gpd 16,000 gpd 58,000 gpd Intermittent flow l5 (average) (average) (average) 20,000 gpd 20,000 gpd 72,500 gpd Intermittent flow (maximum) (maximum) (maximum) 40 gpm 20 gpm - Maximum continuous (approximately 15 2 week period) for one Unit would be 135 gpm during startup following unit outage.
16 - - 0-200 gpm Maximum continuous flow available for flushing is approximately 140 gpm.
17 856,000 gpm 450,000 gpm 0-856,000 gpm Continuous for conditions A & B: Plus small intermittent flows from points 10, 13,15 and 16.
- NOTE Condition NEP1 NEP 2 A Full Load Full Load B Full Load Shut down C Plant Construction
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 ATLANTIC OCE AN FIRE POND WE LL WATER
/
=
U U y p y O D -
O
"^
CONDE NSER SERVICE POTABLE &
COO LING FIRE SYSTEM WATER MAKEUP SANITARY SYSTEM WATER SYSTEM U U
" " DEMINER LIZER REGENERANT PLANT MAKEUP U
V
~ ~
,, ,, TO GROUND VIA LEACHING FIELD NORMALAND II CONSTR UCTION c COMPENSATES FOR PHASES OF OPERATION If SYSTEM STE AM G EN ERATOR RADIOACTIVE SECONDARY FLUSHING BLOWDOWN WASTE NON-NUCLEAR (CONSTRUCTION) (NORMA L OPER ATION) EFFLUENT PLANT LEAKAGE 6 15 13 2
= U TREATMENT TO CIRCULATING TO CIRCULATING WATER ^
PUMPHOUSE VIA SETTLING WATER PUMPHOUSE BASIN DURING OPER ATION; VI A SETTLING TO HOLDING LAGOON BASIN DURING CONSTRUCTION PH ASE
= n U
ATLANTIC OCEAN NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY PLANT WATER USE DIAGRAM NEP1&2 Environmental Report FIGURE 3.3-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Hydrographic data has been collected throughout the near-field and far-field region of the proposed -lischarge zone.
These data are discussed in Section 2.4 Hydrographic studies of the circulation patterns and physical and chemical parameters of the near-snore waters in the vicinity of the proposed intake and discharge structures for NEP 1 & 2 have been in progress since April 1974 by Raytheon. Inc.2 The engineering aspects of these studies are designed primarily to assess the near-field dynamics and impact of the circulating water system, to provide field data (especially on currents) for use in studies of various intake and diffuser schemes, and to evaluate possible far-field effects of the thermal discharge. These studies are out-lined in Section P.L 5
Analytical and physical hydro-thermal model studies have been conducted by Alden Researen Laboratory, Worcester Polytethnic Institute.3 4 Three models - a near-field physical model, a intermediate plume and a far-field analytical model - were used to predict thermal discharge behavior as well as a mixing zone srea. Appendix C.1 and C.1 A de-scribe these studies in detail.
3.4.4 References
- 1. Weight, Robert H., Ocean Cooling WaterSystem for 800 MWPower Station, Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers - Proceedings Paper No.1888, December 1958.
- 2. Raytheon Co.,1975. Charlestown HydrographicStudy, April 1974 to April 1975, Final Report. *
- 3. Brocard. D.,1977. Hydrothermal Studies of Staged Diffuser Discharae in the Coasial Enrirmonment, Charlestown Site. Alden Research Laboratory, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Holden, Ma.
- 4. Brocard, D. and S. Hsu,1978. Tranzient A nalytical Temperature Predictionsfor Heated Diffuser Discharge, NEP 1 & 2. Alden Research Laboratory, Worcester Polytechnic Instituta, Holden, Ma.
3.4-5
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 3.9.12 Charlestown Substation.
Charle. town Substation, located north of Route 1, consists of a metal-enclosed, pressurized, gas-insulated system in w&ict circuit breakers, disconnect switches, buses and potential devices are placed in grounded metal tanks that are conna ted as an integral pipe system. Sulfur hexafluoride (SFg), a non-nammable non-toxic gas under pressure (approximately 35 psi),is used as the insulating and arc-quenching medium in the enclosed system. The compactness of the gas-insulated system minimizes the visual impact of the Substation and the totally enclosed system provides maximum protection to the electrical equipment from adverse environmental effects. The electrical configuration of the Substation is a ring bus arrangement. The three overhead 345 KV lines terminate at the common switching Substation on line pull-off towers 66 feet above yard grade. The Substation and related equipment including line pull-off towers are not visible to the public from U.S. Route 1 or the water's edge along Charlestown Beach, nor from any existing residences.
The 345 KV switching Substation is connected with underground gas-insulated bus directly to the high voltage bush-ings of the generator step-up transformers locate ' an outsMe wall of the power plant.The basic elements of the bus system include: a tubular conductor at line potential, a tubular metal enclosure at ground potential concentric with the conductor, spacer insulators located at intervals within the enclosure to keep the conductor centered, SPs gas under pressure to p ovide insulation between the conductor and enclosure. The SFs bus from the transformers to the Substation will consist of seven phases for the two generators which includes one spare bus. The seven buses will be buried in an earth trench 5 feet deep and 17 feet wide for the entire length.
The entire Substation SF6equipment will be cf low profile, and all exposed porcelain and painted equ;pment sur' ces will be light color. The highest point af the SFs Substation equipment will be 33 feet above yard grade. The highest structure in the entire Substation will be the 345 KV pull-off towers for three lines and will be 66 feet above the yard grade.
5 The proposed location of underground electrical leads and concrete duct banks from the plant alte to the remote substation is shown on Figure 3.9-29.
The approximate distance from the plant to the substation along the centerline of the underground "laads"is 6,700 feet (1.26 miles).
The area within the fence line of the proposed subetation is 220 feet by 300 feet (1.51 acres) and the area within the fence line of the proposed underground to overhead riser structures, approximately 300 feet from the substation, is 120 feet by 300 feet (0.83 acrc).
The width of clearing required for installation of undergrounn leads" is 100 feet, of which 60 feet will be maintained '
in grass cover with tFe remaining 40 feet allowed to revert to natural tree and shrub cover.
The existing condit ans along the proposed underground right-of-way are:
- a. Generating stations to centerline of Post Road (Route 1 A),4,300i feet:
Abandoned Naval Auxiliary Landing Field consisting of wood-frame s'ructures, paved areas and shrub grass cover over flat terrain.
- b. Centerline Post Road to centerline U.S. Route 1,1,200 feet:
Agricultural field over flat terrain.
- c. Centerline U.S. Route 1 to substation, ;,200 feet:
Grass covered side slope for approximately 50 feet from U.S. Route 1 traseled way with the remainder predominantly second growth hardwood cover over rolling terrain to the substation site.
Preposed vegetative maintenance along the right-of-way for these three sectiona is:
- a. Grass cover to blend with site landscaping.
- b. Grass cover along edge of agricultural field.
- c. Grass cover for 60 feet with remainder to revert to natural tree and shrub cover. l 3.9-19
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 3.9.13 Joint Use of the Right-of-Way At present, there ate no plans for joint use of the right-of-way for recreation or other activities. Arrarigements for O
such uses are feasible and will depend on the interest of h> cal and state agencies who may wish to use the right-of-way for various activities.
Currently, an abai.Joned railroad right-of-way owned by Applicant has been made available to the state of Ithode Island as a trail. The arrangement allows for subsequent use of the trail if needed for transmission line siting and, on .
this basis, that right-of-way is included as alternate W2 and W5. A somewhat similar situation exists along link WC which is the same abandoned railroad right-of-way in Connecticut.
It is Applicant's policy to solicit the views of adjacent owners before proceeding with proposals for joint use.
Activities that couhl be compatible with the right-of-way include hiking, horseback riding, agriculture, gardening, playing fields and similar activities.
3.9.14 Project Description-Phase 11 In the Phase 11 environmental study, two promising routes were identified by Northeast Utilities which were subse-quently studied, evaluated and incorporated to complement the studies undertaken in Phase I as described in Section 3.9.1.The Danieleon-Card Substation route would make use of an existing right-of-way which har sufficient width to accommodate the new line. As an alternate to the Danielson-Card Substation route, a route alignment more or less directly between Card Substation and southwestern Ithode Island was identified by Northeast Utilities and is named the Direct route in this study.
Each of the two route alternatives, which for study purposes, have been designated as Direct and Danielson, was broken into components in order to distinguish areas studied under Phase I from those which required study under Phase II. There were four components considered, two for each route:
Direct Route
- a. Card Substation to Connecticut-Rhode Island border.
- b. Connecticut-Rhode Island b- %r to interewtion with previously selected route in Rhode Island on link W1.
O 3.9-19 A
N E P 1 & 2 ER Danielson Route
- a. WI intersection to Danielson.
- h. Danielson to Card Substation.
3.9.14.1 Systems Options and Right-of-Way Requirements. Phase H. The considerations which led to the decision to reject both 7tn KV and 115 KV transmission voltage are explained in Section 3.9.3.1. Similar reasoning applies to the Phase 11 options. Concerning rights-of-way widths, the Connecticut section of the Direct Route (compo-nent 1) can be divided into four portions, two of which parallel existing rights-of-way and the other two of which involve completely new rights-of-way. Figure 3.9-24 (A) applies to those two portions of component I which require new right-of-way. Figure 3.9-24 (B) applies to a 2-3/4 mile portion in the vicinity of Norwich which follows an exist-ing right-of-way which would have to be widened along 3/4 of a mile and which is not occupied by a double-circuit laminated wood-pole 115 KV line on the south side. Figure 3.9-25 (A) applies to the last portion of component 1 in Franklin and Lebanon where an additional 115 feet would be required along an existing right-of-way which now has a double-circuit woml-pole H-frame 115 KV line. Throughout the length of component 1, the proposed 345 KV circuit would be built as a single-circuit 345 KV woml-pole H-frame line.
For component 2 of the Direct Itoute, all of which lies within the state of Ithode Island, the 150-foot right-of-way and structure configuration would be the same as that shown on Figure 3.9-2.
The Danielson route from the junction with link W1 north to the Rhode Island-Connecticut border (component 3) would be constructed using similar H-frames and right-of-way width to those of component 2. At a point 4 miles south of the Phase I terminal point in Brooklyn below Danielson, Connecticut, the Danielson route joins an existing double-circuit 115 KV line which is constructed of single laminated wood poles on a 125-foot right-of-way.
Over that distance, an additional adjacent 75 feet of right-of-way would be required to accommodate the new 345 KV line on H-frame structures. Between Danielson and Card Substation (component 4) the new 345 KV line could be accommmlated on the 300-foot right-of-way already owned by Northeast Utilities. Typically, this would be as shown on Figure 3.9-25 (B).
3.9.14.2 Connections to Existing System-Phase 11. The Card Substation is located southwest of the city of Willimantic. Connecticut, within the town of Lebanon, Connecticut, as illustrated on Figure 3.9-23. The bulk power supply system within southern New England is illustrated on Figure 3.9-1.
3.9.15 Phase il Study Procedure The procedure followed in route evaluation is similar to that followed in the route aelection process described in See-tion 3.9.8. The process followed was first to define a study area, then identify the relevant environmental variables to be inventoried (in keeping with those selected in the Phase I study, map the variables, count or measure the impacts encountered by both routes, then select the one oflowest impact. Data for the Danielson-Card Substation route were obtained in part from Northeast Utilities planners and mapped on overlays within a two-mile wide study corridor straddling the existing right-of-way. Impact dat, were then obtained by measuring or counting the impacts encoun-tered. For the Direct Route, similar data were provided by Northeast Utilities planners, but no environmental over-lays were prepared. All data were (oded and entered into the computer data bank prepared in the Phase I study.
Analyses were then undertaken of the two alternate routes, indicating all environmental impacts encountered together with other relevant data, fr.llowing which a recommendation was made or: which of the two routes had the l esser impact.
3.9.16 Characteristics of the Phase 11 Study Region The Phase H study region is located in eastern Connecticut. By comparison with the areas of Rhode Island in the Phase I region, eastern Connecticut's topography is relatively hilly, while the Rhode Island topography is flat to gently rolling. In Connecticut, the topography rises to more sharply defined hills 250-300 feet above the valleys within which s'*eams and wetlands are clustered. Vegetation consists primarily of regrowth hardwoods with a few remain-ing farms interspersed.
3.9-20
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5
.4:Mba% rya g%w&w
, i wQt**Yv
% ~ 'x
~
QR& f/ Q yhf- 1.,
'm mi.
.Q
'l'b h h Y.L -92 -
( M
\ k;h2 P en d [ ' * / 'k }
h ,.(
. bt/ 37 ,Ri$E6l Y y Y Jg \, % -
\ ,C , k j j. kwI-
?SI I '
> pg
( ,),/ '
\ 'Ql 3' f ' } ' \j] _ 'f t .-
4, (jt' (-- ,, s 3j pg '?
- ) J, J:i i4 u.
y ,,zf iy. '
s.
q ,9 (,\. . . ,' .. ..
.9 i -s.
V
//
- q, b N eQsq'- t.
3 g,; . ( ,
tNf'O/[/
'\
- 0 -['., ( W, r k. [ ['}f lbrd %*,d .?
-t
,, XV~n $ \. ~'0 '12 /l SUBSTATION'
& &v '
SITE A -
ff% ) js. *{n Trn M %'_ ,
~\ )
n-s
. p o, a Q'~ 7 of
.> sf,'i 7,j y ,,s
. .~
- 5[r
-)
x
' '~ j r f,4 ,sG-p-Nv j / Aw\% h Q) j]; '^
- I, t'!< . ,,-,.'es 4 22 4)-
? ['
,. .a n h M '. k or i J U G.ELEqTRICAL h.4 f !?
df -*
W:; w)
.?'p'.
\-%.' A E, 3
^
,1 g.
e** m Q~. n? .eg
^
sns The M
N' ix '\, .
i $~y -
()Qz,*% f*f ' Y,\-lfN/f ,I/lkf;.\
. j' . ' ', , Htem Mk s *:
%l
. i' \a
' f Su hhI l $o' '; .:,
$6 f
'hkh\(f . , ' L( , \//k
-3 j L . 4) _ ^
\ ~\, .*/*- $ NlE - klf,- 1. .% .
.M w
~
5, X ""
(luu(
W;# .
Q W:-G~ s ,/l'W , j y d V !'WI ;8%
(\
Heath
, s' C,kj N A \' A I) i\it F. S ' d Cf.~h i b,. ~ j -P, Istar
! ., 7 [p .,
.+ Pi W M a n,h r. t k V arci
\ h,es /<> t- / u tu< E,y['// .\;
y'
// q\ ,p -PLANT h nt j((i. N. L, .(y ,,j \
t >! \\ 7 '- o_ , / SITE
' s
' p. i(it' \y'
< (>, y ., . i.- <
' ' (
/ /- }I .- 'f ,
j / .. p ft . \\ j#N35 1,
\ '
~ _\\ h 4> t "( ' , ). yI J i
I
, ~ , -
y 0lg ~
// e
- "' .Q i \~~
~
,:j
- 5 ;( .,' \ '\
() c y \
-l
'/
s
~
\, f. \ \
x N , y 'L .,%,'.
,. , \.
- J, '
s
, i / '
- G, Governors Q i ,s 4
}h ",h,',T.:
g .,
- I
- s I s la n d .,
- s
\\
Han omt
,l<
0r.j -
< iv/
L c, 19 ,
9 E; I
o 10 _ .-J
$ .. . \'-vf M ;. e.
- c. s
- v
- y i ,- _ ,.
/ .
/ .
.- y tv -- O. 1/.2 c
@s ,/ '
SCALE IN MILES PROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY UNDERGItOUND ELECTRICAL LEADS NEP1&2 AND CONCRETE DUCT BANKS Environmental Report FIGURE 3.9-29 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title Page No.
Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTA,L EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.0 I N TR O D UCTIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0-1 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION . . . . 4.1-1 4.1.1 Const ruction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1 4.1.1.1 Onsite Work and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1- 1 4.1.1.2 Circulating Water System Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1 A 4.1.1.3 Barge Unloading Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-3 12 4.1.2 Construction Service Facilities . . . . . ...................... 4.1-4 13 4.1.3 Estimated Construction Manpower Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-4 4.1.4 Land Use E ffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-4 4.1.4.1 Land Requirements . ............................... .... 4.1-4 4.1.4.2 Vegetation and Wildlife . . . . . ............................ 4.1-4 4.1.4.3 Impact on Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Sites, and on N at u ral L a n d m a rk s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 4.1.4.4 Impact on Air Q uality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 4.1.5 Wa ter Use Effect s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 4.1.5.1 Su rfa ce Wate r Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 4.1.5.2 Effects on Groundwater Table, Quality and Supply. . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 l' 4.1.5.3 Effects on the Aquatic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6 4.1.6 Impacts on the Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6 4.1.6.1 Community Se rvices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6 4.1.6.2 Noise Resulting from Plant Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6 4.1.7 R e fe re n c es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-7 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1 4.2.1 Changes in Physical and Biological Processes of Plants and Wildlife 4.2-1 4.2.2 Right-of-Way Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1 4.2.2.1 Selective Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1 4.2.2.2 G ene ral Cu t A reas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-2 4.2.3 A c c ess R oa d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-2 4.2.4 Mitigative Measures During Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-2 4-i
Revision 5 NEP1&2EH TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section No. Title Pago No.
.l.2.5 Method of Construction . . . . . . ........................ . .l.22
.l.2.5.1 Construction l>rocedures . . . ..... . . ..... ............ 4.2 2
.l.2.5.2 Enviromnental linpact of Construction. . . .................. 4.2-2
.l.2.ti Mffect on Agricultural l'roductivity ... .. .............. .l.2-:t
.l.2.7 Soil Mrosion . . . . . . . . ...... ...... ... .... .... ..... .l.2- t
.l.2.8 l(are or Modangered Species ............ ....... ........ 4.2-:1
.l. 2.11 1(eferences . ... . . ....... ..... ........... ........ 4.2 *!
1.:t itMSolll(CES COM MITTMI). ....... ................... 4.:(-l
.l .4 1( A I )l O A CT I V I T Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 - 1 4..l.1 Sources . . . ............... ..... ....................... 4.4 - 1 4..l.2 Shine !)oses . . ............ ........ .. ..... ......... 4.4 - 1
.l .1.:1 Submersion 1)oses. . . . . . . ................................ .l.1- 1 4.4.4 Sumumry . .. .. ..... . .. .......................... 4.42
.l..l.5 lleferences . . . . . . ........... . ... ..... ............... 4.42
.l.r: CONSTI(11CTION IMI'ACT CONTi(Ol. I'l(OGl( A M . . . . . . . . 4.5 1 4.5.1 l'roject 1(esponsibilities. ........... ..... ........ .... 4.5 1 1.5.2 Measures for the Preservation of Environmental Quality. . . . . . 4.T> - 1
.l.5.2.1 Construction anil lise of Access 1(oatis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-1
.l.5.2.2 Cleai ig and Stripping . . ...... .......... .... ....... 4.5-1
.l.5.1:1 llorro y l'il Operations. . ...... . ....... ............ ... 4.5 1
.l.5.2.4 l'lant i)ike Construction and Fill Operations. . . . . . . . . . . ..... 1.52
.l.5.2.5 Site Excavation 1)ewatering and the lise of Mxplosives . . . . . . . 4.5 2 o .l. 5 . 2 .11 Conditioning of Storage Areas. . . . ....... ...... ........ 4.5-:t
.l.5.2.7 l'arking Construction. . . . . ...................... ........ 4.5 :1 1.5.2.8 Operation of Concrete llatch Plant . . . ............... ..... 4.5. t
- 1. 5. 2 .11 Storage of Chemicals, l'aints and l'etroleum l'roducts . . . . . . . . 4.5 4
.l.5.2.10 Treatment and 1)ispmal of Sanitary Wastes. . . . . . . . . . .. .. 4.5 4
.l.5.2.11 Solid Wa st e 1 )isposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4 1.5.2.12 Offsite Tra ffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ...................... 4.5-4 4.5.2.1:1 Project Closeout Activities . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 4.5 4 0
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 LIST OF TABLES Table Title No.
4.1-1 Major Construction Milestones 4 4.1-2 Construction Activities an<l Estimate <1 Sche <lule 4.1-1 Soun(1 Pressure Levels of Construction Equipment 4.1-4 Estimate <l Noise Levels at Critical lleceiving Locations 4.1-5 Estimate <1 Construction Noise Acceptability Using HUD Criteria 4.4- 1 NEP 2 Construction Worker Activity 4.4-2 Shine Dose Itates 4.4-:1 Doses to NEP 2 Construction Workere Due to Operation of NEP 1 9
4-iii
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title N o.
4.1-1 Construction Laydown Plan 4.1-2 Circulating Water Pipe Erection Tressle 4.1 -3 Installation Sequence-Circulating Water Pipes (2 Sheets) 2 4,1 3A Existing Land Uses for Areas Bordering Point Judith Pond 4.1-3B Waterways Around Barge Unloading Facility Site 4.1-4 Sound Pressure Level Contours-Construction Noise 5
4.5-1 Conceptual Location of Slurry Wall and Site Groundwater Contours During Con-struction 4.5-2 Typical Section Thru Slurry Wall 9
0 4-iv
.s
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION This section discusses planned construction and the environmental effects that site work and permanent facilities con-struction will have on both land and water uses. Though there will be temporary and permanent changes in each of these areas, the construction program will be conducted so as to minimize both the short and long term effects of these changes.
4.1.1 Construction Activities 4.1.1.1 Onsite Work and Construction. Site preparation will be initiated by clearing and grubbing those areas, shown on Figure 4.1-1, whereupon the plant and facilities, access roads, temporary buildings, circulating water system, laydawn areas, parking lots, the concrete IMeh plant and other ancillary facilities will be installed or con-stracted.
The initial phase of excavation will consist of stripping topsoil from areas to be excavated. Topsoil will also be removed in areas where elevations are to be raised before fill is placed. The topsoil will be stockpiled and stored for reuse in planting and landscaping.
The existing average elevation of the plant site is approximately El. 7 ft. MSL, and the finished average elevation of the plaat will be Fl. 20.0 ft. MSL. The total estimated fill required is approximately 400,000 cubic yards. Borrow source investigations, consisting of test pits and laboratory analysis, have been conducted to determine the availability of suitable material on site. f The average depth from existing grade to rock at the plant location is approximately 30 ft., and since certain excava-tions will reach 75 feet below existing grade, considerable rock excavation is necessary. Some of the excavated rock will be utilized as fill material for construction operations or as riprap on protective revetments. Excess rock,if any, will be disposed of onsite or hauled to approved offsite landfill areas.
Explosives will be used on an intermitunt basis for a period lasting from 8 to 10 months during excavation. This work will be controlled under the terms of regulatory permits for storage and use of explosives and must be performed in strict accordance with manufacturer's instructions and, in some instances, with their technical assistance.
5 The existing site groundwater contours are shown on Figure 2.4-15 and vary from approximate elevation 5.0 MSL to 1.0 MSL across the plant site area. The excavation of overburden and rock will extend below these levels and therefore, a dewatering system will be required. Applicant has evaluated several types of dewatering systems, a..d based on geotechnical informatior. presently available has concluded the most practical system to be a slurry wall. A elurry wall is essentially an impervious barrier encircling the excavation, and extending from present grade to the top of bedrock. The slurry wall, discussed in detail in Section 4.5.E.5 and shown on Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, will allow the naturally occur..ng groundwater to flow around, but not into, the excavated araa. The excavation will be accomplished with no adverse effect on the quality or quantity of water in onsite or cffsite wells, the groundrater conteurs in the vicinity of the proposed leaching field, or the location of the salt / fresh water interface presently exist-ing at the site. As part of a series of onsite tests, Applicant intends to define further the existing groundwater condi-tions, including the existing salt / fresh water interface, as discussed in Section 6.1.2.
Since many of the existing runways and taxiways will be utilized for laydown areas and for the temporary road system during construction, the amount of road way excavation and laydown area preparation required at this site will be much less than for siinilar projects of this size.
Construction work will begin immediately after the completion of the excavation for NEP 1,in areas of the contain- 5 ment structure, primary auxiliary building, turbine building, circulating water pump house and other plant struc-tures. NEP 2 construction start will lag behind NEP 1 and is expected to be c< mpleted 24.on hs after NEP 1. Fuel loading for NEP 1 is projected approximately eighty-one (81) months after start of constrwtion. Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 show the major construction milestones for NEP 1 & 2.
4.1-1
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 4.1.1.2 Circulating Water System Installation.
3 The following discussion concerns the construction methods and procedures for the construction of the circulating water (C.W.) system. Construction of the system will cause minimal environmental impact. Figure 3.4-1 illustrates the proposed route of the 18 foot diameter tunnels as they leave the plant site and extend south under Ninigret Pond, East Beach, Block Island Sound and terminate offshore at the location of the intake and discharge shafts. The intake tunnel is approximately 6,200 feet long and the discharge tunnel is approximately 6,400 feet long. The discharge diffuser system consisting of two adjacent 14-foot diameter multiport pipes is described in Section 3.4.
Construction methods and procedures are r.ot finalized at this time. An extensive geotechni c al exploration program of the offshore bedrock ar.d overburden deposits along the tunnel routes and at the locations of the offshore intake and discharge structures will be conducted in order to verify the feasibility of the concepts discussed below. The exact location and depth of the tunnels together with their associated offshore structures and the methods by which they would be constructed will be established subsequent to this program.
O O
4.1-1 A
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 3 The environmental impacts associated with tunneling from the plant site to the location of the intake and discharge 3 etructures will be negligible. The drilling and blasting operation conducted for the construction of the on-site land shafts would represent the most significant disturbance relative to the tunneling operation. This disturbance would be in the form of noise and slight ground vibration. This operation will last for a relatively short time and should be oflit-tie consequence off-site. The tunnels which are sloped toward the land shafts will cause any infiltrated sea water to drain back to the bottom of these shafts to a sump. The dewatering effluents will be processed for separation of any contaminants such as oils, diesel fuels, etc. The processed water will then be pumped to the settling basin. Lastly, a minimal effect on groundwater may occur during construction of the onsite shafts as a result of groundwater seepage into the excavation requiring tunnel dewatering. However, seepage into the shaft excavation is expected to be small and the distance from the shaft excavation to the site boundary will be large such that no impact on offsite wells could occur.
8.and Shafts As protection against possible flood events a suitable work area, or raised grade, will initially be installed to approxi-mate elevation 12 feet 31SL. This work area is shown on Figure 4.1 1. From the work area land s!.rfts will be exca-vated through overburden and bedrock to approximate elevation (-) 200 feet 31SL, or approximately 212 feet below ground surface. Steel caissons may be employed during the excavation of the shafts to maintain stabihty of the over-burden. A dewatering system will also be provided to control the entrance of groundwater into the shaft during its construction. The bedrock will be excavated by drilling and blasting and will be hauled to the surface for disposal.
Prior to installing the concrete liner, inspection for fracturc zones or other features that may require special attention
- such as rock bolting - will be conducted. An enlarged area at the bottom of the shaft will be excavated to facilitate the assembly of the tunnel excavating machinery that will be lowered in pieces through the land shafts. This area is also required for underground conveyor machinery and rail car unloading equipment which will be used to haul exca-vated rock from tunneling to the surface.
After the land shafts and underground work areas are complete, the tunnels will be excavated by either the conven-tional method or by utilizing a tunnel boring machine (TB31).
Tunnel Construction Tunneling through rock could be accomplished either by conventional methods (drilling and blasting) or by utilizing a tunnel boring machine (TB31). The conventional method of drilling tunnels usually consists of a jumbo or large drill-ing machine containing a gang of rock drills orranged in a predetermined pattern which is usect in the first stage of an operation cycle that includes drilling, leading, shooting, mucking, scaling, ard rock bolting. A typical cycle could advance the excavation about 10 feet. The drilling, load:ag, and shooting refer tu the drilling of the holes, loading them with uplosives and finally in a time delay sequence detonating the explosives. The drilling pattern and time delay sequence are predetermined and are dependent on the type and amount of rock to be removed. The mucking operation refers to the removal of the blasted rock which is loaded on a rail type car and transported on rails back through the tunnel to the base of the land shaft. From there it is transferred to a conveyor system that hoists it to the top of the shaft for disporal. The primary purpose of the above mentioned offshore geotechnical explorations would be to reach a high degree of confidence that the bedrock akng the tunnel route is of such quality, that the tunnels cor'l be con-structed. Rock bolts, steel ribs, grouting and < teel reinforcement would be installed as necessary to maintain the stability of the rock surfaces.
The utilization of a tunnel boring machine would involve much of the same operations. The TB31 would take the place of the jumbo and the need for drilling, loading, and shooting would be eliminated. The TB31 operates on the ame con-cept as a giant auger which uses its cutterhead assembly to bore through the bedrock. The type of bedrock must be sufficiently hard and reasonably homogeneous for the TB31 to operate effectively; soft or weathered rock, voids, water, etc. can jeopardize progress of the machine and in some cases completely eliminate its operational effective-ness, necessitating its removal. Another reason for the geotechnical investigations is to establish whether a TB31 could be used to bore the tunnels.
The tunnels will be lir.ed with cast in place reinforced concrete; the design of the concrete lining will be based on the quality and strength of the bedrock. Normally, the concreting is not started until the tunnel has been driven the entire distance.
4.1-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Grasslands on the NALF are presently succeeding into shrubland. Regardless of construction activities,it is expected that all of the grassland will be absent within a few years, and therefore, a reduction in the amount of grassland due to construction is not significant.
The majority of the shrubland which will be disrupted provides a xeric habitat of comparatively low ecological value when compared to the shrubland near the perrmnent ponds in the southwest quadrant of the site. It is noteworthy that breeding bird survey area four (Figure 6.1-8), which is typical of and located on that portion of NALF Charles-town which will be d,sturbed by construction, provided habitat for very low numbers of breeding birds (Table 2 2-28).
The three small shrubland ponds which will be eliminated as a result of construction are temporary in nature. It is beceved that no species will be eliminated from the NALF as a result of construction activities which intrude on the shrubland.
After construction is completed, the existing hardtop and abandoned structures will be removed and the disturbed areas will be landscaped to provide valuable wildlife habitat. Additionally, the hardtcq in the west natural area will be l5 removed and the area will be restored in a manner which will enhance utilization by wildlife. As Applicant will be restoring or landscaping approximately 135 acres of developed land (hardtop and buildings) and utilizing approx-imately 120 acres on a long term basis the net effect of the construction will be an increase in the area of undeveloped land. Major management emphasis vould be'placed on preserving and restoring the natural habitat of the site. Refar to Natural Area Management Plan, Appendix D.3. P 4.1.4.3 Impact on Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Sites, and on Natural Lcndmarks. There are no expected changes in accessibility to any of the historical. cultural, archaeological cr natural sites enumerated in Section 2.6.
Due to the significam attached to the Foster Cove archaeological area by the Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission it is proposed to ferte and protect that area from all construction activity. However, Applicant is con-tinuing discussions with the Rhc.le Island Historical Preservation Commission with the objective of recovering archaeological artifacts onsite prior to the proposed construction.
4.1.4.4 Impact on Air Quality. Dust formation due to construction activities can be sufficiently controlled by spraying with water or placing gravel blankets over areas exposed to traffic and wind erosion. This, and the exten-sive paved areas already existing at the site will attenuate dust formation to a level not affecting humans, animals or plants.
Sources of smoke will be confined primarily to exhaust of construction equipment. No significant deterioration of air quality during construction will result from these sources.
4.1.5 Water Use Effects 4.1.5.1 Surface Water Pollution.
Construction planning will include procedures to control storm water runnoff across areas of disturbed and unstabilized soil and to minimize sediment discharges into Ninigret Pond. Plans for erosion control, sedimentation control and temporary yard storm drainage will be finalized for implementation prior to construction. Control of pollutants such as cheraical, petroleum products, pesticides, bituminous products and others will be through proper construction practice and good housekeeping.There will be no dfu t on the waters on Ninigret Pond as a result of the installation of the circulating water tunnels. Excavation for the offshore intake and discharge shafts and structures in Block Island Sound will result in a local and temporary increase in the turbidity of the offshore water, but will have no long term impact and will not be discernible from East Beach.
Construction of the barge unloading facility will utilize a minimum 200 feet of shore front. Siltation and increases in turbidity foreseen as a result of this activity will be temporary and limited to the immediate area of construction.
4.1.5.2 Effects on Groundwater Table, Quality and Supply. As discussed in Section 4.1.1.1 and 4.5.2.5, 5 the excavation for plant structures will not result in the lowering of existing grounawater contours outside the limits of the proposed slurry wall, and will not adversely affect the quality or supply of water in onsite or offsite wells.
4.1 -5
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Fresh water wells will be instalhd in the general area of existing well CH A-27 as shown on Figure 2.4-15. The well field will draw from the overburden to supply fresh water for construction and plant operati< n, and will result in a localized drawdown of the groundwater table. Based on geotechnical information presently available, these wells win nave no effect on any offsite well and will not affect the design bases or operation of the proposed leaching field part of a future series of onsite tat, Applicant intends to conduct a series of comprehensive well pump tests,inchiomg the monitoring of groundwater levels along selected site boundaries and, if possible, the quality of water in offsite wells.These tests are proposed to confirm that the influence of wells installed for the construction and operation of the proposed plant will not affect the quality or supply of water in any offsite well, and will not have any significant effect on the groundwater contours in the vicinity of the proposed leaching field and will not affect the salt / fresh water interface.
4.1.5.3 Effects on the Aquatic Environment. Construction and installation of tne circulatir.g water system a tunnels will have no effects on Ninigret Pond. During the construction of offshore riser shafts and installation of the diffuser and intakes in Block Island Sound, there will be a temporary increase in siltation and turbidity of the water.
There will also be dismption and removal of bottom habitat within the immediate area of this construction.
While increases in siltation and water turbidity can affect aquatic biota, not all species are equally susceptible nor are all kinds of suspensoids equally harmful. Increased turbidity can cause a reduction in the abundance and photo syn-thetic rate of phytoplankton.12 3 The reduction in photosynthetic rate is prgortional to the amount of lis ., tzn in tha water column due to turbidity. Flocculation and agytgation of temporary suspensoids can also mechamtally trap phytoMankton and carry the cells to the bottom.G Some zooplankton may also be adversely affected by turbidity by the reduction in primary production.
Siltation can be detrimental to benthic biota by burying or blanketing 'hese organisms with sedim(nt, which, if excessive, could cause their mortality b,, asphyxiation, and by depressing feeding, growth, and egg and larval development rates.lM Saila et. al (1968W, however, have observed in the laboratory that at least one benthic species (i.e., aduit loisters) can tolerate concentrations of suspended material as great or greater than those resulting from dredge spoil dumping with no adverse effects.
Turbidity can also affect finfish. At high turbidity concentrations, Ingle cf at (1958)l0 found that several estuariae fishes suffered morality probably due to suffocation brought about by clogging of the opercular cavities and damage to respiratory structures. Resistance to dinase, reproduction, and behavior of finfish can also be affected by increased turbidity.Il Te tba contrary, Flemer et at (1967)12 could find no alteration in the abundance and distribu-tion of striped bas, winter floundet silversides and menhaden larvae and others due to suspended and deposited sedi-ments during dredging and overboar<1 shallow spoil disposal operations in the Uppor Chesapeake Hay. Furthermore, Ingle et al. (1955)l0 have noted that some fish species exh; bit an avoidance reaction to increasing turbidity levels, thereby preventing movement into a potentially adverse environment.
In Block Island Sound, the disruption and removal of bottom sediment m the immediate construction area during installation of the circulating water system will primarily aihet benthic biota. Bottom sediment disruption will tem-
- porarily interfere with the area's usage as habitat while organisms associated with sediment removed during dredg-3l ing may be destroyed. However, no permanent detrimental benthic impact from circulating water system construc-tion is anticipated. The system will be located in areas of relatively low benthic population density. Furthermore, benthic species in the proposed construction area are found throughout the region, and upon completiot of construe-tion, the environs dismpted are expected to be recolonized and should readily return to their pre-cousti cion state.
4.1.6 Impacts on Community 4.1.6,1 Community Services. Impacts on schools, housing, medical facilities, police, or other community ser-vices of the surrounding towns as a result of rehication of construction workers together with short term and long term socioeconomic effects are discussed in Chapter 8.
4.1,6.2 Noise Resulting from Plant Construction. The effects of noise resulting from plant construction described below include the noise effects of construction activities relating to a circulating water system employing pipes, installed by the cut and fill technique, extendmg through Ninigret Pond and into the Atlantic Ocean. F .ction 3.4 3 has been revised from a circulating water .ystem employing pipes to a system employing deep bedr tunnels.
Accordingly, this modification will result in some variation in the noise levels presented below. However, the major portion of the accumulated noise results from the construction of foundations and atructures, which are not affected by the type of circulating water system.
4.1 -6
N E P 1 & 2 ER 4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM This sectie . addresses Applicant's mitigative meae res intended to assure adherence to applicable standards for the control of environmer.tal quality.
4.5.1 Project Responsibilities Applicant, through its resident construction manager, shall have the overali responsibility for the implementation of control procedures, and shall ensure adherence to commitments made in this section. The unit superintendent and the area superintendents shall be responsible for insuring the adherence by construction contractors to environmental commitments. The construction contractors shal be responsible for satisfying the environmental commitments specified in their contract documents.
4.5.2 Measures for the Preservation of Environmental Quality This section addresses the specific measures to be implemented at the job site. Each construction activity may gener-ate environmental impacts through disturbances such as noise, dust, sedimentation and other effects. The primary impacts for activities are identified and addressed along with appropriate procedures to mitigate their effects.
4.5.2.1 Construction and Use of Access Roads. The construction site access road will be hard surfaced.
New ros.d development could result in erosion, runoff sedimentation and disturbance of vegetation and wildlife result-ing from vehicle traffic.These impacts will be limited because of the presence of the existing road and r mway system, which means that construction of only about 900 feet of new road will be necessary, with minimal cut and fill required.
Further, to prevent runoff causing erosion at d to facilitate groundv ater infiltration, ne'v road shoulders will be graded and protected with crushed stone or a grassed area. A system of vegetated barriers, protected slopes aad sedi-mentation ponds will be employed to minimize surface erosion and control runoff. Traffic will be directed by the use of signs, flagging, and other visual devices to make as much use as possible of the existing road and runway system, 4.5.2.2 Clearing and Stripping. During the first stage in site development, the existing vegetative cover in the plant area and parking lot will be stripped along with the topsoil and stockpiled at specific locations (see Figure 4.1-1). Clearing of additional land for other construction facilities will be done as construction requirements dictate.
Impacts resulting from erosion runoff, sedimentation and waste disposal will be minimized as follows.
Stockpile locations will be protected against erosion and resulting sedimentation by encouraging regrowth of protec-tive vegetative covering. Furthe: more, stripping and clearing will be performed according to good construction prac-tices to avoid unnecessary exposure. Excessive runoff will be filtered through vegetated barriers or staked hay bales and diverted.
If a significant quantity of the vegetative cover to he cleared is too dense or heavy to decompose while stockpiled, it will be disposed of in an on-site landfill area or processed into mulch. This mulch may then be used as required to reduce erosion by storm water runoff.
4.5.2.3 Borrow Pit Operations. Present plans call for an onsite borrow area to supply the fill necessary to raise the general elevation of the site in the plant area.
Borrow pit operations generate dust and involve traffic. Dust will be controlled by water spraying from trucks and by directing traffic to use hard surfaced runways and roads, and gra el roads. Areas exposed to wind erosion and conse-qt:ent dust formation when no longer used for borrow will be graded, covered over with sufficient topsoil to insure regrowth of vegetation, and seeded, mulched and fertilized. Final grades will be gradual, similar to existing grades; unsightly gullies or depres.; ions will not be left as a result of borrow operations. Access to the plant construction area from the borrow area will be controlled and expanded only as necessary, consistent with good construction manag-ment practice.
4.51
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 4.5.2.4 Plant Dike Construction and Fill Operations. The plant area (Fig. 3.1-1) will employ an engineered fill and embankment from an existing grade of approximately 7.0 51SL; the fill to elevrtion 20.0 51SL and 3 the embankment to elevations varymg from 210 to 28.0 feet 51SL as fbl protection. The plant arec (Figure 3.1-1) will employ an engineered fill and embankment from an existing grade of approximately 7.0 51SL; the fill to elevation 20.0 51SL and the emnank ..ent to elevations varying from 23.0 to 28.0 feet 51SL as flood protection. The embank-ments will be faced with suitable rock or riprap, forming a revetment to resist the erosive effect of postulate flood water wave < The major impacts resulting from embankment construction and fill operations are potential sources of runoff and sahmentation. Embankment construction and fill operations are potential sources of runoff and sedimenta-tion.
s To mitigate the potential for sedimentation in the rain water runoff, the raised plant grade will be built in a series of compacted layers during which any sediment resulting from storm water runoff will be directed to temporary settling basins for percolation and clarification. That portion of the clarified basin water t hat does not percolate into the exist-ir.g groumiwater will te discharged, after further filtration through naturni vegetated barriers or staked hay bales, to the surrounding nat aral undisturbed drainas courses on the site. The discharge effluent from the temporary set-tling basins will b" simiur in character to the existing natural runoff frum the site. As the raised plant grade nears completion, the permane nt storm water drainage system will be installed for u.<e during the rem ader of the con-struction periul.
5 14.5.2.5 Dewatering, Excavation and Use of Explosives Dewatering A dewatering system will be re quired for the excavation of overburden and rock below the existing water table.
Applicant has evaluated several types of dewatering systems, including a well point system and a slurry wall system, and has concluded, based on the information presently available, that the slurry wall is the optimum system for this site and is the proposed method of dewatering.
A well point system wouhl have consi"ed of a series of closely spaced groundwater wells around the proposed excava-tion. The wells wouhl have drawn the level of the groundwater down to or near bedrock, enabling excavation to be done in the dry. The areal extent of the drawdown, or zone of influence, and its potential effect on onsite and offsite -
wells and the extent of any relatnl salt water intrusion were recognized and carefully evaluated by Applicant.
The approximate location of the existing salt / fresh water interface was first determined based on: 1) minimal tidal influer.ce and a relatively flat groundwater gradient,2) steady state groundwater conditions as determined from regional groundwater flow patterns,3) bedrock contours based on onsite borings, and 4) the Ghyben-lierzberg salt-fresh water relationship.
The effect of the well point pumping system on the existing groundwater contours, and the extent of the encroach-ment of the existing salt-fresh water interface was then calculated based on: 1) a pumping rate of 4000 to 5000 gpm -
the well point system being treated as a single large well,2) ample recharge of the groundwater aquifer as deter-rained from available onsite data and regional groundwater flow patterns,3) bedrock contours based on onsite bor-ings, 4) average m erburden permeability of 1H) ft/ day (laboratory tests of onsite samples as reported in PSAR Appendix 2A) and 5) aquifer thickness of 34 feet.
Based on then calculations, the zone ofinfluence of the wed point system would have extended about 1000 to 1500 feet beyond a excavation area, and there wouhl have teen a landward movement of the existing sa!t-fresh water wedge, but there would have been no significant effect on the quality or quantity of water in offsite wells.
V ith a slurry wall system, however, there will be no associated drawdown of the groundwater except within the excavation area, and thus no mechanism to cause any movement of the existing salt-fresh water interface. When account is taken of the noise and cost associated with well point system, the slurry wall emerges as the optimum plan.
The proposed slurry wall is shown in plan on Figure 4.5-1 and in section on Figure 4.5-2.
9 4.5-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 35 The wall will be constructed using conventional excavating equipment such as backhoes and bulldozers. A trench will r~
first be excavated to bedrock through a bentonite slurry which will maintain the stability of the trench walls. Ben-tonite is a fine grained naturally occurring clay material which swells to form a dense slurry when mixed with water.
The bentonite material is nearly impervious to groundwater flow and therefore, does not allow water to flow across the wall. Two methods can be used to form the watertight cutoff wall: 1) material excavated from the trench may be mixed with bentonite clay slurry and returned to the trench, displacing the bentonite water mixture, or 2) cement can be added to the bentonite clay slurry which would set up in the trench, requirng no backfill operation. In either case, a permanent groundwater cutoff wallis formed that is virtually impermeable. 'lhe use of the bentonite clay water slur-ry effectively seals and separates the surrounding groundwater source from the proposed excavated area. A minor amount of groundwater infiltration through the weathered rock zone which hes between the overburden and the fresh bedrock is expected. If groundwater flow does occur initially in this layer, it is anticipated that the bentomte slurry will be carried into this zone to seal it. Groundwater flow into the excavation via the exposed horizontal bedrock plan is not expected to be significant, since the bedrock cannot support sizable groundwater flow as detailed in PSAR Sec-tions 2.4.13.1 and 2.5.1.2(h). Groundwater within the confines of the slurry wall will then be removed without affect-ing the level of the groundwater outside of the slurry wall. The site groundwater contours resulting from the excava-tion dewatering will average those shown on Figure 4.5-1. Minor fluctuations in these contours due to natural occur-rences such as heavy rainfall or drought are expected.
Excavation and Use of Explosivos Overburden excavation will commence folk, wing clearing and the stockpil-ing of topsoil. Excavated material will be stockpiled for eventual reuse as backfill. After the rock surface is exposed.
drilling and blasting will be required for rock excavation.
Excavation equipment used in performing the work will be equipped with the appropriate noise control and exhaust emission devices to conform with applicable Federal, state and local regulations. Blasting mats wi:1 be used when necessary to control flying debris. Excavated material, and rock where suitable, will be utilized as plant fili, for storm protection as revetment on the embankment, or stockpital for future use. Rock not useful for these purposes will be used in the onsite landfill or hauled offsite to suitable approved disposal areas.
Dewatering-Effluent and Storm Water Runoff The groundwrter contained within the completed slurry well will be removed as excavation progresses. This water will be directed to a settling basin which will allow sorae of the water to rejoin the groundwater outside the slurry wall through percolation. The settling basin will be sized such that any effluent from the basin will meet applicable i tandards.
Any groundwater entering the excavation through rock fissures, or storm water runoff from rainfall within the excavation will also be pumped to the settling basin for percolation or clarification prior to dir charge to Ninigret Pond.
The water retained in the settling basin will on occasion be drawn off and used for road sprinkling for dust control, and mixing with backfill to achieve the desired moisture content. This will reduce the quantity of groundwater with-drawn from onsite wells, and also reduce the quantity of effluent fram the settling basin.
4.5.2.6 Conditioning of Storage Areas. Storage area preparation and use may result in disturbantes to vegetation, and could affect water quality if erosion, runoff and sedimentation were not controlled.
To av Jid unnecessary disturbances of vegetation areas, existing hardsurfaced areas will be used as much as practical.
Runoff from new storage areas wi'l either percolate into the soil or be filtered through existing or planned vegetative barriers and directed to sedimentation basins.
4.5.2.7 Parking Construction. Parking lots will be surfaced with crushed stone or gravel Runoff will be handled the same way as that for storage areas as discussed previously.
At the parking lot shoulders, uniform crushed stone or a suitable vegetative strip will be maintained to minimize any sediment transport which may develop.
4.5.2.8 Operation of Concrete Batch Plant. Dust and sedimentation and consequent impact on air and water quality could result if materials for the concrete batch plant were not handled properly. To preclude those impacts, the cement will be stored in closed si;os, and the aggregates will be stored in accordance with applicable codes. Sand and aggrega+e stock piles will be maintained to prevent aggregate from spreading.
4.5-3
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 4.5.2.9 Storage of Chemicals, Paints and Petroleum Products. These substances may damage the environment if releasel onto the ground or into water. Lubricants, fuels and chemicals are potentially damaging if they are accidentally spilled or disposed of improperly. Since removal of these substances after spills is in some cases extremely difficult or even impossible, measures are directed to prevent spills from happening.
Chemicals and fuels on site during the construction phase will be stored in standard containers and controlled to pre-vent accidental release. Tanks will be provided to collect waste oil and chemicals which will be maintained separate from other wastes and removed periodically for offsite disposal. Suitable protective earthen dikes will be constructed surrounding the storage area, so that any accidental spills from any of the storage tanks are contained. These dikes will be planted with grass to blend with the surrounding environment and to reduce erosion and subsequent sedimen-tation.
4.5.2.10 Treatment and Disposal of Sanitary Wastes. A permanent leaching field for operational use will be installed early in construction to treat most of the sanitary wastes. Chemical toilets will be provided and serviced by an established contract service prior to installation of the teaching field and as needed thereafter. Sanitary wastes will be collected on a regular schedule and taken offsite for disposal.
4.5.2.1i Solid Waste Disposal. Wastes such as lunch wastes, concrete, rubble from demolition, sweepings, glass, plastics, wood and other material may either be disposed of on site utilizing a landfill disposal or hauled offsite to suitable disposal areas, all in conformance with applicable codes. Burning of waste materials will be prohibited on the site, aiding in the control of impacts on air quality.
Offsite Traffic. All traffic will enter the site via U.S. Route 1, which is a four lane highway of suffi-3 l 4.5.2.12 cient size to adequately handle the increase in volume. Some congestion of traffic flow at the intersection of Route 1 and the site access road is possible, as are tempom;; inconveniences to the local population as a result of transporta-tion of heavy and oversized loads.
Traffic control will be reqaired during early morning and late afternoon rush hours. An improved intersection, con-sisting of signal lights, signs and turning lanes would alleviate the impact on ' uffic flow, and will be requested by Applicant of the appropriate authorities.
Heavy and oversized loads which will enter the site via Route 1 will be transporteu in accordance with approved pro-cedures. Every practical effort will be made to mitigate the disturbances resulting from these activities.
3e J 4.5.2.13 Project Closeout Activities. After construction activities are completed, temporary buildings will be removed from the site. The site will be restored by landscaping th area, including grading, placing of topsoil, final s ' paving, seeding, and vegetation transplants to control erosion and ohance the aesthe'ic appearance of the plant. (See the cover of this report.) In addition, improvements will be made to promote the wildlife and educational resources of the area. Refer .o Natural Area Management Plan; Appendix D.3.
O 4.5-4
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 e % . .,\' .. '" xy x - y.
- 1. g - -- 3 4 ., y. . .
^k , , x. . ,W . , . , '. '**
% ,h , .
-. ~.'a .
~r . , . , .
p ,'.,' y \ -3 s x CN. y~ .
A.' ;:f G%, ,jf.
f/4
,. k. .
/ . r \ rM s L,.
g -
'S. 3 4 ] ,,
.,~~' g,'.,- .Af jf .
s e'h [ p.f'~(, -
.s N ,,*,j g 3./V.g@, .
\ v -, 1 4
/ -
' - ar 't s f*
g ,
, .C'* f, ~ . Y[ e ,
/ [ x0h.g *
\ _'
'N b
, h.- -3
[j' \{ k"hi V %g l' r
( yw;~/,X, y- x W . . _? u
~v-
.- 9ep
. m
,'. .. e
, p.; s ;~y -
. m> s'. ,,r, % . :r, f '
/ s v
, . . o ** =
m/ f
- , /., - ..;. N _
. p h y, j ,5.', -
(/
- I ,
/.
s M
[
I '"' ff." -
a: %,
N* .fp[N' y
U
' ' , \.
,.3
~' {*'
f
< seterooao e , x
~,,
^:
f
.y_yg w ,
k a .
x' _c g', ._ t *-
~ . = .,
S
~
.
- p: .D 4y., .-* .f ,, \- ~- .} 6 x ,
,7[ p %.
s x N .. ,s g.' J, y *-
f.s J,. , s D y, .
,2 - ',
- N
. , , j d 4 b ~ 'rt'*
'y.-'3'.,--'M.,.
, j
%_ O. _
s.', ' '/ /. i'Npw g
- T
, , . a ' .t
_ x 7 ...\ - ','x Y '. efn *p # -
i
.. ! - s ~ x_g g ,' ,.
w
, 2,: :
' ~. < /
,s.. fy s' ~. ~.. -u ' }k q r
. .n.:
.y ~ ~ > l . 3 - <- s x
s . s m ,s
% <% %[ sh
~
O . + ., s / 4
.. e
- e;,
^
1 s
rzsw ,,: y/ ,
- gv y(v.y' N s - .. ; M, 4, N .
i
- I ., s t.
,.5 ,%e*
'.,w g* s ., s % A
- 4. . \. , - [. ' , s, ~,!
g'* . %
% l f'q
- , c
"" W j . j, . . ,j ,,,
)'N/
, e
,4 w . ,+ i N v gg y* , w, g' . Tq ,
? 'f.p .
, \
\
.f, ;;K)
. K ,_ ,
,* 1 hs, \., s
\ \"ss.- . V. i., .#I h '.-*, * .!
,d,++ .- - Y ,f i '
- 4 ,^
- w. ,[ s .,#** t e ,/
.,/_,%.<* ,
,._S.* ti
.'.'..y<",#=
,.,,,s -). ".1,,,,-
.,, s p - \ ,
s g 7 s ,a ,g g
=,% s'Ny/ 1, (,
/ ', * ,
5,._
.'\ N s' N" e 6 err m,o
, ./
4
- s -;
/3 i ti y, .
- -r' 14,
~-U%
.- s
+
- w. t.
1, r a p e+
Y, ,,_,
~, /
s k
/.'/ ...,s- -
.._ y ,m. ; ,,_m ,
- p/;, - . , --*S s '
+-- x
- ., ,\- %,
s
, ~ ~ - \ ; -
- stunny watt j .j ,
, -- s-
$ 9 ,
w GCYiRREFS 5
_f... s, 15tANO /
.<-}
kiwGRET PChD .
' POweT G;
NOTES LEGEND t ALL E6E vaTCNS rh FEET SASED ON MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM
""-- SLUM W4 L 2 GA0uN0 EATER CONY 0ua Leefs SA5ED ON LATE
-3' shouh0*ATER CONToun LNE NOVEMSER 8974 WATER LEVELS se 0 3 70PosmApnf SAlfD ON 'TOPOGRAPmC S PLAN 4sETRIC MAPPm6
- SPOT GRovNO SumFACE ELEvaYtch PeEpanED ev uoont SunvEr a Mappa es ConP oum*e6 APR:L.it74 aaa SWAMP AND WAR 5M ARE A5
- " $seCat tsat 4 EFFECT OF PROPOSED ON5iTE FRE5s4 eAffR # ELLS NCT Ss*OWN 0_ 400 soo SCALE FEET CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF SLURRY WALL NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY AND SITE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS NEP1&2 DURING CONSTRUCTION Environmental Report FIGURE 4.5-1 NEP1&2
z m
- E m
m z s o EXISTING GROUNDWATER 1 r zy LEVEL 8m,oz l 5 g EXISTING GRADE
!!. mh fN$ ur ur +
} k n EXISTING OVERBURDEN tc .,3
' fi y J
" w+
3 z E' I '
< (n.f 4,,$i;
. Z
@iG m
,1: 'd; o j - SLURRY WALL ,
T ,[
IP BOTTOM OF EARTH - '
N m EXC AVATION o \ f.gf $
C I- Mt -
g y/xxy/s y/Ary/A Y/^\Y/h m g ROCK
$ hM BOTTOM OF ROCK NOT TO SCALE s, C *3 EXCAVATION m cn a \
t* ;> y/XN Y/A
_ C t~
W us PM z
m yo
- e4 t*
F 23 to N <
E:
E u,
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards Ninigret Pcnd and Block Island Sound in the vicinity of the proposed NEP 1 & 2 have a water classification of SA.
Class SA waters, as defined by Rhode Island water quality standards and approved by the Environmental Protection l Agency, are " Suitable for all sea water uses including shellfish harvesting for direct human consumption (approved shellfish areas), bathing, and other water contact eports."
Under the Rhode Island standards,1 the allowable temperature increase for SA water is "none except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limit on the most sensitive receiving r ater use and in no case exceed 83*F or in any case raise the normal temperature more than 1.5*F,15 June through September and not more than 4*F from 5 October through 15 June. All measurements shall be made at the boundary of such mixing zones as is found to be reasonable by the Director."
State of Rhode Island Certification as required under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amend-ments of 1972 has not been obtained. Some modification in the terms and wnditions applicable to relevant RI ode Island water quality standards may be necessary before the certification can be obtained.
The facility, as presently designed, incorporates a submerged, multi-port diffusers discharge system which will com-ply with the Rhode Island water standards discussed.
5.1.2 Physical Effects The NEP 1 & 2 units utilize Atlantic Ocean water for cooling of both the main condensers and the service water system. The combined unit flow is nominally rated at 856,000 gpm which will be heated about 37'F above the tem-perature of the ambient water taken into the station. Heated cooling water will be discharged to the Atlantic Ocean via an offshore submerged multi-port diffuser. The details of the diffuser system are described in Section 3.4.
A submerged multi-port di'fuser discharge is proposed to obtain rapid mixing of the ambient ocean water with the station cooling water. The reeiving waters at the site are subject to changes in tidal elevation as well as current may-nitude and direcuon. The water current direction is predominately parallel to the shore line and has a maximur.
observed speed of about 1.6 fps as shown in Table 2.4-3.2 Since the temperature reduction for a given water depth < f the thermal discharge is dependent on the momentum of the discharged jet, availability of ambient water as well as magnitude and direction of ambient current, a diffuser design which takes best advantage of the a.ubient current con-ditions has been selected. However, since the performance of the diffuser is dependent on the magnitude of the ambient current and the ambient current is variable with tidal stage, the size of a given isotherm will vary with the ambient current and tidal stage.
The basic design c steria assumed for the diffuser are the State of Rhode Island thermal discharge standards. These standards specify that the normal temperature of the receiving water can be raised no more than 1.5*F from 15 June l5 through September, nor more than 4*F in the remaining months at the boundary of a mixing zone.l. For the proposed I diffuser,c.e size of the mixing zone is variable according to various combinations of local hydrographic parameters.
The estimate. maximum above background surface area for the 4*F mixing zone is less than 15 acres throughout the 5 year and occurs only for a short period during each tidal cycle. On a tidal average the area of the 4*F mixing zone is estimated to be less than 4 acres. The estimated surface area of the summertime 1.5'F mixing zone is less than 2000 acres and occurs with the diffuser producing an instantaneous surface maximum temperature rise of about 6*F at some point within the mixing zone. This 1.5'F mixing zone area is based on an average net drift of 0.1 feet per second and a heated layer thickness of 15 feet. Recent studies indicate higher average net drift speeds exist, consequently the area of the 1.5'F mixing zone would be accordingly reduced.
Receiving waters at the site are thermally stratified during the summer with temperature differences between sur-face and bottom ranging from 5 to 8 degrees2 . Except in the near field jet mixing region, the diffuser will not have any significant effect on ambient thermal stratification. Tidal currents will advect the thermal plume into the far field where it ultimately loses its heat to the atmosphere. The momentum of the jet discharge from the diffuser will induce mixing cf ambient receiving water with the plant discharge. After expending the initial jet momentum to induce mix-ing, the plume will be coeled to within about 6*F of ambient and will drift away from the near field region with ambient currents.
5.1-1
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER I Analytical and physical hydrothermal model studies have been conducted to determine thermal discharge charac-teristics including the mixing zone area required by the diffuser. Two hydrothermal models are required to predict thermai disebarge behavior. Lt.ws governing thermal discharge behavior vary with distance from the discharge point.
The region near the discharge ports where the jet discharge momentum governs the mixing of ambient water with the heated effluent is called the near field region. At a distance from the discharge point where the jet induced momentum has reached a value equal in magnitude to the ambient momentum caused by local currents is the begi ming of the far field region. Temperature reduction of the thermal effluent in the near field is accomplished primarily by mixing with ambient water and is therefore extremely rapid, occuring in less than 60 seconds. Heat loss in the far field is accomplished by radiation and convection to the atmosphere and is dependent on surface wind conditions and the difference between the natural equilibrium temperature of the water surface and the artificial surface temperature caused by the heated discharge. Temperature reduct:on the far field is therefore much slower than in the near field and occurs ovet a longer period than in the near field.
3l The physical hydrothermal model utilized for predictions in the near and immediate regions is described in Appendix l C.I. De: ailed predictions of the thermal behavior of the station discharge, including isothermal plots as a function of 3 5l tidal stage, ambient current are also presented in Appendix C.I. Analytical model results of the thermal plume l throughout a tidal cycle and far fieh; temperature predictions are presented in Appendix C.1 A.
5.1.3 Thermal Backflushing Prediction For the purposes of bio-fouling control, it will be necessary to perform backflush heat treatment of the intake system.
T' meedure, er some other effective bio-fouling control technique, is absdutely racessary to maintain the plant c mg system in operational condition.
3 1 Results of backflush tests conducted in the physical model are presented in Appendix C.I.
5.1.4 Biological Effects The heat dissipation facility for NEP 1 & 2 is described in Section 3.4. Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 present plan and profile O
3l siews of the circulating water system. The selected system operating parameters such as flow and temperature rise minimize the overall effects on the aquatic ecosystem by reducing the total voh:me of water from Block Island Sound which is utilized by the plant. While thermal effect.- can be mitigated by use of diffusers, and entrapment will be reduced by proper intake design, there are no practical measures which can prevent entrainment of planktonic organ-isms Accordingly, the design approach has been to minimize the volume of water passing through the system to reduce entrainment effects, and to limit entrapment and thermal effects by appropriate design measures for the offshore inlet and discharge structi.res as described in Section 3.4.
51 5.1.4.1 Thermal Effects The characteristics of the thermal plume are provided in Appendix C.I. and C.1 A.The thermal plume isotherms, areas and location vary as a function of tidal phase and ambient current. In accordance v. ith State water quality criteria, the normal surface temperature at the boundary of the mixing zone will not be raised 35 more than 1.5'F during July, August and September or 4T durmg the remainder of the year. The physiel and analytical models indicate that the surface area within the 4*F temperature rise above background isotherm will be less than 15 acres. During summer, it is expected that the 1.5'F mixing zone will be less than 2000 acres and will usually be on the order of 1500 acres. Outside of this mixing zone,it is not anticipated that there will be any significant thermal effects on the biota.
Effects of the Thermal Plume. The impact of the discharge upon ambient flow patterns in the vicinity of the site will be evident in the near field diffuser mixing zone. The faciUty discharge is expected to have an insignificant influence on the flow patterns outside the mixing zone and no influence in the far field.The diffuser design is discussed in Section 3.4.2.
3 l Discharged waterjetting from the diffuser ports at an initial velocity of about 18 fps entrains substantial quantities of I ambient receiving water. The initial velocity is reduced quickly as the ambient water mixes with the discharge jets.
3,5 At a distance of 250 to 400 feet from the diffuser nozzles, ambient water is entrained at a ratio of 6 to 1 and the dis-charge temperature is reduced to one-sixth. It usually takes about two minutes or less for water to reach the surface and undergo a temperature change from 37'F to less than 6*F above ambient.
5.1-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 3 swim speed results presented in Table 5.1-1 reflect sustained swimming performances. The ability of fish to avoid i intake entrapment is probably best reflected by an organism's burst speed performance. While burst speeds may not be specifically known for all species cited in Table 5.1-1, it is generally accepted that a fish's burst swim speed capability is substantially greater than its sustained sen speed. Thus,it is the Applicant's opinion that most of the fish species found in the Block Island Sound region for which data have been compiled either have the swimming capability to avoid intake entrapment or, due to their behavioral or life history characteristics, are not likely to be candidates for entrapment.
An additi. mal modification of the proposed intake which should further reduce the magnitude of finfish entrapment is the application of anti-fouling protection to the exterior of the st ructure. This will prevent the formation of a biologi-cal community on the structures exterior and the subsequent attraction of fish.
Applicant is of the opinion that the selected intake design represents the best available technology. It is anticipated that the effects of entrapment on the ecology of Block Island Sound will be insignificant.
5.1.4.3 Entrainment. Those organisms which are drawn into the plant cooling water system intake and which are small enough to pass throug;h the traveling screens are said to be entrained. The NEP 1 & 2 circulating water system is designed to minimize cooling water flow. This results in a relatively high water temperature merease (delta T) of 37*F, which will cause significant mortality of entrained organisms. In minimizing flow the objective is to pro-vide the least amount of impact on the higher trophic levels of marine biota, i.e., meroplankton, including fish eggs and larvae.
With respect to the holop:ankton, the phytoplankton and most species of zooplankton in Block Island Sound, the impact upon these populations will be negligible. This conclusion is based upon the rapid regeneration rate of phytoplankton and the numerically dominant forms of zooplankton, i.e., copepods, in Block Island Sound, as well as upon the magnitude of the " standing crops" of these organisms in Block Island Sound in relation to the proposed cool-ing water requirements.
Entrailment of fish eggs and larvae is of partkular concern due to the greater sensitivity of these forms to the com-bined stresses of temperature shock, pressure differential, shear forces and mechanical abrasion. Since investigations at other sites have indicated a relatively high mortality for entrained fish larvae, the objective of the plant operation is to take into the system as few entrained organisms as possible. This is accomplished by designing the circulating water system to minimize the volume of cooling water flow.
5.1,4.4 Changes in Dissolved Oxygen and Dissolved Nitrogen. The dissolved gas content of seawater passing through the NEP 1 & 2 circulating cooling water system should not be significantly altered. Studies on the disolved gas content of the intake and discharge waers at a coastal power facility on 31assachusetts Bay have shown that the dissolved gas conter.t of the dischare is generally within 1 ppm of levels measured .t the intake.7 Other investigators have also not found substantial changes in the dissolved gas (oxygen) content in the receiving waers caused by power plant operation.N910 Therefore, no significant change in the gas concentration of the seawater used for cooling at the NEP 1 & 2 facility is anticipated.
While no significant changes in the gas content of seawater used for cooling at NEP 1 & 2 should occur, passage of the cooling water through the circulating water system will affect its solubility. The solubility of a gas in seawater is a function of its temperature and partial pressure. The solubility of the cooling water will be lowered as a result of its increase in temperature upon pesage through tne plant's condenser. Since no substantial change in the concentration of dissolved gases in the cooling water should occur, the water exiting tha condenser will beome supersaturated by an amount related to the condenser temperature rise idelta T).
The gas saturation level of the cooling water at the point of discharge to the receiving water, however, should be less than at the condenser outlet due to hydrostatic pressure. the NEP 1 & 2 cooling water will be discharged thruogh a diffuser at deptha between 30 to 40 feet. At these discharge depths, the solubility of the cooling water is increased du" to increased hydrostatic pressure, and the gas saturation level is thereby reduced.
This interaction of temperature and pressure on the gas solubility of seawater as it passes through a power plant cool-ing system was examined by 31arcello, Kraback, and Bartl ett.Il These authors plotted the gas saturation history of a parcel of seawater through a circulating water system for the conditions of a 37*F temperature rise, and intake water temperature and gas saturation of 40*F and 110% saturation, respectively (typical of spring conditions at coastal sites 5.1-5 .
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER in this region). The diffuser they evaluated was designed to meet a surface temperature criteria of 5*F above ambient. They pointed out that circulating water adsorbs heat upon passing through the condenser, and the percent saturation of dissolved gas was increased to abcut 160% saturation. The highly supersaturated water is pumped to the diffuser located at a depth of 30 feet where the saturation becomes less than 90%. As the heated water is discharged from the diffus>r nozzles and rises to the surface, the temperatures are diluted such that the effluent gas saturation is slightly above ambient intake levels (at the surface).
The circulating water system design of NEP 1 & 2 is such that with a diffuser discharging between 30-foot and 40-3l foot depth and a maximum surface temperature of 6.4*F above ambient, gas saturation levels will be only slightly above ambient intake levels and, therefore, sh(.ald cause no significant impact.
5.1.4.5 Changes in Nutrient Concentrations. Phytoplankton and zooplankton killed due to entrainment through the station cooling water system represent a source of nutrients for recycling through the ecosystem. Such recycling is a natural process occurring both in the water column and on the bottom. The biological processes produc-mg the breakdown of organic material and the subsequent release of nutrients occur throughout the ecosystem.
Therefore, the distribution of nutrients will be a function of the presence of the biological agents of decomposition as well as physical and chemical factors.
Organisms killed in the circulating water discharge will be subject to decomposition, particularly after discharge from the diffuser. The nature of the diffuser and the slow settling rate of such organic particulates indicate that a buildup of nutrients nea the diffuser will be unlikely. Beyond the region affected by the discharge, waves, tides and ambient currents will further disperse the particulates and resulting nutrients. This should not result in measurable changes in nutrient concentrations or distribution.
5.1.5 References
- 1. Water Quality Criteriafor Classiriation of Waters of the State, Department of Health, Division of Water 5l l Supply and Pollution Control. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,1977.
- 2. Raytheon Company,1975. FinalReport - Charlestown Hydrographic Study, April 1974 to April 1975.
- 3. Raytheon Company,1975. Oceanographie and Environmental Services. Charlestown Hydrographic Study, FinaiReport. April 1974 to April 1975.1975.
- 4. Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Scutember,1972. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3, Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report, Con-struction PermitStage. Amendment No.1,Section A5. Docket Nos.50-361 and 50-362.
- 5. Schuler, V.J., February 1975. Experimental studies in the reduction of fish entrainment at offshore cooling water intake structures. Ichthyological Associates, Inc. Bulletin 12.
- 6. Schuler, V.J., and L.E. Larson, January,1974. Experimental studies evaluating aspects of fish behavior as parameters in the design of generating station intake systems.
- 7. Boston Edison Company,1975. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-annual Report No. 6,Section III.
- 8. Reevn. LN.,1970. Effects of thermal discharge from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Paper presented at 25th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference. Lafayette, Indiana.
- 9. Adams, J.R.,1969. Thermal power, aquatic life and kilowatts on the Pacific coast. Nuclear New 12(9):75-79.
- 10. Zeller, R.W. and R.L. Rulifson,1970. A survey of Californic coastal power plants. U.S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, Portland, Oregon,56 pp.
- 11. Marcello, Rocco A., Jr., Michael H. Krabach, Stephen F. Bartlett.1975. Evaluation of Alternatire Solutions to Gas Bubble Disease Afortality of hienhaden at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Westboro, Massachusetts. Y AEC 1087.
- 12. Downs, D.I. and K.R. Meddock,1974. Engineering apolication of fish bel.avior studies in the design of intake systems for coastal generating stations. Presented at ASCE Natl. Water Res. Conf., Jan. 21-25,1974, Lo-Angeles, Calif. 30 pp.
5.1-6
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 1::. Wyllie. 31.C., E.lt. Holmstrom, and it.K. Wallace,1976. Temperature preference, guidance, shock, and 5 swimspeed studies with marine and estuarine organisms from New Jersey. Ichthyological Associates. Inc.
Ilulletin No 15,76 p.
I 1. Iloyar, ii.C.1961. Swimming speed ofimmature Atlantic herring with reference to the Passamaquaddy tidal project. Tranx. A mer. Fish Soc.,90(1):21-26.
- 15. Ilrown, V.31.1960. Underwater television observations of the swimming speed and behavior of captive her-ring. J. Fish, Res. Bd. Can.,17(5):G89-698
- 16. filaxter, J.ll.S. and W. Dickson,1959. Observations on the swimming speeds of fish. J. Cons. Int. E.rplor. 3fer.
21(3): 472-479.
- 17. Ilibko, P.N., L. Wirtenan, and P.E. Kueser,1974. Preliminary studies on the effects of air bubbles and intense illumination on the swimming behavior of the striped bass (3forone sa.ritalis) and the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum.) pp 293-304 in L.D. Jensen(ed), Proc. ;!nd Entrainment and Intake Servening it'orkshop, EPRI Publ. No. 74-049-00-5, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
- 18. 13ainbridge, R.1958. The speed of swimming of fish as related to size and to the frequency and amplitude of 2 the tall beat. J. E.rp. Biol. 35:109-33.
- 19. lleamish, F.W.II.1966. Swimming endurenee of some Northwest Atlantic fishes. J. Fish Res. #d. Can. 23(:ll:
3 11-:?17.
20 Ilyman, 31.A. and W.H. 310wbray (undated) Endurance with respect to speed as htermined for several marine species and its impact upon impingement. Univ. of Rhode Island 31arine Experiment Station, Kingston, R.I. (unpublished)
- 21. Cole, K.S. and D.L. Gilbert,1970. Jet propulsion of squid. Biol Bull 138(3):245-246 5.1-7
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Definition of the reflection correction factor (a was based on the plume trapping equation in the U.S. EPA workbook on atmospheric dispersion (Reference 20). The EPA equation wss reduced to the form n
tg = e Wb
~
j=-n where 6 d'-[L/1, (7)
L is the height of the reflection layer and 2n is the total number of reflections.
Similarly, the correction factor (g is defined as n
(y =
[
j=-n e-(Ol) (7^)
s = / 2 L/o , (7B)
Note that for multiple reflections, i.e., when uniform vertical mixing has taken place, Eq. (6) reduces to (8)
En =
as can be seen by writing IG "
- O In most cases, where I, < < L, fo is equal to unity. In our analysis, n was conservatively set equal to 6; n=3 or 4 is normally sufficient to include the important reflections.
(ii) Sector-Average Model 4
Atmospheric dispersion during intervals greater than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> was based on the sector average model, 2.032 (g (x/Q)sa = x g 3 (8B)
Z where X is the distance from the release point to the receptor. Note that when Eq. (8A) is substituted into Eq. (8B) the latter reduces to 4
55 (x/Q)SA "k"gL which is the familiar form of the sector-average dilution equation with uniform mixing.
6.1-17
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER
- b. Dilution Factors A CHl/Q value was computed by the above models for each sequential hour of measured meteorological data.
Values were computed for an exclusion boundary distance of 2130 feet (649.2m) and an LPZ distance of 1.5 miles (2413.5m).
Evaluation of each hourly dilution factor was based on the average wind speed and the vertical tempe.ature gra-dient indicated in the meteorological data. A minimum wind speed of 0.25 mph was used in the r'Hl!Q calculations when the wind speed trace for the averaging period was less than 0.5 mph.
A limited mixing layer depth of about 900 meters was determined by calculating the average of the mean annual 3l morning mixing height and the mean annual afternoon mixing height for the NEP 1 & 2 site area (Reference 5).
Values for cryand cr, were computed by applying parabolic interpolation (on a log-log basis) to tabular data of these parameters versus distance. The data were extracted from the Pasquill-Gifford curves for atmospheric 3l stabilities A through G (reference 33). <r, values were restricted to a minimum of 1000 meters.
Building-wake effects were computed using a building cross-sectional area of 2160 sq. meters and a building height (hy of 52.6 meters.
The hourly dilution factors obtained as described and the corresponding direction in which the wind was blowing during each hour were then stored in sector dependent arrays f er sequential processing. This involved the averag-ing of selected hourly CHl/Q values over successive, overlapping time intervals of 1,2,8,24,96, or 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />, (the last five intervals correspond to the time periods: 1 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />,2 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />,8 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, I to 4 days, and 4 to 30 days specified in Regulatory Guide 1.4).
For each selected interval size, the processing began with the first hourly CHI /Q value on record and was then repeated for the same interval size starting with each subsequent hour of CHl/Q data. In the averaging process, the only CHI /Q values within a given time interval that were considered in evaluating the nean dilution factor for 3l the interval were those for the specific win (' direction being analyzed. Missing data were handled by imposing the condition that at least half of the entries within an averaging interval correspond to valid observations. In addition, missing data points were not included in the averaging.
As an illustrative example, consider a 4-hour interval and de following sequence of hourly wind directions:
WWWWSMWMMWSSSSS. In this sequence, W is for the west sector, S is for the south sector and M represents missing data. Assuming that each hourly dilution facwr is equal to unity, and limiting the total number of valid observations per averaging interval to at least 2 as described above, the sequence of averaged dilution factors for the west sector are as follows: 4/4, 3/4, 2/3, 2/3,1/2, blank, 2/2,1/2,1/3,1/4, 0, a nd O.
The average dilution factors computed as described were subsequently classified for each 221/2 degree sector into 3Al groups, and corresponding cumulative frequency distributions were prepared. The distributions were then l analyzed to the value that was exceeded 50 percent of the time.
1 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates. Annual average dilution factors were computed for routine releases from the site using the following model.
Background. Atmospheric dilution factors (x/Q) and deposition rates (D/Q) were calculated using a dispersion model which makes use of the following:
- hourly meteorological data
- straight-line trajectory with sector-averaged Gaussian dispersion
- fumigation and trapping
- part-time ground-level and part-time elevated releases (mixed mode reicase model)
- momentum plume rise
- terrain elevation
- depletion in transit, and
- multiple eddy reflections from both ground and stable inversion layers aloft.
O 6.1-18
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 The method of analysis involves computation of the following parameters on an hourly basis: 1 (x/Q) the non-depleted dilution factor for evalunting ground level concentrations of noble gases; tritium, carbon 14 and non-elemental iodines.
x/Q)D the depleted dilution factor for evaluating ground level concentrations of elemental radiciodines and other particulates (x/Q), an effective gamma dilution factor evaluating gamma dose rates from a sector-averaged finite cloud (multiple-energy undepleted source), and, (DiQ) the deposition factor for evaluating dry deposition of elemental radioiodines and other particu-lates.
6.1-18A
J f c
- Aevision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER
. /
Average dilution and deposition factors were determined from:
_- ) .
I (F)g = 1 [m(F)p; j=1 (9) -
where :
F is any one of the four factors listed above, 1is the sector identification number, m is the number of hourly values computed for the sector, and N is the total number of values for all sectors.
The fundamental equations taed were based on Regulatory Guide 1.111 18and are described below.
Non-Depleted Dilution Factors Diffusion Model. Atmospheric transport and diffusion was based on the straight-line flow model with Gaussian diffusion presented by Sagendorf.19The equation for this model, for use in computing sector-averaged hourly dilution factors, is:
2.032 Er (1-Er )
(X/Q) = _
y &G+ IE Xu 8 z z (10) where -'
X is the distance from the release point to the receptor (m).
Ii is the hourly average wind speed (m/sec).
L' E, is the entrainment coefficient (equal to unity for ground-level releases and to zero for elevated releases),
cr, is the vertical plume standard deviation at distance X for the atmospheric stability prevailing during the hour of interest (m).
I, is the vertical plume standard deviation corrected for building wake effects (m). -
EG is the reDe tion correction for ground level releases, and (E is the vertical attenuation and reflection correction for elevated releases. l Note that Eq. (10) applies during normal atmospherie conditions. The effects of fumigation and trapping cansed by seabreezes and onshore gradient flows are described later. The terms within the brackets represent, respectively, the contributions to the dilution factor frcm the entrained and the non-entrained portions of the release during the hour of
=
interest. The efDuent is considered to occur as an e evated release (1-E,) x 100 percent of the time (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in this case) and as a ground-level release (E,) x 100 percent of the time. Details on the definitions of the various parametem i are given in the sections that follow.
Entrainment. As outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111 effluents are considered as either ground-level releases (E,
- 1.0),t>levated releases (E, - 0.0), or mixed mode releases (0.0 < E, < l.0) depending on (a) the alevation (hs) of i the release point above grade relative to the height (hn) of adjacent solid structures and (b) the effluent-exit velocity i (W,) relative to the speed of the prevailing wind (U) during the time period of interest. The various cases are as follows:
for hg < hg Er =
1.0 i
- I i
- 6.1-18 8
- s
+dr9 o b*+ ///g/ A Y Y @/
N' \Rx // & p ,
Wq%
p /g,%%,'<ls
'\ Vpp 9 V+ IMAGE EVALUATION
'k $
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
'gm an 1.0
- E [y EE I.I ['S llLE 8
1_
l.25 IA 1.6
< 6" =
0 99%s 4 %/b 9/
@h M
q) % 9 $g , f4
\\\\! '-
j /// (! d
- 444 s'>#+ffp - . , , - , , , . +'s#
T,ST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 M L52 LM l9 M gu ma ==
l,l hD bb
'8 1.25 1.4 1.6 l4 6"
- 4 ' 4%
- %f >///;/
544
<y
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 8.1 BENEFITS OF PROJECT The anticipated benefits which will be derived frora the construction and operation of NEP 1 & 2 can be viewed in two categories. First are those primary direct benefits which are derived directly from meeting the objective of the pio-posed facility - to provide the electrical generation capability to meet the projected demands for electricity in the region. Second are other benefits which, although not in themselves justification for the existence of NEP 1 & 2, are of real importance to the communities more immediate to the Charlestown site as well as regional and national concerns. These benefits are both a result of the direct project actions, although not the primary project objective, and indirect or second order consequences of the direct actions of the implementation plan for the project. 8.1.1 Primary Direct Benefits The projected generation capability of NEP 1 & 2 is an integral part of an overall, continuing plan of generation expansion to provide the assurance of an adequate and reliable supply of electricity. The need for an incremental addi-tion of base-load generation capability of this size was demonstrated in Chapter 1 of this report. Fulfin.. g this need will materialize in the improved health, safety, well-being, productivity and enjoyment of the consumers of the region. This then is the primary benefit of this project. The value of the electricity produced, and thus the primary benefit, is more than can be measured by the dollar value of the revenue collected from the sale of that electricity. The enief benefit does not accrue from the sale of electricity in its own right, but rather from the much greater contribution cf that purchased energy to society's health, safety, comfort and productivity. As a conservr.ive estimate, the benefit is expressed in terms of: (1) the dollar value paid by customers to purchase the electricity, and (2) the capacity additions that ensure the system reliability and stability advantages needed to supply the electricity demand. The total value of the benefits of the electricity goes scell beyond these conservative measures. The benefit of the electricity produced by this plant can be measured both in terms of the quantities supplied relative 4 to the needs and in terms of the economic value. The 7 percent contribution of this project to the generating capacity of the New England utilities at the time ofits addition would provide 9 percent of the electrical energy produced in New England during the mid 1990's. The generation capability within the state o'Rhode Island presently consists of approximately 25') MW ofintermedi-ate type of generating capacity that is predominantly fired with residual fuel oil. Rhode Island has been a net importer of electricity from generation facilities in the surrounding states of New England for over a decade. The power generatior, capability of NEP 1 & 2 will result in substantial base-load generstion capacity in Rhode Island and alleviate Rhode Island's dependence on power generated externally. A conservative measure of the benefits of this electricity in terms of dollars is the revenue to be collected from the sale of electricity. This serves as a preliminary measure of economic value as perceived by customers, being an indica-tor of the willingness to pay for electric service. This can be derived by multiplying the kilowatt-hour sales from those units by the average price per kilowatt @ur paid by customers in the six-state New England region. NEP 1 & 2 wih each have a capacity of 1150 megawatts. NEP 1 is schedukt to begin commercial operation late in 1986 and NEP 2 is scheduled for 2 years later in the fall of 1988 in order that they will be available in time to help meet the peak-load requirements of those years. The 2300 megawatt capacity facility will be expected to supply 71 ,er-cent of the total electrical generating capability of the New England utilities during the late 1980's (see Table 1.1-20A). The output, conservatively estimated, for each unit over a typical operating period, based on the minimum expected operating life equal to the 28-year book life for each unit, is shown in Table 8.1-1. Over 14 billion kilowatt-hours are expected to be produced annually during the years of maximum production. On the average in New Eng-land, transmission and distribution losses account for about 8 percent of net system output and sales represent approximately 92 percent of net output. Electric sales from NEP 1 & 2, therefore, have been estimated at 92 percent l 3 of its expected net output. The expected kilowatt-hour sales during a typical full year of production at the maximum expected capacity factor of the Fant are shown in Table 8.1-2 and on a yearly basis over the minimum expected operating life in Table 8.1-3. For purposes of determining the total present value of the 1 ant1 revenues evaluated at the first full year of operation, a 28-year book life has been assumed as a conservative minimum operating life and the revenues and present %es (at an 11.4 perec-t discount rde) are presented in TaHe 8.1-4. 8.1-1
Revision 3 N E P 1 & 2 ER The dollar values of the electricity to be supplied by NEP 1 & 2 as shown in Tables 8.1-3 and 8.1-4 have been calcu-3l lated on the following basis:
- a. 1975 percentage breakdown of kilowatt-hour sales by customer class in the six-state New England region (see Table 8.1-5).
- b. 1975 average revenue per kilowatt-hour by customer class in the six-state New England region (see Table 8.1-6).
- c. Total kilowatt-hour sales from Table 8.1-3.
- d. Dollar values d;scounted to their 1985 present worth using an 11.4 percent discount rate.
The benefit of the electricity to be supplied by NEP 1 & 2, expressed as the present value in the initi d year of opera-tion of the output of the two units, is conservatively estimated to be 4.3 billion dollars on the basis of 1975 rates with-out price escalation. Table 8.1-4 shows the expected revenues each year based on average revenue per kilowatt-hour in 1975. Based on an assumed price escalation rate through the project life of 5 percent a year from the 1975 base year, the present value of the accumulated revenues from NEP 1 & 2 electrical output as calculated at the reference year (assumed to be 1985) is estimated to be 11.3 billion dollars, which is more than 2-1/2 times greater than the value based on 1975 rates without escalation. 8.1.2 Other Benefits In the process ofimplementing the plans for providing generating capability in NEP 1 & 2, several direct actions will be taken in the construction and operation of ohe plant that will be beneficial to communities near the site, the region and the nation. These benefits ine:ude, for example, oil vulnerability and energy independence considerations, employ-ment and income opportunities, tax revenues, economic activity enhancement, and ancillary facilities. 8.1.2.1 Regional Vulnerability to Oil Supply. In overall perspectives, New England has been dependent upon oil as an energy source to a far greater degree than the nation as a whole. In addition, this region has virtually no indigenous energy resources and thus depends heavily on foreign imports and imports from other regions of the nation for its supply of energy resources. The dependence on oil as an energy resource in the New England region is shown in Table 8.1-7. Where oil provides about 80 percentl13 of the energy requirement in New England, only about 45 per-cent is sglied by oil in the U.S. on the average.13 8 The petroleum praluct fractions of total energy use in New Eng-land and for the states of 3f assachusetts and Rhode Island are shown in Table 8.1-8. Electrical generation has been heavily dependent on oil, with oil accounting for 68 percent of the total electrical generation in New England. Further, electrical generation was 19 percent of the total petroleum product usage in New Eng'and. It is evident that the regional energy supply has been especially vulnerable to fluctuation and interruptions in the prices and quantities of oil available. Indeed, during the Arab oil embargo following the Slid-East war in late 1973, the New England utilities found it necessary to take drastic measures to curtail electric energy consumption and to import electricity from other regions which had coal-fired and/or nuclear generating capacity available. However, dependent upon the pow er p<xsling arrangements which will exist in the future, such latter option may not be available s to alleviate possible future regional energy shortfalls resulting in the necessity for curtailment. By providing an electrical generation plant that will contribute to a shift in the patterns of energy reserve supply away from oil, this vulnerability can be reduced. This is of benefit to all consumers in the region. The shift in energy resource use could be accomplished by the use of either coal or nuclear energy. In evalu ting the alternatives available to meet the need for additional baseload generating facilities of New England Electne System subsidiaries (see Section 9.2 and Referenec 3) nuclear power was selected as the best means to provide low cost, reli-able electricity within the constraints of available fuels and enviromental considerations. Because of the selection of nuclear units rather than oil-based generation to supply the needed 2300 31W of capacity, the New England generat-ing capacity will include 48 percent fossil generation (see Table 1.1-20) rather than 'i5 percent. Thus, the dependence on fossil fuels external to the region, and in particular foreign oil, for electricity generation in New England will be reduced by the use of nuclear fuel rather than oil or coal for this project. O 8.1-2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 The power generation of NEP 1 & 2, if it were to be produced by oil-fire I generating capacity. wouhl require approx-imately 23 million barrels of oil annually ior an average of 63.000 barreb per day. This oil requirt ment wouhl be about 25 percent of the total petroleum used in New England for electrical ,.,eneration in 1971 and about 5 percent of total New England petroleum product usage in 1971.6 Since about f>0 percent of petroleum product requirements are 7 foreign imports in the Northeast this oil requirement is equivalent to about f>0 percent or the foreign imported oil for New England electrical generation or 10 percent of total New England imported oil usage again referenced to 1974 (Table Kl-9). 8.1.2.2 Natio,al and Regional Energy independence. As a result of the increasing depemtence on the foreign importation of oil to meet energy supply requirements. national objectives of energy independence have been established.8 The decision to provide 2300 MW of nuclear power is thus a significant contribution toward this goal of reducing the dependence on foreign imports by oil by shiftirg the patterns of consumption to make more effective use of domestic energy re3ources. The installation in the late 1930's of 2300 MW of oibfired generation capacity in New England would represent an g t increase of 16 tiercent in fos 3il-based generating capacity over 1977. This wouhi he contrary to the objectives of l energy independence which require reductions in both actual usage and use patterns of oil consumption in order to reduce oil import requirements. The midterm energy outlook indicates a need to reduce total oil imports in the 1962 time frame from 12.7 million barrels per day" to about 3 to 5 million barrels per day.10 Since the electrical generation portion of oil consumption is less than 10 percent nationally, a reduction in oil use of about 0.9 million barrels per day in the electrical generation sector would be a proportional contribution to this objective. The 63.000 barrels per day savings contribution of this project woubt represent a contribution of 7 percent toward this goal and about 1 percent of the total U.S. import requirement in 1971.11 NEP 1 & 2 woald provide a significant reduction in the vulnerable fraction of electrical generation and thus con- 4 tribute in a major way toward energy independence for the service area as well as the national energy independence. At present about 6T) percent of the generation capability in New England is based on foreign imported oil. Hy a pro-gram of capacity additions based on nuclear generation. it is projected that the nuclear capacity fracti<>n will reach 37 percent by the late 19ho's with a reduction in oil-based capacity to about 52 percent of total New England capacity. The present fraction of electrical energy sapplied to Neu Knylawl cantomers that is go nerated from rulnerable imported oil is over 50 percent. A major contribution to ti,e reduction in this depcmlence or imported oil willcome from the 2300 MW capacity of NEP 1 & 2. By the mid 1990% these units are expected to produce about 9% of the total electrical energy generation in New England, while the pre,ently committed nuclear generated energy is projected at 52 percent. in addition to improving local energy independence by reducing the vulnerability to foreign oil supplies, the choice of nuclear rather than dome 3 tic coal-based generation also enhances locali nergy independence. Coal supplies are more vulnerable to interruptions in the operations in the mining and transportation industries. 8.1.2.3 Bolonce of Paymen's. This shift in the energy consumption pattern away from a high dependence on imported oil wouhl also contribute toward the reduction in the balance-of-payments deficit. At an estimated $13 per barrel price for oil. and assuming that domestic oil supplies oil supplies will not increase to exceed domestic demand. a 23 million barrel annual oil usage rate needed for a 2300 MW generation capability wouhl contribute a $300 million dollar outflow annually from the United States. This is a first estimate of the contribution to the balance-of-payments deficit which would be reduced due to subsequent purchases of U.S. goods and services by the foreign sector. This is about 1 percent of the projected entire U.S. dollar outflow requirement for imported petroleum in 19f). (Interpreted from oil import requirements shown in Reference 12.) 8.1.2.4 Relative Cost of Electricity. Power Generation Cost. The power generation costs for nuclear generation are significantly lower than for fossil generation as shown in Section 1.1.3. A comparison of the projected levelized power costs are developed by 8.1-3
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Arthur D. Little, Inc.,in the study entitled " Economic Comparison of Base-Load Generation Alternatives"13 for the period 1985 to 2000 shows the following generation costs: Nuclear 36 mills / kwhr Oil 52 milld/ kwhr Coal (with scrubbers)57 mills / kwhr This 16 to 21 mills per kilowatt-hour differential is significant when compared with the 1975 average revenue of 41 mills per kilowatt-hour (Table 8.1-6). The 15-year total power generation cost differential favoring nuclear over oil generation for this 2300 MW of generation capability is nearly 1.7 billion dollars on a present-worth basis at the initial year of operation (at an 11.4 percent discount rate) and about 4 billion dollars without present-worth discounting. This additio..a: cost would be in effect a loss of dollars to the economy of the region since the difference is pn.narily for imported fuel purchases. Cost to Customer. The operation of NEP 1 & 2 at lower power generation cost than could be projected for oil- or coal-based generation will result in a lower cost of electricity to the customers in New England. For example, infor-mation provided in Table 8.1-10 indicates that a typical residential customer in the New England Electric System would have an annual electric bill of about $700 in 1986. The savings to this average residential customer due to the operation of NEP 1 & 2 would be approximately $50 a year or about 7 percent 8.1.2.5 Project Employment and income. The NEP 1 & 2 will have an important positive influence on the levels of employment and personal income of Rhode Island in general and the Charlestown area in particular. During j the construction of the facility it is anticipated that employment opportunities over a period of 9 years will be availa-ble directly as a result of the need for construction and support work force. A distribution of the manpower require-ments is shown in Table 8.1-11. The work force and payroll expected for each year of the construction period are shown in Table 8.1-12. A peak (mployment of 3000 is anticipated in the fifth year from construction start. An opera-4 tional work force of 200 is expected following completion of the units. Table 8.1-11 A and 8.1-12A show the operational work force and payroll expected. Wages paid to these workers will improve the total personal income in the area, stimulate the local economy through the spending of that income and provide an increased source of taxable income in the area, stimulate the local economy through the spending of that income and provide an increased source of taxable income. Total construction wages are 4 estimated in escalated dollars to an assumed construction start date in 1979 to be $432 million, with a peak annual payroll of over $96 million. The payroll of the permanent staff of 200 is estimated at about $3.4 million (in 1978 dol-lars), or $6.8 million in 1989 when escalated at 6 percent per year. 8.1.2.6 Tax Revenues. The construction of the electric generating facility will result in a significant shift in the tax base of Charlestown. The facilay is projected to have a taxable property value in excess of I billion dollars. When added to a community tax base for Charlestown of about 100 millicn dellars, the additional tax base added by the plant will represent over 90 percent of the total taxable property. Thus, with the plant installed, the total tax valuation of the commumty would be significantly increased with the utility potentially paying over 90 percent of the property taxes and the rest of the community's share decreasing.The specific amounts and percentage distribution of tax liabilities and payments will depend upon negotiations between Applicant and the community and the growth in community taxable property. In any case, the greatly expanded tax base will provide the flexibility to enable a signifi-cant tax reduction for the residents, greatly increased tax resources to provide facilities and services or a combination thereof.
'\ Figure 8.1-13 shows the estimated taxable property in the proposed Charletown nuclear plant as a function of year after acqusition of the site by the company. The value of the property jumps immediately to $3.300,000 when the land is purchased and then increases rapidly over 8 years to approximately $1,500.000.000. Depreciation over a 28-year book life on each of the two units brings the net plant investment down to the value of the land approximately 37 years after site acquisition. It is normal practice for the company and the town in which a plant is located to agree on a uniform assessment, which does not vary from year to year as a result of depreciation. The suggested alternative of uniform assessment would be at 70 percent of the initial plant investment, or approximately $1,050.000,000.
Table 8.1-13 also shows these figures. Note that the suggested uniform awessment continues after the plant if fully depreciated. as long as the plant is operating. Table 8.1-14 shows the estimated effect of the nuclear plant on the Charlestown tax base. It is estimated that the nuclear plant would pay over 90 percent of Charlestown's taxes at the date of commercial operation. 8.1-4
Table 8.1-11 MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
- Year of Construction Unit 1 Start-up Unit 2 Start-up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Abestos Workers - - - -
10 45 70 50 10 Boiler Makers - 5 75 150 140 95 60 30 5 Carpenters 15 60 180 250 220 120 50 30 5 Electricians 5 20 30 140 360 365 270 190 50 h Ironworkers 15 80 170 210 220 130 30 10 - P Laborers 50 120 250 290 325 220 90 45 15 , x Millwrights - - 5 25 50 60 50 30 5 Operating Engineers 50 100 120 125 140 100 30 10 5 Pipefitters 10 30 70 280 580 550 405 265 95 Others 40 85 200 350 360 115 50 30 5 Subtotal 185 500 1100 1820 2405 1800 1105 690 195 Nonmanual 65 300 500 580 595 540 455 300 165 TOTALS 250 800 1600 2400 3000 2340 1560 990 360 I
*For Operational Work Force Manpower Requirements, refer to Tables 8.1-11 A and 8.1-12A.
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Table 8.1-11 A MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS OPERATIONAL WORK FORCE
- YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION Unit 1 Startup Unit 2 Startup 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plant Management 5 7 7 7 8 8 Technical Support 13 22 22 29 34 34 Administrative 'i 7 7 7 7 7 Maintenance 8 25 25 39 69 69 Operations 33 34 34 57 57 57 Stores 4 6 6 7 9 9 Security - 16 16 16 16 16 Startup 9 9 9 9 9 -
TOTALS 79 126 126 171 209 200
*For additional Manpower Requirements refer to Table 8.1 11.
O
Revision 5 Environmental Report NEP 1 & 2 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page No. Chapter 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES l5
9.0 INTRODUCTION
AND SUMM ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0-1 9.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1 Pu rcha sed E nergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1.1 New Yo rk U tilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1.2 The Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1.3 New Brunswick Electric Power Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1.4 Summary of Sources Outside New Engla.id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-1 9.1.1.5 Dickey-Lincoln School Project . . . . . . ...................... 9.1-1 9.1.2 Reactivation or Upgrading of Older Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-2 9.1.3 Base-Load Operation of an Existing Peaking Facility . . . . . . . . . . 9.1-2 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING CREATION OF NEW GENER ATING CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-1 9.2.1 Selection of Viable Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-1 9.2.2 Alternative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-2 9.2.2.1 Environmental Analysis of Alternative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-2 9.2.2.2 Economic Analysis of Alternative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-3 9.2.2.3 Conclusion . ........................................... 9.2-3 9.2.3 Selection of Candidate Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-3 9.2.3.1 Initial Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-3 9.2.3.2 Evaluation of Candidate A reas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-4 9.2.3.3 S u m m a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-8 9.2.4 Selection of Candidate Site-Plant Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-8 9.2.4.1 Comerford Site . . . . . . . . ................................ 9.2-9 9.2.4.2 M oore Reservoir Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-11 5 9.2.4.3 Gill / E rving S it es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-13 9.2.4.4 E rrol S i t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-15 9.2.4.5 B ea r S wa m p S it e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-16 9.2.4.6 Rome Point . . . . ........................................ 9.2-19 9.2.4.7 W _ s t e rl y S i t e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-20A I, 9.2.4.8 Cha rlestown S it e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2-200 p 9.3 COST-BENEFIT COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITE-PL ANT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3-1 9.3.1 Comparison of Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3-1 9.3.2 Selection of Charlestown Nuclear Plant-Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3-1 9-i
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF TABLES Table Title O No. Transmission Requirements for Alternate Sites dl 9.2-1 5 9.2-2 Right-of-Way Requirements for Alternate Sites 9.3-1 Summary Comparison of Candidate Sites O O 1)-il
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 2 It is possible t' at other viable sites, in addition to the candidate sites listed, exist within the study area. The sites listed have been determined by Applicant to be the best to be considered in detail to date. Applicant's site survey for future plants is an ongoing endeavor which may reveal additional sites comparable to some listed herein. The following paragraphs detail land availability and use, engineering, and environmental considerations for the can-didate site alternatives. 9.2.4.1 Cornerford Site. Land Availability and Use. The general location of the Comerford site is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The site is located in the Town of Monroe,in Grafton County, New Hampshire, on the shore of Comerford Hydroelectric Reser-voir near Comerford Hydroelectric Station. St. Johnsbury, Vermont lies 7 miles to the north-northwest; Littleton, New Hampshire,10 miles to the east; Burlington, Vermont,60 ni.es to the west; and Concord, New Hampshire,80 miles south-southeast. Figure 9.2-7 shows the site area in more detail. Comerford Reservoir,itself, constitutes the northwest boundary of the site. The Comerford Hydroelectric Station bounds the site on the west. Route 135 partially bounds the site on the southeast. The land in the vicinity of the Comerford site is predominantly rural in nature. Dairying and some farming are car-ried on in the immediate area. There are no population centers or significant manufacturing or commercial facilities nearby. In the vicinity of the Comerford site, New England Power Company presently owns approximately 980 acres of land lying on both sides of the Connecticut River. The site area shown on Figure 9.2-7 is wooded except for two cleared areas. Utilizing the currently controlled property an exclusion radius of about 1500 feet is possible. The exclu-sion radius is restricted by the irregular shape of the site, but could be extended by acquiring additional land in the area. The site topography is described by a sten slope up from Connecticut River to 700 foot elevation. Water level in the river is approximately 650 feet. From the top of the slope overlooking the river, the ground surface slopes upward at a 4 percent grade to within 1000 feet of Route 135, where the slope increases to 12 percent grade. The entire site area above the river appears suitable for the location of buildings and equipment associated with power generating facilities. A low population zone of at least 1.5 miles would be available at this site. Population Distribution. The 1970 population distribution for the Comerford site is shown on Figure 9.2-8. St. Johnsbury, Vermont, and Littleton, New Hampshire, are the only population centers within a 10 mile radius of the site. Figure 9.2-8 compares the cumulative population distribution for the Comerford site with a guideline of 500 people per square mile. As shown, the Comerford site population distribution is less than the guideline used. Cooling Water. The Comerford Reservoir is the primary source of cooling water for the proposed site. The reser-voir currently provides storage for fote hydroelectric peaking generators at the dam site; it is supplied with water by a complex of small feeder streams and the Connecticut River proper. The main water supply artery to Comerford is the Connecticut River, which is ultimat.<ly controlled by the discharge of Moore Dam (the last of four earthen dams located upnver from the proposed site). Comerford Reservoir has a max-imum depth of 120 feet and a maximum drawdown of 40 feet. At optimal storage capacity, the top 40 feet of storage represents 32,270 acre feet or 1.41 x 109 cubic feet of water. Based on USGS flow figures recorded at Dalton, New Hampshire (197D, the reservoir can be expected to receive a yearly average inflow of approximately 3,000 cfs (1.4 x 106 gpm) and not less than 125 cfs (56,000 gpm) during minimal flow conditions. Additional make-up water during low flow periods could be obtained from the upstream hydroelectric reservoir. Based on the foregoing information, evaporative closed cycle cooling is feasible at the Comerford site. The estimated evaluated cost is approximately $240 million. [2 9.2-9
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Geology and Seismicity. The Comerford site is underlain by thick soil deposits of variable depth which overlie rocks of the Ordov2ian aged Ammonoosuc Formation. Most of the Ammonoosuc Formation in the proposed site area is composed of metamorphosed rocks of volcanic origin. Metamorphosed sedimentary rocks also are present as are sills of mafic intrusive rocks (trap). Rock exposures were observed in the river channel below the Comerford Dam and at two locations along Route 135 to the south of the proposed site. These rocks were noted to be principally northwest trending, highly folded schists. Glacial till is exposed in the Mill Brook Valley at about elevation 685. The till surface appears to rise toward the south end of the site and possibly is quite shallow there. A buried pre-glacial Connecticut River channel has been delineated to the south of the Comerford Dam. This gorge may project through the northern end of the proposed site and if so, overburden depths approaching 300 feet may be present. The rock outcrops along Route 135, however, are evidence that these unconsolidated deposits may thin con-siderably toward the south end of the site area. Geologie structures in the area are complex.The Ammonoosue Formation at the site lies in the trough of the Monroe syncline, a part of a major fohl belt called the Coos anticlinorium which trends northeastward across northern New Hampshee. These rocks are intensely folded with numerous intrusive igneous bodies. No faults are shown passing through the proposed site; however, the trace of the Monroe Thrust Fault is depicted on the New Hampshire State Geologie Map as passing to the west of Comerford Dam. About 8 miles to the southeast runs a second fault, the north-east trending Ammonoosue Thrust Fault. The age of the Monroe Thrust is thought to be Devonian since the fault plane was apparentb, deformed to its steep dip during the later stages of the Devonian Acadian Orogeny. The Ammonoosue Thrust Fault is also thought to be of Devonian age. Although no faults are depicted passing through the proposed site, the Monroe Thrust Fault displaced rocks closeby to the west and may have caused some shearing of the site rocks. Storm Exposure and Flooding. The highest possible water level at Comerford would result from a failure of the upstream Moore Dam, assuming that the dam would failinstantaneously during the Standard Project Flood. Because the distance from Moore Dam to the site is less than 8 miles, it was conservatively assumed there would be no attenuation of the wave. It is estimated that the dam failure would result in a maximum water level at the Comerford site of elevation 715. Preliminary plant layout studies consider a site grade of 750 feet, which would provide an adequate margin of safety. 5 Transmission. Transmission costs for the Comerford site have been estimated at $131 million for Unit I and $123 million for Unit 2 resulHnc in a total cost of $254 million. These cost figures are basal on the following routings: for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345kV of each of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comerford on existing right of way. One of these is extended 8 miles into Scobie Substation on existing right of way. The other is extended 25 miles to Sandy Pond Substation on existing right of way, in addition,34 miles of 230kV is converted to 345kV between Comerford and Granite, using existing right of way. Another 43 miles of Il5kV is converted to 345kV between Granite and Essex, on existing right of way. Stepdown transformation is installed at Comerford and Granite. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit ;ncludes 110 miles of 345kV from Comerford to the Wyman Pumped Hydro site,58 miles of which is on aew right of way, and 52 miles of which is along widened existing routes. In addi-tion,118 milm of 345kV is built between Comerford and Deerfield, all on widened existing routes. Additional information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-2. Accessibility. Use of the Comerford site would incur high transportation costs, due to the relatively remote loca-tion of, and restricted access to the site. The mountainous topography of the Whitefield area prohibits easy access by rail or highway and limits the size and weight of large component shipments. Water, rail and truck transportation wouhl be limited to non-winter delivery schedules for the major components and equipment consigned to this area. The weather conditions between December 15 and May 15 would limit effective highway travel to non-dimensional traffic. 9.2-10
N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 liighway access into this area has been improved by the Interstate System and Vermont Route 5 which serves the St. Johnsbury region. Since almost all truck traffic would originate at points south of the site, the Interstate System (I-95 and I-93), U.S. 3 and U.S. 5, and average grade local highways vould carry the bulk of the traffic. These routes are located along the natural course of the Connecticut River and Merrimack Valley and must cross through the Appalachian Itange in order to get to the site. For the Comerford area, commercialinnsportation services are limited to direct motor carrier and specialized motor carrier modes of transportation. Direct rail and water carrier services are not available. Customary truckload shipments,less-than-truckload deliveries, and permit loads can be handled in the area with little or no difficulty. Rail service is provided by the Maine Central Railroad and the Railroad's established clearances are sufficient to accommodate the customary rail power generating equipment shipments. Delivery of the heavy dimensional nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator components cannot be handled over the existing railroad or highway rights of way without significant upgrading; however, both transportation modes can be developed for this purpose. Transportation costs for the Comerford Site are estimated at $51 million. The site is not located on or near navigable water. A water consignment point is h>cated approximately 100 miles east of the site area at Portland, Maine. Rail and motor carrier service could be developed for an intermodal delivery system; however, the economic considerations of such an undertaking would be significant. Refer to Figure 9.2-9 for the proposed transportation routes for heavy dimensional equipment. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The Connecticut River is the main water supply artery to Comerford Reser-s oir and as a result the aquatic biota of both waters should be quite similar. The phytoplankton community should be moderately diverse with diatoms and green algae representing major groups. The expected zooplankton include the rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods, most of which should reach maximum numerical density during the late summer months. Benthic populations should include turbellarians, oligochaetes, chironomid larvae, and larger macroinver-tebrates. Finfishes of moderate abundance would include white and yellow perch, pumpkinseed, catostorrids and various cyprinids. The Comerford site consists of approximately 980 acres of land which, with the exception of two cleared areas, is wooded with upland mixed hardwomis. The mammalian species expected to be found on the Comerford site include red aad gray squirrels, chipmunks, moles, mice, and shrews. Blue jays, chickadees, field sparrows and robins are probably among the more common representatives of avifauna found on the site. 9.2.4.2 Moore Reservoir Site. Land Availability and Use. The general lix ation or the Moore Reservoir site is shown on Figure 9.24 The site is located in the Town of 1.ittleton. Grafton County. New IIampshire. St. Johnsbury. Vermont, lies 10 miles northwest of the site. Concord, New Hampshire lies 80.niles to the south-southeast. Figure 9.2-10 shows the site in more detail. New England Power Company presently has rights to the 4f>0 acre site, which is bounded on three sides by Moore Reservoir. Moore Station is situated on the western side of the reservoir, 4200 feet from the site. Six percent of the land area in Littleton is currently devoted to residential, commercial and community service activities. Of the remaining area, approximately 2550 acres are water area,3700 acres are farmed and 27,500 acres are classed as undeveloped land. The 1970 population of Littleton was 5.290. Nearby St. Johnsbury, Vermont had a population of 8,409. Water-based recreational development of the Moore Reservoir area has been hindered in the past by river pollution due to the upstream discharge of municipal and industrial waste. However, water quality has improved noticeably over the past few years as upstream discharges have been eliminated or subjected to water quality treatment. Boat-ing and fishing are presently allowable activities, but swimming is not. Population Distribution. The population distribution for the Moore Reservoir Site is shown on Figure 9.2-11. There are no urbanized areas within 10 miles d the site. As shown on Figure 9.2-11, the cumulative population dis-tribution of the Moore Reservoir Site is less than the guideline of 500 people per square mile. 9.2-11
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Cooling Water. The site hydrology is dominated by the Connecticut River.The Moore hydroelectric project, com-pleted in 1956, !: located at river mile 288 above the mouth and is the largest hydroelectric plant on the Connecticut River, both in its 200,000 Kw capability and its reservoir, whose usable capacity is over 114,000 acre-feet. The surface area of Moore Reservoir is 3,500 acres and its length is 12 miles. The drainage area at the head of the reservoir below Gilman, Vermont,is 1514 square miles. The average discharge below Gilman is 2843 cfs. Operation of Moore Station results in short period changes in reservoir level of about 8 feet. Seasonal variations as great as 40 feet occur. A nuclear generating station located on Moore Reservoir must be designed to accommodate these fluctuations. Closed cycle evaporative cooling is proposed for the Moore Reservoir site. The estimated evaluated 'l cost for the cooling is approximately $240 million. Geology and Seismicity. The geology of the region was studied and reported by Billings in 1935 in Geology of the Littleton and Moosilauke Quadrangles published by the New Hampshire State Planning and Development Commis-sion. Several local studies were conducted around the site area in 1928,1932,1952 and 1954 preparatory to construc-tion of the Moore 3.am. Additional discussion of the regional gec y is presented in the previous section for the Com-erford site, which is located 11 miles southwest of the Moore Reservoir site.The geology and seismicity of the Moore Reservoir site appear suitable for nuclear plant siting. Storm Exposure and Flooding. The Moore Reserwir site rises abruptly to a hilltop elevation more than 200 feet above the level of the reservoir. Approximately half the proposed site lies at elevations more than 100 feet above the reservoir level. Therefore, flooding does not constitute a significant problem at the site. Transmission. The transmission costs for the Moore Reservoir site have been estimated at $143 million for Unit 1 and $116 million for Unit 2 resulting in a total cost of $259 million.The routing of the transmission lines for the Moore Reservoir site would be: for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345kV of each of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comerfcrd on existing right of way. One of these is extended 8 miles into Scobie Substation on existing right of way. The other is extended 25 miles to Sandy Pond Substation on existing right of way. In addition,34 miles of 230kV is converted to M5kV between Comerford and Granite, using existing right of way. Another 43 miles of 115kV is converted to 345kV between Comerford and Granite, using existing right et way. Two 7 mile 230kV lines are converted to 345kV between Moore and Comerford, on existing right of way. Stepdown transformation is installed at Granite, Comerford, Littleton, and Moore. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit includes 103 mi:es of 345kV from Moore to the Wyman Pumped Hydro site, SP miles of which is on new right of way, and 45 miles of which is along widened existing routes. In addition, 111 miles of 345kV is built between Moore and Deerfield, all on widened existing routes. Additional information regarding transmission and right of way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-1. Accessib!Ilty. The general discussion of transportation for the Comerford site applies as well to the Moore Reser-voir site, due to their proximity. Both sites would be served by New Hampshire Route 135 and the Maine Central Railroad. The Moore site is closer to anticipated transloading points. The remote nature of both sites restrictc access to them. Transportation costs to this site have been estimated at $44 million. Figure 9.2-9 shows the proposed transportation routing. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The Vermont Department of Water Resources conducted aquatic studies at Moore Reservoir in 1969. (
Reference:
Vermont Department of Water Resources, Effects ofIndustrial Wastes on the Upper Connecticut River,19693 The results of a summer and fall plankton study of Moore Reservoir indicated a water quality which was sufficient to maintain a diversity of genera Most of the phytoplankton in the reservoir in July 1969 were either Chrysophyta or Chlorophyta e.nd there was a noticeable lack of the often troublesome Chyanophyta usually associated with domestic pollution. The aquatic life found in the littoral zone of a storage reservoir may be limited by the drawdowns. Moore Reservoir has short term fluctuations as great as 6 to 9 feet and seasonal fluctuations as great as 40 feet. The terrestrial ecology of the Moore Reservoir site is similar to that which characterizes the Comerford site. 9.2-12
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision E 9.2.4.3 Gill /Erving Sites. Land Availability and Use. The general location of the Gill /Erving sites is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The Gill site is located on the west bank of the Connectiew River in the town of Gill,in Franklin County, Massachusetts. The Erv-ing site is located opposite the Gill site on tae east bank of the Connecticut River in the town of Erving, also in Franklin County, Massachusetts. Millers Falls. Massachusetts, lies 2 miles south of time Gill /Erving sites; Turners Falls and Greenfield are located 3 miles and 6 miles, respectively, to the west-southwest. The Massachusetts-New Hampshire border runs 8 miles north of the site. Figure 9.2-12 shows the ogill/Erving sites in detail. The Connecticut River borders the sites and Stacy Mountain rises to the immediate southwest of the sites. The Gill site is largely cleared for farming. The land rises gradually from a high bank along the Connecticut River up to the woods at the foot of the steep slope of Stacy Mountain. A major fraction of the site consists of flood plain which extends back from the river about 2000 feet. To the north of the site, primary agricultural uses of the land include dairy farming and corn and hay cultivation. To the south, beyond Greenfield, cigar wrapper tobacco is grown. Most of the land in the vicinity of the site is wooded. The size of the Gill site is 351 acres. New England Power Company owns the entire area. Twenty-one buildings are located in the village of Northfield Farms within 0.5 miles of the site. On the Gill sidd the river, NEP owns the few buildings that lie within a 0.5 mile radius. A low population zone of 1.5 miles wo' e available at the site. The Erving site, on the other hand, is largely wooded with the land steeply rising tt . average elevation of about 80 feet above the Connecticut River. The surrounding land is similar to that for the Gill site. The size of the site is 338 acres and is entirely owned by the New England Power Company. A low population zone of 1.5 miles would be availa-ble at the site, as well as an exclusion radius of about 1800 feet. Erving State Forest is located 2 miles east of the Gill /Erving sites. Other recreational / conservation areas within a 10 mile radius include Wendell State Forest, located 4 miles to the southeast; Northfield State Forest,6 miles to the east-northeast; and Mount Grace and Warwick State Forests, located 9 and 10 miles, respectively, to the northeast. Airport facilities within 15 miles of the Gill /Erving sites include a small commercial airport in Turners Falls 2.r.les from the sites and the Orange Municipal Airport, located 11 miles east-southeast. Population Distribution. The population distribution for the Gill /Erving sites is shown on Figure 9.2-13. A 10 mile radius from the site encompasses Orange (pop.6,104), Montague (pop. 8,451), and Greenfield (pop.18,160), Mas-sachusetts. Athol (pop.11,185) and Amherst (pop. 26,331), Massachusetts, and Brattleboro, Vermont (pop.12,239) are the only cities with a population of over 10,000 within 20 miles of the sites. Figure 9.213 compares the cumulative population distribution for the Gill /Erving sites with guideline of 500 people per square mile. As shown, the population distribution for the Gill /Erving sites is far below the guideline used. Cooling Water. The Connecticut River is the potential source of cooling water for the Gill /Erving sites. The drainage area for the site is 6770 square miles. The river flow at Gill /Erving is sufficient to support evaporative closed-cycle ecoling at an estimated evaluated cost of $213 million. Geology ',d Seismicity. The geology at the Gill /Erving sites has been thoroughly explored and the cost of foun-dation construction estimated. The load bearing qualities of the soil at Gill have been shown to be poor. Also, the water table at Gill was found to be consistently high, indicating that any excavation at the site would require extensive pumping and sheeting. Conversely, the Erving site, based on survey results, shows bedrock is at a relative shallow depth. Overburden varies in thickness from 20 to 150 feet with occasional surface outcroppings. The Gill /Erv:ng sites lie at the dividing line between the delta of the Millers River (mainly composed of coarse sand and gravel) and the lower reaches of glacial Lake Hadley. The preglacial gorge of th Connecticut River is located just east of the present river. Along this dividing line between the mountain and the river plain exists what is known as the Eastern Border Fault. This is the division between extensive formations of Triassic Conglomerate or sandstone to the west, and the older Crystalline Gneiss to the east. The Eastern Border Fault has been inactive for 180 million years. 9.2 13
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Storm Exposure and Flooding. IIistorical records from a gauging station on the Connecticut River in Sion-tague,5f assachusetts, approximately 4 miles from the proposed Gill /Erving sites, indicate that the maximum flow reached 236,000 cfs on 31 arch 19,1936. That flow was more than 16 times the long term average and resulted in a maximum water level of 49.2 feet, based on floodmarks. Since 'he Gill site is fairly flat and only 15 to 30 feet above the normal river level, it is anticipated that a severe flood would result in total inundation of the sitt. Raising the grade elevation of the site to protect against flooding would be required. Conversely, the Erving site would not be subject to flooding due to its height (about 80 feet) above the river. s Transmission. Due to the proximity of the Gill /Erving sites to the Pratts Junction /New York transmission cor-ridor, the projected transmission cost for the site is relatively low. Transmission costs have been estimated at $19 million for Unit I and $21 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit consisting of 30 miles of 345kV between Northfield 31ountain and Ludlow, on an existing route. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit consists of 41 miles of 345kV between Northfield 31ountain and Agawam, along an existing right of way for 35 miles, and a widened existing route for 6 miles. Additional information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-2. Accessibility. Access to the Gill /Erving sites is shown on Figure 9.2-9. The Gill /Erving area is at the intersection of two major highways. 31assachusetts Route 2 runs east-west, connecting Boston and Greenfield, 31assachusetts. Interstate 91 runs north-south through the area, connecting Brattleboro, Vermont, Greenfield and Springfield,3f as-sachusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut. A Central Vermont Railroad line parallels the Connecticut River and runs along the east bank, adjacent to the Erving site. The Boston & 31aine Railroad meets the Cer ral Vermont line in 31illers Falls,2.5 miles south-southeast of the sites. A branch of the Boston & 5faine Railroad pwes 4 miles west of the site and parallels the west bank of the Con-necticut River. Delivery of the heavy dimensional nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator components cannot be handled over the existing railroad or highways without significant upgrading. However, both modes of transportation can be developed for this purpose at a considerable cost estimated to be approximately $112 million. Figure 9.2-9 shows the proposed transportation route for heavy dimensional equipment. The proposed route is an intermodal delivery system; barge shipments up the liudson River, transferring to the Delaware and Hudson Railroad and Green 3 fountain Railroad, again transferring to specialized motor carrier via highway to the Gill /Erving sites. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The Connecticut River, the potential cooling water source for the Gill /Erving sites, supports a moderately diverse aquatic community. The major phytoplankton taxa found at this location on the river are the pennate diatoms and the chlorococcoid green algae. Occasional nuisance blooms of the blue green algae can also occur. Zooplankton,important as food items for fish and in trophic level energy transfer, are represented pri-marily by cladocerans, copepuis, ostracods, t.nd chironomid larvae. Among the more widely distributed benthic inver-tebrates found in the vicinity of the Gill /Erving sites are the turbellarians, chironomids and hydropsychids. Included among the finfish likely to reside in the vicinity of the site are white sucker, spottail shiner, white and y . '.ow perch, and bluegill. 31ost of the land in the vie;nity of the sites is wooded by mixed hardwoods with red maple probably the more dominant species. Common man malia, species would include the white-footed mouse, moles, eastarn chipmunk, grey squirrel and shrews. Blue jays sparrews, robins, chickadees, and doves may also find the site suitable for habitation. O 9.2-14
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 9.2.4.4 Errol Site. Lat.d Availability and Use. The general location of the Errol site is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The site is located in the town of Errol, in Coos County, New Hampshire. The Maine-New Hampshire border passes 1.5 miles east of the site. The nearest point on the Canadian border lies 26 miles to the northwest. The White Mountain National Forest occupies a broad expanse located 25 to 60 miles to the south. Berlin, N.H., is situated 20 miles south-southwest of the site. Figure 9.2-14 shows the Errol site in detail. Umbagog Lake borders the site on the east and south The Androscoggin River constitutes the northern border of the site. Errol Hill and Mill Mountain rise to the immediate west of the site. Approximately 1000 acres of marshland lie to the north of the site, beyond the Androscoggin River. The entire area in the vicinity of the site is rural in nature. The size of the Errol site is 1200 acres. The site is privately owned. The exclusion radius would vary from 2500 to 6000 feet. Most of the area within the exclusion zone consists of relatively flat, forested terrain. A small stream and its bor-dering marshland extend into the central section of the site. A hilly area rises abruptly in the southwestern corner of the site. An unimproved dirt road traverses the site from northwest to southeast. A small group of houses is situated in the vicinity of Molls Rock on the shore of Umbagog Lake, along the northeastern perimeter of the site. Three more houses are located in a clearing on Umbagog Lake on the southern perimeter of the site. Only or other house lies within the exclusion area; it also is located on the shore of Umbagog Lake, about one half mile soutn of Molls Rock. A low population zone of 1.5 miles would be available at this site. Population Distribution. The population distribution for the Errol site is shown on Figure 9.2-15. The populated area nearest to the site is the town of Errol, New Hampshire (pop.199), located 4 miles north-northwest of the site. A 10 mile radius from the site does not encompass any towns with a population greater than 1000. Within a 20 mile radius, the only municipality with a population greater than 1000 is the city of Berlin, New Hampshiae (pop.15,256), located 19 miles to the south-southwest. Rumford, Maine (pop.15,561) is the only other town within a 30 mile radius with a population of at least 15,000. Figure 9.2-15 compares the cumulative population distribution for the Errol site with a population guideline of 500 people per square mile. As illustrated, the Errol site population distribution is less than the guideline. Cooling Water. Umbagog Lake borders the site on the east and south. The Androscoggin River forms the north-ern perimeter of the site; the river then flows west for 2.5 miles, at which point it turns south. The start of the Androscoggin Rivar is marked by thejunction of the Magalloway River with the outlet of Umbagog Lake. The Androscoggin River flow at Errol, New Hampshire, is regulated by Rangely, Mooselookmeguntic, Richardson, Aziscohos and Umbagog Lakes (combined useable capacity,28 billion cubic feet). Final regulation is made at Errol Dam. Based on 66 years of historical data, the average flow in the Androscoggin River at Errol is 1,877 cubic feet per s(c-ond. Although once-through cooling is not feasible for the site, the flow in the Androscoggin River would provide sufficient make-up water for evaporative closed cycle cooling at an estimated evaluated cost of $240 million. 12 Geology and Seismicity. The bedrock geology of the northern New Hampshire area consists of Paleozoic sedi-mentary rocks which have been highly folded, faulted and metamorphosed by two major orogenic (mountain building) periods. These major orogenies are known as the Toconian and Acadian and took place 440 million years ago and 350 million years ago, respectively. Mild orogenic movements, part of the Appalachian orogeny, also took place in the region at the close of the Paleozoic era. The region has been subjected to extensive glacial activity during the last 35,000 years. The glacial action has strip-ped away the weathered residual materials leaving a shallow, hard bedrock surface with some dense glacial till deposits throughout the region. The bedrock and the dense till are both suitable and adequate foundation materials. The region surrounding the Androscoggin River is not as densely populated as other sectiona of New England, and hence, the local historical seismicity of the smaller earthquakes in the region may not be complete. The region is relatively free of historical epicenters although the recent earthquake of June 14,1973 (intensity V-VI (MM), mag-nitude 4.7 to 5.2), was instrumentally located a few miles north of the New Hampshire-Canadian border. 9.2-15
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Earthquakes of intensity IX and X (MM) have occurred along the St. Lawrence River Valley, approximately 125 miles north to northwest of the sites. Storm Exposure and Flooding. Much of the Errol site lies 10 to 50 feet above the level of Umbagog Lake. Therefore, the potential for flooding of the plant site can be eliminated by siting plant facilities on the higher site grades. s Transmission. Transmission costs for the Errol site have been estimated at $235 million for Unit 1 and $102 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345kV of each of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comerford on existing right of way. One of these is extended 8 miles into Scobie Substation on existing right of way. The other is extended 25 miles to Sandy Pond Substation on existing right of way. In addition, two 70-mile 345kV lines are built between Errol and Comerford, using 13 miles of new right of way and 57 miles of widened existing routes. Another 120-mile 345kV line is built between Errol and Essex, all on new rdht of way. Stepdown transformation is installed at Comerford. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit includes 60 miles of 345kV between Errol and the Wyman Pumped Hydro site, on new right of way. In addition, a 118-mile 345kV line is built between Comerford and Deerfield, all on widened existing routes. Additonal information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-2. Accessibility. Land access to the Errol site is shown on Figure 9.2-9. At present there is no highway access to the site,itself. The nearest road (N.H. Route 26) is medium-duty and passes one mile southwest of the site. Route 26 joins U.S. Route 2 at a point 22 miles to the southeast. Route 26 also intersects U.S. Route 3 22 miles west of the site. Only limited railroad access is available for the Errol site. The nearest railroad line reaches Berlin, New Hampshire, the northern terminus of a section of the Boston and Maine Railroad System, situated 20 miles south-southwest of the proposed site. Groveton, New Hampshire, located 24 miles southwest of the site, is a second terminus of the Bostcn and Maine Railroad. In addition, a section of track owned by a smaller railroad system connects Groveton with the Berlin area. The site area is not located on or near navigable water. A water consignment point is located at Portland, Maine. Rail and motor carrier service could be developed for an intermodal delivery system for the heavy dimensional nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator compon(nts; however, the economic conditions of such an undertaking are at a significant cost estimated to be $61 million. Figure 9.2-9 shows the proposed route. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The source of make-up cooling water for the Errol site is the Androscoggin River. The water quality of the Androscoggin in the vicinity of the site is rated " Class B", Due to relatively cool seasonal water temperatures, the river does provide habitat for salmonids (brown and rainbow trout). Centrachids are also found in the river. Land in the vicinity of the 1200 acre Errol site is forested (hardwoods) with wetlands e. tending into the central see-tion of the site. Mammalian species that could be found on site include red squirrels, beaver, moose, bear and white tail deer. Generally, the area is prime wildlife habitat. 9.2.4.5 Bear Swamp Site. Land Availability and Use. The general location of the Bear Swamp site is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The site is located in the town of Rowe, in Franklin Ccunty, Massachusetts, to the immediate south and east of the upper rescr-voir of the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Plant. North Adams, Massachusetts, lies 10 miles to the west; Greenfield,20 miles to the southeast; Pittsfield,22 miles to the southwest; and Brattleboro. Vermont,24 miles to the northeast. 9.2 16
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Figure 9.2-16 shows the site in somewhat more detail.The Bear Swamp Upper Reservoir borders the site on the north and northwest. The Lwer Reservoir and Fife Brook Dam also lie to the north. The 3!assachusetts-Vermont border runs 4 miles north of the site.The entire 515 acre site is owned by New England Power Company. The land in the vicinity of the Bear Swamp site is largely wooded. 3f onroe State Forest is located on the opposite side of the Lower Reservoir. Other conservation / recreation areas within a 10 mile radius of the site include 5fohawk Trail State Forest and Hawley State Forest, located 3 and 8 miles, respectively, to the south-southeast; Savory 31ountain State Forest,5 miles southwest; Clarksburg State Park,7 miles northwest; H.O. Cook State Forest,8 miles north-east, and Green 31ountain National Forest, starting at the Vermont border,4 miles to the north. A low population zone of at least 1.5 miles would be available at this site. Sfost of the land in the vicinity of the site is woooed. Ewever, much of the site area itselfis being re-vegetated. The topography of the Bear Swamp site is best described as " mountainous". The site is located on high ground at approx-imately the 1620-foot elevation . Population Distribution. The population distribution for the Bear Swamp site is shown in Figure 9.2-17. The only municipalities within a 10 mile radius of the site with a population of greater than 10,000 are Adams (population 11,772) and North Adams (population 19,195), 31assachusetts. Figure 9.2-17 compares the cumulative pggtion distribution for the Bear Swamp site with a guideline of 500 people per square mile. As shown, the Bear Swamp site population distribution psse than the guideline. Cooling Water. The Bear Swamp Upper Reservoir is a man-made lake located in a natural depression about 750 feet above the Deerfield River. Three earth and rock dikes, ranging in height from 20 to 140 feet and in length from 350 feet to 2,900 feet, contain the reservoir. During normal operation, the reservoir water surface will fluctuate bet-ween elevation 1,600 and elevation 1,550.The reservoir has no naturalinflow, ard water for filling is pumped from the Deerfield River. The Bear Swamp Upper Reservoir has an active storage volume of 5,000 acre-feet and a total storage volume of 8,000 acre-feet. An upgated spillway has been provided for the Upper Reservoir which can pass the full pumping capacity of the Pro-ject without overtopping the dikes. The Upper Reservoir intake is not equipped with gai.es or other means of closure. The water is held in the reservoir by means of the two 121 inch diameter spherical valves located in the powerhouse cavern. The pumped storage project went into operation in fall,1974. The longest and most severe drought in the history of the Connecticut River Basin occurred from 1961 to 1966. The lowest annual flow of record on the Deerfield River occurred in 1965. A review of the 1965 flows shows that the minimum daily flow was 28 cfs, and there were a number of days when the flow was less than 35 cfs. However, th mean monthly flows were all greater than 150 cfs. This means that, with a modification in the operations of the storage and hydroelectric plants, all under the control of Applicant, a minimum flow of 150 cfs could be maintained into the lower reservoir, even during the worst recorded drought. Therefore, it was concluded that the cooling water supply is sufficient to support closed cycle evaporative cooling or possibly spray cooling at the Bear Swamp site at an estimated evaluated cost of $247 million. l2 Geology and Seismicity. The rocks underlying the proposed Bear Swamp site are interlayered metamorphics-schists, phyllites, greenstones, and amphibolites of the Rowe Schist. This formation is Cambrian and possibly Lower Ordovician in age. Lenses of schist and gneiss of the Cambrian aged Hocsac Formation crop out northwest of the site. The 3 fiddle Ordovician 3foretown Formation is mapped to the southeast of the site. These rock formations are part of a north-northeast trending belt ofintensity folded, sheared, and variazly metamorphosed rock units which form the east limb of the Berkshire anticlinorium. Rock outcrops were observed at severallocations in the vicinity of the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project's upper reservoir. In the quarry area the rock layering or foliation was generally observed to strike northeast and dip at high angles to the south east. Local variations from this trend were noted, however. At one outcrop in the proposed site area, the foliation was observed to be horizontal. Glacial till mantles most of the proposed site. Bedrock is at fairly shallow depths in the site area. 9.2-17
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER The U.S. Geological Survey geologic map shows no mehr structural disconqities or faults crossing the site. The Hoosac Thrust Fault is mapped about 6 miles to the wes of the site. This faulting is thought to have accompanied fold-ing associated with the Acadian orogeny and would thus be of Devonian Age. Some very tight folds and shears were observed in the schist and phyllite outcrops north of the 115/230 KV switchyard about 4000 feet northwest of the pro-posed site, and the geologic maps of the core trenches of the upper reservoir dikes and dams for the Bear Swamp Pro-ject show several shears and minor faults. Several serpentine lenses have been mapped within one mile to the south and southwest of the proposed Bear Swamp site. These serpentine lenses are tightly sheared ultramafic intrusives of Upper Ordovician age. Geologic maps of the underground excavations for the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project show well developed sheeting in the Deerfield River Valley walls. These joints form parallel to the topographic surface and generally decrease with depth. The seismic conditions at this site are considered to be within the normally excepted range for nuclear power plants in New England. Storm Exposure and Flooding. The Bear Swamp site is located on a mountain top hundreds of feet above the nearest natural stream (Deerfield River), well above any flooding from that source. The Bear Swagpper ervoir is at elevation 1600 feet. New generating facilities would be located on higher ground to the southeast of the Upper Reser-voir, above the level of possible flooding. 5 Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $86 million for Unit 1 and $32 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $118 million. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345 kV of 74 miles of 230 kV line between Bear Swamp and Pratts Junction, and 71 miles of 230 kV line between Bear Swamp and Rotterdam. In addition,26 miles of 345 kV line is built between Bear Swamp and Northfield Mountain, and 29 miles of 345 kV line is built between Northfield Mountain and Ludlow. Stepdown transformation is installed at Bear Swamp. Right of way requirements for the above transmission include 2 miles of new right of way,30 miles of widened existing routes, and 147 miles of existing routes used as is. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit includes a 14-mile 345 kV line between Bear Swamp and Ashfield on new right of way, and a 41-mile 345 kV hne between Northfield Mountain and Agawam. The latter uses 35 miles of existing right of way, and 6 miles of a widened existing route. Additional information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2 2. Accessibility. The relatively remote location of any site in the Deerfield River Valley presents a transportation problem for delivery of large components. The development of a highway " permit" route, heavy haul route and inter-modal water /railltruck delivery program for the Bear Swamp site is complicated by several geographic factors. The site is not located on or near navigable water. Water common carrier service of up to 1300 tons per shipment can be provided to Mechanicsville, New York, or any other point on the Hudson River. The controlling depth of the Hud-son River Project is 9 feet and naviga' ion is limited to delivery between April 15 and December 15. Rail service is not available into the proposed Bear Swamp job site area. The Boston & Maine Railroad's North Adams to Greenfield section of the main line is located to the south of the site. Development of direct on-site rail delivery would be extremely difficult and expensive. Rail clearances are inadequate due to the fact that the job site is located at the eastern end of . Hoosac Tunnel which limits clearance loads to a maximum vertical height of approximately 17 feet-8 inches and a n. ximum width of 13 feet-0 inches. Weight restrictimknd bridge limitations as well as other height and weight parameters impose a very limited clearance envelope into this area. A preliminary investigation into the economic considerations and technical feasibility of developing a high/ wide rail route from Mechanicsville, New York, to the western portal of the Hoosac Tunnel indicates that the Boston & Maine Railroad's right-of-way could be developed, but the cost is high. 9.2 18
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The western portal of the Hoosac Tunnel is approximately 15 miles from the job site areas and will require the development of an intermodal railltruck delivery route. The proposed site area can be served by the regular freight and specialized motor common carriers authorized to serve northwestern 51assachusetts. Service can be provided for " normal" an,d "permittable" truckload shipments which would include some high/ wide and overweight items. Permit loa !s would be subject to the approval of the 31as-sachusetts Department of Transportation and would require submittal of each shipment as an independent movement. The primary delivery route into the site area would be State Route 2 and the local highways to the job site. it can be assumed that a substantial degree of highway upgrading would be required between the primary highway and the job site in order to handle the magnitude of vehicles that would be associated with this type of construction project. This would also add substantially to the project cost. The possibility of developing an inter modal railltruck delivery route between North Adams, Alassachusetts and the job site areas is realistic, however a significant upgrading and improvement program must be considered for this alternative. The estimated cost of this proposed intermoda' route for heavy dimensional equipment is $113 mil. ion. Figure 9.2-9 shows the proposed route. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The Bear Swamp site is located adjacent to the Upper Reservoir of the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project. Water supply for the storage reservoir is pumped from the Deerfield River result-ing in essentially a barren fish population in the Bear Swamp Upper Reservoir. hiuch of the land in the vicinity of the Bear Swamp site is heavily wooded by mixed hardwoods and coniferous forest. Alammalian species resident to the site include the white-footed mouse, eastern chipmunk, grey squirrel, beaver, and white-tail deer. Sparrows, blue jays, chickadees and grouse may also find suitable habitat within the site. 9.2.4.6 Rome Point. Land Availability and Use. The general location of the Rome Point site is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The site is located in the town of North Kingstown, in Washington County, Rhode Island, on the western shore of Narragansett Bay. The site lies about 10 miles south of the urbanized Greater Providence Area. Figure 9.2-18 shows the Rome Point site in more detail.The site consists of approximately 240 acres of land owned by the Narragansett Electric Company, an affiliate of Applicant. The site is bounded on the west by Rhode Island Route 1 A, on the north and south by privately owned land, and on the east by Narragansett Bay. The open Atlantic Ocean is approximately 12 miles to the south. The Quonset Point Naval Air Station is 3.6 miles to the north-northeast of the site. The Theodore Francis Greer. State Airport, which serves the commercial needs of Providence,is located in War-wick,12 miles north of the site. Land in the vicinity of Rome Point is primarily rural residentialincluding seasonal cottages. An exclusion radius of approximately 1400 feet could be provided. Population Distribution. The urban area of Wickford is located 2-3 miles northwest of the site and represents the major concentration of population within 5 miles of the site.The present (1970) population of Wickford is estimated to be about 3400. The remainder of tdt town population is sparsely distributed from northwest to southwest of the site with a denser distribution north of the site beyond 5 miles in the community of Davisville. The population distribution for the Rome Point site is shown on Figure 9.2-19. The closest population center is the Newport-3fiddletown area, with a combined 1970 population of 64,200, located 7 miles to the southeast. The city of Warwick. Rhode Island, is located 10 miles to the north and has a 1970 population of 87,400. Figure 9.2-19 compares the population distribution for the Rome Point site with a guideline of 500 people per square ' mile for the year 1970. As is illustrated, the Rome Point population distribution follows the guideline closely. For the projected year of initial plant operation, the resident population is expected to exceed the guideline value of 500 people per square mile within a 30 mile radius. Figure 9.2-19A compares the guideline population density with the projected 1985 population. Figure 9.2-19B compares the projected resident population for the year 2020 against a guideline den-sity of 1000 people per square mile. As is illustrated, the Rome Point population distribution at the approximate end of plant life is expected to approach, but not exceed, the guideline value. 9.2-19
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Cooling Water. Initially, the Rome Point site was designed for once-through cooling with cooling water to be obtained from the west passage of Narragansett Bay. However, discussions with representatives of the Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Region I, a number of years ago revealed that the Agency believed that the site was question-able with reference to once-through cooling. Accordingly, cost estimates for a closed-cycle natural draft salt water cooling tower with make-up and blowdown from Narragansett Bay were prepared.The estimated cost for the cooling 2{ system is $240 million. However, Applicant believes that once-through cooling could be acceptable from the stand-point of the environment and cost, and would likely propose a once-through cooling system at Rome Point. Geology and Seismicity. The bedrock at the Rome Point site has been mapped geologically as the Rhode Isle.nd formation of Pennsylvania age (270 to 300 million years old). The formation of bedrock has a number of facies includ-ing metamorphosed sandstones and conglomerate and some mica schista. During Pennsylvania time, sediments were deposited in what is now the Narragansett Basin. This Basin extends from southern Rhode Island northward and then northeastward into southeastern 31assachusetts. The sediments deposited in the Basin we e subjected to the dynamic and thermal metamorphism of the Appalachian orogeny in Late Paleozoic time (225 milhon years ago). The rocks in the Basin have been moderately folded with some tight and even overturned folds in the finer grained units. The syn-clinal axis of the Basin is to the east of the site.Some faulting is associated with the northern parts of the Basin but no faults have been mapped within ten miles of the site. The region has been tectonically stable since the Triassic time (180 million years ago). The largest earthquake to occur within 250 miles of the site took plice on November 18,1755, east of Cape Ann,31assachusetts, approximately 95 miles northeast of the site. The closest earthquakes to the site which have been strong enough to cause some minor damage (e.g.,31odified 31ercalli Intensity VI or greater) have occurred in Connecticut, approximately 55 miles west of the site. Two of these earthquakes occurred in 1791 and one in 19:i.5. Seismic investigations indicate that sound bedrock (14,000 ftdsec. seismic velocity) is shallow and will provide an excellent foundation for the power plant facility. The earthquake history and geology of the site area are very favora-ble for its selection as a nuclear power plant site. Storm Exposure and Flooding. A preliminary estimate of water level at the site resulting from the maximum probable hurricane has been made. Theresulting maximum level, including waves and wave runup, is approximately 20 feet above mean sea level. The land slopes from the shore to an elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level at about the middle of the site. However, since the critical structures must be located near the shore in order to maximize the exclusion radius, plant elevation would likely need to be raised above existing grade to provide flood protection. Transmission. Trensmission costs have been estimated at $34 million for Unit I and $42 million for Unit 2 result-ing in a total of $76 million. These figures are based on the following routings. for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes a 12.5-mile 345kV line between Rome Point and Kent County, on existing right-of-way. In addition, a 11.5-mile 345kV line is built between Rome Point and Big River Junc-tion. For this line,7.7 miles of new right of way is required; the rest is existing, but 2.9 miles must be widened. Also,21 miles of 345kV line is built between West Farnum and 31illbury, all on existing right-of-way. for Unit 2: Transmission for the second unit consists of a 54-mile 345kV line between Rome Point and Card Substation, 41 miles of which is on new right-of-way,12 miles of which is along existing right-of-way, and 1 mile of which is on a widened existing route. Additional information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.21 and 9.2-2. Accessibility. Extensive transportation facilities are available in the area. U.S. Route 1 passes two miles to the west of the proposed site. Interstate 95, which is now the main north-south route on the eastern seaboard, passes about 10 miles to the west. The Newport to Jamestown Bridge is located south of the site and provides a direct high-way route to the east. 9.2-20
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The main line of the New Haven Railroad passes 4 miles west of the site. A spur line to Wickford ends 2 miles from the site adjacent to Route 1A, w% passes the site. The city of Providence hr deep-water port facilities which are uscd extensively by petroleum industries which have located in the area and for general cargo shipping. The Navy maintains docking facilities at Quonset Point and Davisville on the wes'ern side of the bay as well as extensive facilities at Newport and Portsmouth across the bay. As mentioned previously, the area is provided air service by major commercial airlines operating from the Theodore Francis Green Airport in Warwick. A smaller airport is operated by the stats in Westerly,23 miles to the southwest. A cost estimate of $10 million for transpor+ation of equipment is based on barge deliveries for the Seavy dimensional components directly to the site (Figure 9.2-9). Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The source of cooling water for the Rome Point site is Narragansett Bay. Phytoplankton levels in the Bay are greater than in open coastal waters. Major phytoplankton blooms generally occur from December through April. Diatoms are among the more important groups with Skelefonema costatum a domi-nant. Zooplankton, important as food items for fish, are represented by the copepods. Included among the ichthyo-fauna likely to be found in the vicinity of the site are the anchovy, menhaden, cunner /tautog, winter flounder, and other fish species typical of New England estuarine areas. The 240 acres comprising the Rome Point site is primarily forested (hardwood) land with some abandoned field and agricultural land. No substantial acreage of ecologically important saltmarsh is within the site boundary. Ne biologically unique animal or plant species are thought to exist within this site. 9.2.4.7 Westerly Site. 4 Land Availability and Use. The general location of the Westerly site is shown on Figure 9.2-6. The major por-tion (about 90 percent) of the site is located in the town of Westerly; the remaining portion is located in the town of Charlestown. Both towns are in Washington County, Rhode Island, on the southeastern coastline adjacent to Block Island Sound. The site lies about 40 miles southwest of the urbanized greater Providence area. Figure 9.2-20 shows the site in more detail.The site includes approximately 400 acres. It is bounded on the north, east, and south by privately owned land, and on the west by the State of Rhode Island Woody Hill Management Area. Block Island Sound is approximately 2 miles to the south. Over one-half (57 percent) of the land-use in the town of Westerly is designated as forest or outdoor recreation, twenty-five percent agriculture and water use, sixteen percent reside 9-tial use, and one percent industrial / commercial use. Burlingame State Park, a 3900 acre campground and manage-ment area, is located about 2 miles east of the site. Additionally, a number of state, local, and private camps and campgrounds, as well as beaches are within 5 miles of the site. The Westerly State Airport is located 4 miles west of the site; two private airstrips are located 2 miles southwest and 3 miles east of the site. Land in the immediate vicinity of the Westerly site is primarily rural residential and is mostly wooded. The on-site topography has gently rolling terrain with elevations varying from about 170 to 110 feet MSL. Several small creeks and ponds are located within the property lines, as well as areas designated as " wetlands". The wetlands are situated such that some encroachment will likely be necessary to construct a plant. However, studies to determine the extent of encroachment have not been performed. An exclusion radius of approximately 1500 feet could be provided. Population Distribution. The urban center of Westerly is located about 5 miles west of the site and represents the major concentration of population within 5 miles. Outside the center of Westerly, the remainder of the town's popula-tion is primarily in the coastal sectors one to five miles, south to southwest of the site. The present 1975 population of Westerly is estimated to be about 18,200. The population distribution for the Westerly site is shown in Figure 9.2-21. The town of New London, Connecticut, located 19 mile- *o the west, had a 1970 population of 31,630; Newport, Rhode Island, situated approximately 20 miles east northear on the site, had a 1975 population of about 30,000. The adjoining areas of Westerly Center, Rhode Island, and Pawcatuck, Connecticut, situated approxiraately 5 miles west of the site, may eventually qualify as the closest population center of greater than 25,000 people.The Westerly Center - Pawcatuck population is projected to exceed 25,000 by the year 1990. 9.2-20A
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 4 Figure 9.2-21 compares the population distribution for the Westerly sue with a guideline of 500 people per square mile for the year 1975. As illustrated, the population distribution falls below the guideline curve at all distances. For the projected year of initial plant operation, the resident population is not expected to exceed the guideline value of 500 people per square mile within a 30 mile radius. Figure 9.2-22 compares the guideline population density with the projected 1985 population. Figure 9.2-23 compares the projected resident population for the year 2020 against a guideline density of 1000 people per square mile. As illustrated, the Westerly population distribution at the approxi-mate end of plant life is also not expected to exceed the guideline value. Cooling Water. There are no local fresh water sources within reasonable distance from the Westerly site which could provide closed-cycle evaporative cooling. Consequently, Block Island Sound, located about 2 miles south of the site, would be proposed as an ample source for a once-through circulating water system. The system probably would employ bedrock tunnels extending offshore to the 30 foot depth contour to both an offshore intake structure and a multiport discharge diffuser. The estimated evaluated cost of this type system is approximately $339 million ir 1985 dollars. Block Island Sound is an ideal source of cooling water because of the unlimited supply as well as the availability of deep water. However, because of the additional pumping required to reach plant grade (about 160 feet), an electrical output penalty will occur and has been included in the estimated cost for the system. Geology and Seismicity. The onshore geology of southern Rhode Island is,in general, fairly simple and presents no major structural problems.The bedrock geology is characterized as generally massive granite, which in some areas is foliated; this granite intrudes older plutonic and metomorphic rocks. Additionally, the area is underlain by a Cambrian to Permian suite of gneisses, alaskites, granites, and grandiorites. All the plutonic rocks are intrusive into late Precambrian metasediments with the Permian granites intrusive into the Pennsylvanian metasediments and metavolcanics of the Narragansett Basin. Some folding has been recognized in the metasediments units of southwestern Rhode Island; however, the iaolated nature of the various blocks within younger granites prevent deciphering of the regional fold pattern. Likewise, fault-ing has been noted at severallocalities along the margin of the Narragansett Basin. The last movement along these marginal faults, however, is indeterminate, but probably occurred during deformation of the Basin in late Paleozoic time (225 million years ago). In addition, a reverse fault has been noted 3 miles west of the site. The fault cuts Per-mian Narragansett Pier Granite and is, therefore, of probable permian age or younger (225 to 280 million y ears ago). Specifically, the southern border of the Westerly site is formed by a section of the Charlestown end morrain. Depth to bedrock is about 75 feet. The hills on the western and eastern flanks of the site consist of coarse gravel and boulders. Sor e outcrops have been identified in this area, but depth to bedrock is generally less than 10-10 feet. Depth to bedrock in the center of the site, based on nearby well data, is probably 30-50 feet. Hence, the Westerly site has favorable geologic and seismic conditions for selection as a nuclear power plant site. Storm Exposure and Flooding. The Westerly site, by virtue of its elevation, is not subject to coastal (tidal) flooding due to hurricanes, storm surges, wave run-up, or seiches. Probable maximum precipitation, on the other hand, is likely to cause significant low land flooding in the area due to the confined nature of the terrain. However, the plant could be located on the site such that the Probable Maximum Water level will be below plant grade; alter-natively, design measures could be taken to protect the plant from floods. 5 Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $48 million for Unit 1 and $27 million for Unit 2 result-ing in a total of $75 million in 1985 dollars. These figures are based on the following routings. for Unit 1: Transmission for the first unit includes two 19.5-mile 345kV lines between Westerly and West Green-wich on new right of way, plus a 10-mile extension of one of those lines between West Greenwich and Kent County, on existing right of way. In addition, a 21-mile 345kV line is built between West Farnum and Millbury, on existing right of way. O 9.2-20B
N F. P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 for Unit 2: 3 Transmission for the second unit consists of a 44-mile 345kV line, between Westerly and Card Substa-tion,27 miles of which is on new right of way,2 miles of which is along widened existing routes, and 15 miles of which is on existing right of way. Additional information regarding transmission and right-of-way requirements is located in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-2. d Accessibility. Good transportation facilities are available to the Westerly site. U.S. Route 1 passes less than 1 mile to the south of the site; Interstate 95, a major north-south route on the east coast, passes about 6 miles to the north-west. No direct rail access is available, but.a barge unloading facility is availabl; 14 miles east of the site at the north end of Point Judith Pond in South Kingstown, Rhode Island (see Section 4.1.1.3). Air service by major commercial airlines, on the other hand,is limited. Theodore Francis Green Airport in Warwick, 35 miles to the northeast, is the closest. However, as described above, the Westerly State Airport located 4 miles west of the site, could provide limited delivery service. Transportation costs for the heavy dimensional equipment (based on barge deliveries) is slightly more than the Charlestown site, i.e., approximately $39 million in 1985 dollars. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. The Atlantic Ocean, the potential cooling water source for the Westerly site, contains a diverse aquatic community essentially the same as described for the Charlestown site. Dominent phytoplankton include three diatoms - Chaetoceros sp., Thalassiosira sp. and Skeletonema costatum. Zooplankton of the trea include Hydrozoa, Rotifers, Nematodes, as well as Mollusk, Annelid, Crustacean and Cordate larvae. Tb Nesterly site consists mostly of mixed hardwoods. Additionally, a field at the southern boundary contains red white pine, and other earlier successional species. In the northern half, low land and wet areas, as well as a few m..esade pools account for about 20 percent of the site. Mammalian species common to the area are gray squirrels, raccoons and cottontail rabbits; blue jays, warblers, thrushes, chickadees and crows are representative avifauna. 9.2.4.8 Charlestown Site. Refer to Chapter 2 of this report for a detailed discussion of the Charlestown site. l3 9.2-20C
, Table 9.2-1 TRANSMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE SITES Miles of Transmission Required (2) On New R/W On Existing R/W On Existing Route Total Total Cost (1) Site Unit No. As Is Widened Line Miles (1985 Base) Comerford 1 - 330 - 330 $131M 2 58 - 170 228 123M Moore 1 - 344 - 344 143M 2 58 -- 156 214 116M Gill /Erving 1 - 30 - 30 19M 2 - 35 C 41 21M Z m Errol 1 146 253 114 513 235M ] 2 60 - 118 178 102M IP N Bear Swamp 1 2 156 42 200 86M $ 2 14 35 6 55 32M Rome Point 1 8 34 3 45 34M 2 41 12 1 54 43M Westerly 1 39 31 - 70 48M 2 27 15 2 44 27M Note 1: Includes all substation work, .me costs, and rights of way. Note 2: Distances are total line r.iiles, not right-of-way sniles. (See Table 9.2-2)
?
1 o ln
m Table 9.'2-2 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE SITES k Miles of Right-of.Way Used Existing Existing; Total Site Unit No. New As Is Widened R/W Miles 220(I) - 220 Comerford 1 2 58 - 170 228 227(2) - 21,7 Moore 1 2 58 - 156 214 30 - 30 g Gill /Erving 1 35 6 41 m 2 - i Errol 1 133(8) 253 57(4) 443 h 178 N 2 60 - 118 2 147 30 179 Bear Swamp 1 2 14 35 6 55 8 31 3(5) 42 Rome Point 1 2 41 12 1 54 20(6) 31 - 51 Westerly 1 2 27 15 2 44 Note 1: 110 Miies of double-circuit R/W Note 2: 117 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 3: 13 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 4: 57 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 5: 3 Miles of Jouble-circuit R/W Note 6: 20 Miles of double-circuit R/W G G G
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10,000,000 10,000,000
. .g g y. .g .
, c
- m. .
-4 _
_.43 3
.' . .a
.L
.t ,
n ' -'. r
,.s
#j#p 1,000,000
-- :1 J47 ~"
~
{.,0 ' .a:N'j v"# 1 2 -- 1,000,000 RESIDENT POPULATION .f. . YEAR 1986 / ;
,i .f,i
~
- ;/ a ,
o ti -1
.# ~"
f -GUIDELINE . e,- .
, .. ;/ ..
w a 2 g ,s (500 PEOPLE /mi ) g 2 - '
- s S
$ 100,000 ~
=
-- t h~ -.. /"*{"t";rv2'c~f'Wedqp:n-J-- .
100,000 h W 5
-- + .-
/.
g ."- /. . . g z f. -
;- . 7..
* ~
por di -
' } ['
10,000 --
;_. ,
- an*-p . ' ; . / -; 4. t - .p."*..-- 10,000
. 4 ,- ..
-- I- .
l- ' 3 .- .-
. .g '
. g. .
f: y .a. e
. f- .
l.
..i
g s. p 1,000 1,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NEP1&2 ROME POINT SITE - YEAR 1985 Environmental Report FIGURE 9.2-19A NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revisior. 4 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10,000,000 . 10,000,000 Ic .l- Ic .I.
. I.
; o . y -
. .c - w 4 u . .. s 1s. .
; 's'I
.s - P, S ,
P; _ - D' M
- GUIDELINE ~(1000 PEOPLE /r.@) m rg..
S4 y gi e
~
a
.n o
- j
'j
-- l r
4
- ['s ; .,- j( #p#,
*,# w 1,000,000 --7 cc "N .;;m : 5 :30 kE
. '/
f(*:" -d.jfg " e-- 1,000,000 o, m
,. -f,-
j{; ^
-(" 4, [
2 m o - - hf if , e r. -
. ./u .
.s ,.
.. / ^ U , ,
"# RESIDENT POPULATION ^
~
f V : YEAR 2020 - .- m
/ v.
a -.g a
- a. -
a. o rf . a. - , , a w . / . ,J.?--- . t-
'_ t.
e
- a. p. -q. '. .. =.
a g 100,000 , ,.gpH g d g2r.;p,;4p-y;; ;~ndgM; g;jh y ;7 , 100,000 g
=
m
. , :/- y '., :.
m
=
e s
.f g' -
7- . o
/- ,
A,- ' ;, .- . ,
- m o = f. . - ..L >
z
/i e -
s- "n" u 4 g::, s , p , t . ; p -. -
, 7 - N;i tr
*- p y.ll;,
- m. ..
+
yk
.y
< :.. :$ s?
s
'Q r
, e ..
I -
- y
- l. ,
. f 't -
I
-f g =M mg.=;W@ 4 ::@cg -d::.tr .
10,000 10,000
.x r -; -
s -
.. u. - ,
.. I , ;
n- ., - l- ~
.J [ " j[; g_
~
(
/ ,,.
.g.a. .11.3
.g -
~
1 . di "
. p- u -
mn f . q . %, mn-it >
= i
. . s j s F 3, - g
- c . n, .
s p .,
. . Cz. -# .
I 1,000 I ~b I d 1 1.000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 CISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES l NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NEP1&2 ROME POINT SITE - YEAR C020 Environmental Report FIGURE 9.2-19B NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4
\ si '/ .; -] f /
}
6
# , D [/, ., j /i / > h -
y y e;. i .
,y *p p };t. ( ,
3pn
.st
.Et_ h j' pc iy
/
,,i M. .
, \ ,
r
's -
g i ,
)
* 'j 5 \I' f ' v ., s /
3 i p ty
%,,7 1j _. - N
.y '
l ' \ . )f
' i !l i 4: t / n. . -
,f y mis:,,-r q, { y- - l ' a s ., \ . . , .. y,f L .
v ' 49 f%f .1, . '
'Ohs 3
n[ , y e
..;g
(
- g ,
' y> m ,.
KM*>b_. mix m, .
,c-
'?
( Q
- t/ ' '. , , /- (~
/ .gg- g -
'g , 3, ,-[
Sy c; .
, ~ ,j )
-} ] [~E p4 fpi._ @.
.2,\ i. !\u g e
- s
\p *, - c: '
,i
, ,w
/ .
p
-~
y .Q.,,te . q- , .9 _~,
, ~o - + - w o n .o a
(f ( s f; , ,/ 6
.,t[ N y ,*
, y, .
\, /
C h* w ,n
- J ^
* %;ad
,L
) {C' j ', ,
. , ll 2'. ' , . . .,p= R.-
.\.
' / ftIwn)-
< u;.if. , , ; l g
. ;,;spum;;%. ;;,,c{4'.,-:
r, 7.; s y' - - (- ' N .W j.'S - ' -gf ' . O .\
- s. q; / . . , , .. 7. . Ar ' N o -
c.
' 9 /*1-? v n -
', f a 1,vy s g , f ,f* f . g*"a i
, O ,
,4 a.3 HE A lt'ft ( ' s 9
, , jy'd, f
- 3:..$. s _
.w , -
T 9 ,
.f','\j[j -
r4 _lg k. o l.- . Q s'af,j: f (\.', 3
.i k m' c - m 4 ,I -
a
- + c 4.# ; -
. Q. ...-
- d o FILv..rsh.im( .1 g e( , e r., .
' ,,(}?
>b
)
/,' -/f,* '
- 4?l. &
it s{- l/ b e . .. e t. n 1. y% >< Q n
- . .p. s y,, '. - 3 ,/ - . e. l .'q: .
r- s> s,,- , s . rt rm ,,
;-(
v gj -n u,.. ) ,y :J
- (
6 .
.. \ ,
</ ,. 3 t
, 9. .,
,. (c.:'t,'.- \ s '. s
-y ; < j .i ,'
{, '- ,N n ,ry.cy
$he.h&Vxt.
w.I7.J! s - p th li s l
-' ':p y 'g*
i .' .
. N ',"v 14 '-~ IIar,b4..d: ; i:
4 - -
) -l-4 ., 3ad *L 2 ,,
- ei'
., J
.; ,s J
-,.s, .
.o
-- ..).. . . .
/ gj
. ,y
.e ;
4 v b '." Qu a_h rs pp yf;[ p,.; . 1 .1 O' s 5 1 -
..}'
(~ (Jnr m m.;ln n a xut-
..' , F t '
4 4) 6-V,+ w
-4
.r e.
?
l,' 0 + ,
,f. ,
g (, , , g ,;7 7 l-
~
i .i'=.. ,' 4',,-M, t m,, _, SCALE IN MILES
/,-
NEW EidGLAND POWER COMPANY NEP1&2 LOCATION CF WESTERLY SITE Environmental Report FIGURE 9.2-20 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 ) DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1,000,000 1,000,000
, y .y y ,
" ~
- GUIDELINE .f
. .' (500 PEOPLE /M12 )' / ,
f'/,
,/
/
100,000 -- -- 100,000
,/
.. s .
,/ '
.. .p .: .
/
/ .
,/
w / w
~
' ~
d j RESIDENT POPULATION a. YEAR 1975 10,000 - 4 -
- -- 10,000 5 :. .l! '
5 l
=
~
/
['
~
l
=
'I -
I I
.I
.i II I
i 1,000 I-- ~ 1,000
.I -
.s .
.I -
I -
.y
.I . -
D I I I I I 100 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NEP1&2 WESTERLY R.I. SITE - YEAR 1975 Environmental Report FIGURE 9.2-21 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1,000,000 1,000,000
, y g y _
,st GUIDELINE
- 500 PEOPLE /Ml g 2 s
7,/, / ,
/
/ .
/
/
/
100,000 - / -- 100,000 j
/ .
. / .
,/ .
/
f .
,/ .
/
a a S [ $ f O 10,000 - f RESIDENT POPULATION YEAR 1985 - 10,000 [ 5 - I 8 E - l - 8
- : / : =
,I .
I I . g I I 1,000 -l 1,000
- I :
.I -
.I -
.I -
.I ..
I -
-l I I I I 100 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NEP1&2 WESTERLY R.I. SITE - YEAR 1985 Environmentai Report FIGURE 9.2-22 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10,000,000 10,000,000 GUIDELINE - (1,000 PEOPLE /Ml2y 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
/
/ -
- s,s, -
s f,s, .
./ -
w p w g -. g B m
- u. p
,s' 8 o.
u. 100,000 -. -- 100,000 o
,/
= 1
~ /
- : =
1
~
5 ,/ RESIDENT POPULATION $
,. f YEAR 2020
/
. . / .
./-
. f .
I-1 l 10,000 -
-/ - - 10,000 E / :
^I I. -
. t .
I
-g -
. . ,l ' .
'l i
I I I I I 1,000 1,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DISTANCE FROM SITE - MILES NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NEP1&2 WESTERLY R.I. SITE - YEAR 2020 Environmental Report FIGURE 9.2-23 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Ta' ole 9.3e1
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITES se ie - M- c.mr.f d c.n,.m. ,, nome . ear s..m. . te , n.re. tee. Cisneries Larusten % H Meeree. % H. M as %H % Legesese. R I Reee. Mme RI RI k vease. land %D P ee,a n3 A Ni r oom *m 4 %f r nene 3sl g. land e se at,5y
- arraserwe es F ,er - ' f P oens tl3 4 % t.P owea nsgros Land sveieady t er I as h.eco E sciunson ratan F trivesso row.a e Lil east 1.un g o w I f new.,n. tem f a o,ni i u t,mun reitms 4+ 4 5 schnson o== eat hv Fedces.1 Ref an amt aggwus 2'WO ft appros 2i.eW ft e Eavmg i en ta redan of asice.a 2 60 A # s< Neue of anveas 2t*H R rarism auf a5Sens Gre+famens Aeswahdis y amadarne lanal a AMw.al land sem reine of 2MI ft :w gveeeev rahs r.d arisers a.Ma rge lam = I500 ft swestabie f.e<1*uwe ruh.m osedest m,wteut arteres 2:eso ft pumadde land a 1 WF A bt ti s.srated arid ta, se a montJy monwsed of apsen 21M F.
Land exasmied arid pensiente af arba Twees991ty ornaled ' weal leM gert abt s tear,11 am miatde land parn.edy e irseed t aal tand pie seay te e ,+ red e an a'.mweret let agru wt wre cemed laved lard
- a isseed ' e> as bs d ar) murmH and per news the =**** law st*M tely steered f44 W orwded au w mit ure ekd Possaar esse les it * , 'dtG les than Mr in. t%n %O fee. ' ban W Waue we, ar4 Ine it an bOtt les than $44 les man M l *'5 ear y prigde im* squaer twople per sq.sare 4*et'er 6*, equare sewee ret ar e,are at wwee r=esni. Segde per ==Mee smut d* gut equare f*urde pre estuase side rue seule er de si g'iUN eh mede We le mde ende
' JUG E**1 W e r**
,quare mor teos.c mwl herere he betase he becage
- en be age he Wine seerase Vu nieense %es Atasse swenam he Wae seerage %s 9mesame 'I) 6.r.g'atut e e fear Icg'ared arte f w i mg yid a te f s P r.g'ared este for ) cswet arte fi.e Istamiae l<* Ing'and e te f.A
. P net m41 enre f.se eenen= ars Rus h eeismw ery D..ihee semm=>s Ne ease.. es eet.m as ll <= a w. .sw et, er msprtt > Rm a me ase = s p.. k fuuadat sume t'a .al tJ.f ut ene t imsminivan neede- D ehrf g e na! (s%sidat am Olm h fown.iet =un fre undause fowwta -rei sessiaNe fureut stuss tams s GJt t m rw r.e 4 asmia rme e,a aate evenarete. an ewr.
F9 ede . ein L issurwia* wm fiwewle'se esad aNe se i rare i naAr4 9 ater Osmerf = ie t Larsi sta er Daed a v le E kneet a y te Presdairwm ae.*n tr- Ome=9 v ic Outre Liremagst un. e-idee hauabassty armt Comwa ta ut M eece ( cwmsesw ue R aev ( asnewe t4 9t E met Anstrou ngg.n mev rerwar e n w%s t hw form R ieve Attar:t t Oress O ar te ( s eam Fae. mated I essa hevos Ameria .We~s et<=ev ce i mtw. .v. & (iri ha o.rc, seWa Aggeon W*es af ferusasseg 82 50 meham $240 m Dam $2 50 m&a* laae. As<ma %regarw inas 'm ei ef rievemm $1J9 sndh<m $20's eees 2 M at
- 8vatem $240 ma'se wwus fw %+=
S2 40 she $217 miene 4couatm and h agminane % .e.fn ant % s4mfm arit % seds ern li e s= dad sveer* bs =dm fm an* Pue.it.3 arw roach % ..sni'u m i Ter emeine eff,. t effe.t eff,s rffai are e.<,.w.si. en ert- t meet , duecands- ef*e t E.-ek4F drrft + nwwi home fequs**d to Inudd euene isrve i g4 ant %rm i s punver %s thuf gerAes % f;.amri penta t,*1 % gmfm ent fb=f % fka=1 gw<,tei that f utet e % tbs's+aa Not. maturart to D h==l nnweita e. and Fkw. dens =so muz.ne.gd rey . rat. rewee== m e ,a erm.snt v. wet t.m v.wr d ianstal fkx=1 e4 w ms sp..real er W1 homewe, mamsmusa
% fk=mt iv.4.* pre = quia %on toud enin sens.mt ar reqwee f's mA pre e rims tertsea mea =urce 4 v e==*4=44 erse R ** note k . ame Remose k wan % earee a rema Reecee km eten Item t tears- a . .. Reerase ha ar ==> Barge as <cer to s.te Anrs. . . .. t,.
toarsed Trans % s atet m i e== Ni s aar, e s e== W ant e,e=. far % e nter e ie ta .ne pra.4 a d % e ae. r e .e ow m ty name rete es v = pawiesne rent. Pe sr= *esi tralFoss liesirn ted kingh w at b..si e d >nre.+ia.a tie =s tw ial h igti hwge n av a e ce. twav s 4 hf* as pngassets frv - % svir. t essi arwi ra.i m e== anst rad a re+. onepnewer. mat and rari ca anabee was amt rau Gartess **s e h a ra= 9 1ppros . Wen ersere% i.mus-t m i cen f merW %s.sm's a r e== D *ot d. tert rail actees M*4 g
$48md6n 01 se da.ne t weims rA f*c mas. requ mf A44+a V i innebst M 4 mee 570 edham Appros
$yp syihn Mi a L an I
g
%g 59 64 575 ami!1 w. e btieratat Appson Approm Appees Appree Appeem Appros Appses ap,r 5 T ree.mssiamon $259 umJhea $254 maan sat malleen 53s? andtsen 8?6 =&es tilt maihen O'S esihos gio2 sama Cante latus bacan.hty lamoed n.pcey Issised supp#v lameted sugery F serem,h 1.meest t s, hmt engsk 1 sped is.:4 f.u< comer >t supply of I smhet owriedy if constructine suppsy of ik flegt 1.sr w in m%t 4ff aut 44pd tacers in e ad sk&d in ess at
. Dae+,1e e own use. a present5 hia's a re,. t g% unempirqment a A gn urwe, 9 e nth %5 wdagnar.
i terwegdq mv4 area #+*f ares W. I e to 1 ares and 2 1.2,5 Cast ik'fewet.al +4199 messe +6300 meBoos
- SIS maB*** *$293 minion eels adhan *See edban *S164 melhon 3 h-t toenpard estat Garhetoon 4
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section No. Title Page No. 10.3 D I S C H A RG E S YST E M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3-1 10.3.1 Proposed Discharge System. ... ............. ......... 10.3-1 10.3.1.1 Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ..................... 10.3-1 10.3.1.2 Incremental Present Value Cost . . . . . . . . ... ............. 10.3-1 10.3.1.3 Environmental Cost . ..................... ........ ..... 10.3-1 10.3.2 Alternate Discharge System . . . ......................... 10.3-1 10.3.2.1 Description. . . . . ......... . ............................ 10.3-1 10.3.2.2 Incremental Present Value Cost . . . . . . . . . . .............. . 10.3-1 10.3.2.3 Environmental Ccst . . ... ... ......... ......... ....... 10.3-1 10.3.2.4 Reasons for Rejecting the Single Port Discharge System . . . . . 10.3-2 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE TREATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4-1 10.4.1 Proposed Chemical Waste Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4-1 10.4.1.1 Description of the Proposed Chemical Waste Treatment System 10.4-1 10.4.1.2 Incremental Present Value Cost of Proposed Chemical Waste Treatment System . . . . . .... ....... ...... ..... .... 10.4-1 10.4.1.3 Environmental Cost of Proposed Chemical Waste Treatment System . ...... . .. .............. ...... . ......... 10.4-1 10.4.2 Alternate Chemical Waste Treatment System . ... .... . 10.4-2 10.4.2.1 Description of Alternate Chemical Waste Treatment System . . 10.4-2 10.4.2.2 Incremental Present Value Cost of the Alternate Chemical Waste Treatment System. . . . .......................... . 10.4-2 10.4.2.3 Environmental Cost of Alternate Chemical Waste Treatment System , . . . ... . . .. .................... . 10.4-2 10.4.3 Conclusion for Chemical Waste Treatment System . ......... 10.4-3 10.5 BIOCIDE TRE ATM ENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 10.5-1 10.5.1 Proposed Biocide System . .. . ......... ... . ... 10.5-1 10.5.
1.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE Proposed Biocide System. . . . . . ... 10.5-1 + 10.5.1.2 Incremental Present Value Cost of Proposed Biocide System . 10.5-2 10.5.1.3 Environmental Cost of Proposed Biocide System. . . . . . . . . . . , 10.5-2_
=
N 10.5 2 Alternate Biocide Systems . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . ..
..., 10.5-2, 10.5.2.1 General Discussion of Alternates. ... . . ... ..... . 10.5-2 ?
10.5.2.2 Description of Preferred Alternate Biocide System. . . . . . .... 10.5-2 , 10.5.2.3 Incremental Present Value Cost of the Preferred Alternate Biocide System . . . . . . ..... . .. .. ....... 10.5-2 10.5.2.4 Environmental Cost of the Preferred Alternate . Biocide System . .. .... ...... ... .. ................ 10.5-2 10.5.2.5 Other Possible Alternates. . . . . . . ..... . ............ 10.5-3 10.5.3 Conclusion ... . .. . .......... .............. 10.5-3 10-iii
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section No. Title Page No. 10.6 S ANITARY WASTE SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-1 10.6.1 Proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System. . . . . . . . . ...... 10.6-1 10.6.1.1 Description of Proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System . . . . 10.6-1 10.6.1.2 Incremental Cost of the Proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System................................................ 10.6-1 10.6.1.3 Environmental Cost of the Proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System................................................. 10.6-1 10.6.2 Alternate 1 Sanitary Waste Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-1 10.6.2.1 Description of Alternate 1 Sanitary Waste System . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-S 10.6.2.2 Incremental Cost of Alternate 1 Sanitary Waste Treatment System............................................. .. 10.6.2 10.6.2.3 Environmental Cost of the Alternate 1 Sanitary Waste T re a tm ent Sys t em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-2 10.6.3 Alternate 2 Sanitary Waste Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-2 10.6.3.1 Description of Alternate 2 Sanitary Waste Treatment System . . 10.6-2 10.6.3.2 Incremental Cost of Alternate 2 Sanitary Waste Treatment System................................................. 10.6-2 10.6.3.3 Environmental Cost of Alternate 2 Sanitary Waste Treatment System................................................. 10.6-2 10.6.4 Conclusion For The Sanitary Waste Treatment System . . . . . . . . 10.6.3 10.7 LIQUID R ADWASTE SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7.1 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8.1 10.9 TR ANSMISSION FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9.1
- 2. 5 10.10 FIS H RETURN SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.1 B a se Sys t e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10-1 10.10.1.1 D e sc ri p ti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.1.2 Incremental Present Value Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.1.3 Environmental Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.2 Alternate Fish Return System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.2.1 D e s c ri p t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-1 10.10.2.2 Incremental Present Value Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-3 10.10.2.3 Environmental Cost ..................................... 10.10-3 10.10.3 C a n cl u s i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10-4 O
10-iv
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 3 The species composition and abundance of benthic organisms at the intake site is such that available substrate would 3 he recolonized after construction activity is completed. Understamlably, those areas that will be permanently altered will not be available for re-establishment of the benthic community. Actual impact is expected to be relative small, however. Since tunnels will be used to convey cooling water from the onshore intake s;ructure to the site, these will be no bot-tom disruption to Ninigret Pond. Groundwater. Ture are no environmental effects on the groundwater associated with the alternate onshore intake system. Air. There are no environmental effects to the atmosphere associated with the alternate onshore intake system. Land Site Eelection. Land requirements for the onshore alternate intake system include areas needed for construction 3 equipment and the on beach intake structure. Excavation of about 1.5 acres of land on East Heach (Figure 10.2-1) consic.ing of beach and dune area would be needed far the intake structure. Another 4 acres of shoreline and nearshore water area will be utilized for the sheet pile walls and intake canal. Construction Activities. Since the construction of the intake system it not on the site of the station, separate con-sruction related noise will result. The expected noise level will be less than the baseline levels described in Section 4.1.7.2; i.e., between 45 and 65 dBA, which is considered "normally acceptable" as defined by llUD criterial . Although not calculated, the number of residents affected by construction noise will be small compared to the pro-posed system due to the distance of construction from residential communities (over 1 mile). On the other hand, tran-sient populations utilizing adjac at beaches during summer months will be subjectd to possible "normally unaccepta-ble" (65 "5 dBA) noise levels. However," unacceptable" levels (>75 dHA) will not occur. As in the case of the pro-posed system, construction activities will be limited to the daytime. The accessibility to any regional historic, natural landmark, cultura' or archaeological site will not be affected by intake construction. The recreational and aesthetic value of the barrier beach would be temporarily affected as a result of construction activities along the beach. Since the land required on the East Beach has low ecological value (see Section 2.2) in relation to flora and fauna com-munities, no significant impact is anticipated. On the other hand, construction of the intake facility with associated excavation and/or backfilling may present an erosion problem. Althou h geologica! and historic data 2 indicate East Beach is reasonably stable and the littoral drift is slow under nornw' conditions, drastic erosion has occurred from time to time, and an erosion control program will be implemented. Jontrol methods have not been finalized and will depend on the conditions encountered. Plant Operation. Noise levels will be no different than the proposed system. Operational noise and activity is 3 expected to have only temporary,if any, adverse impact on wildlife. It is anticipated that wildlife will acclimate to the noise over a perimi of f ne. The height of the intake structure and the size of the intake canal and sheet pile walls will alter the natural scenic beauty and aesthetic appearance of the East Beach vicinity to some degree. East Beach with its associated flora plays a natural role in the control and prevention of flooding. Therefore, the ocean iront and adjacent beach, dune areas, and associated flora habitat will be restored with displaced soils and plants to provide for erosion and natural flood control. In addition, a monitoring program will be implemented to determine what possible effects may result to the shoreline and adjacent areas during operations. l3 10.2.2.4 Conclusion for the Alternate Onshore intake System. Although the alternate onshore intake 3 system is more economical than the proposed intab e sysem, it has intrinsic and environmental disadvantages. This is primarily due to the visual impact and loss of recreational land use on East Beach, susceptibility of the intake struc-ture to storm damage and/or blockage, the requirement for periodic dredging of the intake channel and adjacent seabed, and the temporary disruption of East Beach. 10.2-3
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER 2l 10.2.3 Alternate Offshore intake System 3 10,2.3.1 Description. The alternate offshore intake system consists of two identical off-set submerged intakes, two 14-foot inside diameter intake pipes connected to one 18-foot inside diameter intake tunnel through associated riser shafts, and a pumphouse located on the site. The intakes are located at a water depth of fifty feet, approximately 10,000 feet south of the plant site. Tunnels wouhl extend out an initial 6000 f eet from the site followed by an additional 4000 feet of pipe. Flow transit time for this alternative offshore intake system is estimated at 24 minutes from the offshore intake to the pumphouse. This represents a ten minute increase in travel time over the proposed cooling water system. The intake structures proposed for this alternative offshore intake system are similar to those utilized for the pro , posed intake system. Each of the two intakes (one per unit) creates a predominately horizontal intake flow by use of a velocity cap. Design approach velocity is 1.5 feet per second. 7l The intake structures are about 38.5 feet in Ciameter with a vertical inlet oper.ing height of 5.25 feet. The bottom of I the intake structure is situated above the seabed to minimize the entrainment of sediment during storm conditions. 3 10.2.3.2 incremental Present Value Cost. The present value of the alternate offshore intake is estimated to cost $60 million more than the proposed intake system (Table 10.2-2). Both the operating penalty and capital costs are more than the proposed system due to the increased length of the intake piping. 2 10.2.3.3 Environmental Cost Impingement and Entrapment Natural Surface Water Body . The design and operational characteristics of the alternate offshore intake system are the same as he proposed system. Similar to the proposed intakes, the alter-nate intakes have been designed to minimize entrapment potential by locating the intakes offshore with submerged velocity cap intake ports situated above the seabed. Ilased upon the intake design and behavioral characteristics of the species which have been studied in detail (Appen-dix G),it is believed that entrapment by the proposed intake will not have a significant impact upon any of the species discussed in Appendix G. Likewise,it is judged that there will be no significant entrapment impacts associated with operation of the alternate offshore intake system for two reasor.s: (1) The species composition associated with the alternate offshore intake area approximates that found at the proposed intake area, and (2) The alternate offshore velocity cap intake design provides the best available technology for preventing entrapment, just as the proposed system does. 3 One disadvantage, however, of situating the intakes at a depth of 50 feet is the increased probability of interfering with commercial trawling activity known to occur in that area. Pcasage Through or Retention in the Cooling Water System. Essentially all operational and design che rac-teristics (i.e., ow capacity, intake dasign, and inlet velocity) of the alternate offshore intake are the same as the pro-posed intake system. The only diffe rences relate to the location, corresponding transit times, and dep.' -f waterof the two intake systems. Whereas th( proposed intakes are located approximately 6000 feet from the plan. ade in 30 feet of water, the alternate offsh are intake is situated 10,000 feet from the plant site in 50 feet of water. Based on ichthyoplankton densities recorded in the vicinity of the alternate offshore intake average annual entrain. ment estimates for the selected representative fish species (discussed in Appendix G) are caiculated at 9.22 x 109 eggs and 1.62 x 109 larvae; whereas, average annual meroplankton estimates for the dominant invertebrate (Mussel,
- 3. 4 .flytilus edulis) is calculated at 5.699 x 10u larvae. Table 10.2-3 presents additional information on the predicted entrainment of eggs and larvae of the representative important spacies at the alternate offshore intake location. Com-paring such estimates with those described previously for the proposed intake system (Section 10.1.1.3 - Passage Through or Retention in the Cooling Water System), a small overall reduction in the annual average entrainment is noted for the alternate offshore intake. It shouhl be noted, however, that even though the average annual entrainment figures for this alternative system are less, five of the selected representative fish species (i.e., Atlantic menhaden, silver hake, scup, Atlantic mackerel and butterfish) have a higher egg entrainment potential at the alternate offshore intake location. Similarly, entrain .ent estimates for fish larvae indicates that four of the selected representative species (i.e., silver hake, scup, Atlantic mackerel and butterfish) wouhl also have a higher entrainment potential at the alternate offshore intake location.
10.2-4
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Of particular importance is that of all the six species discussed above, five out f these six species (i.e., Atlantic 2 menhaden, silver hake, scup, Atlantic mackerel and butterfish) contribute to the economically important Ithode Island offshore commercial finfish community (Olsen and Stevenson,1975). The resulting difference in entrainment 2A estimates between the proposed and far offshore intakes is also mixed for the meroplankton. There would be more blue mussel larvae entrained at the far offshore intake while there would be fewer squid juveniles and lobster larvae. It is believed, therefore, that any advantage realized in locating the intakes further offshore would be greatly reduced 2 for two reasons: (1) moving the intakes further offshore would result in a net increase in entrainment of eggs and lar-vae of five commercially important species, and (2) Appendix G demonstrates that the overall entrainment impacts attributed to the proposed intakes are negligable. Consequently, moving the intakes farther offshore to further minimize an already negligable impact is neither cost effective nor environmentally beneficial. Discharge Area and Thermal Plume. The thermal discharge and associated environmental impact will be essentially the same as discussW for the proposed once-through system. 2 Chemical Effluents. The environmental impact associated with chemical efnuents will be the same as for the pro-posed cooling water system. Radionuclides Discharged to the Water Body. Any associated impact resulting from the discharge of radionuclides will be the same as for the proposed system. Consumptive Use. No significant effects on consumptive use (municipal drinking water, agricultural supplies, or industrial needs) is expected from either this alternative or the proposed system. 3 Plant Construction. Construction netivity associated with this alternate offshore intake system will be esentially the same as the proposed intake system out to a distance of 2000 feet offshore. In other words, tunnels will be bored out to approximately the 30 foot (31LW) bottom contcar. From this point, dredging and backfilling will be used to lay an additional four thousand feet of pipe in order to tie in with the two offshore independent intakes situated near the 50 foot (31LW) bottom contour. Any construction impact resulting from the utilization of tunnels wouhi be the same as the proposed system. The cut and fill section of the intake section on the other hand would disrupt approximately 5 to 6 acres of the ocean bottom. This means that benthic organisms removed by construction along the pipe route may be unable to survive when removed with the excavated material, displaced or buried in the spoil. Ilowever, since the cut will be backfilled after
- he pipes are layed,it is expected that much of the affected benthic community will reconstitute itself. As a result, the impact in the vicinity of the pipe is expected to be local and temporary.
2 Groundwater. There are no environmental effects on the grour.dwater associated with the alternate offshore intake system. Air. There are no environmental effects to the atmosphere associated with the alternate offshore intake system. Land. Other than those activities or impacts described for the proposed intake system, there are no new environ-mental effects to land which could be attributed to the alternate offshore intake system. 3 10.2.3.4 Reasons for Rejecting the Alternate Offshore intake System. The alternate offshore intake system is rejected due to its excessive economic penalty and questionable environmental benefits. As described in See-tion 10.2.3.2, the incremental present value cost (in 1985 dollars including capital and the operating penalty) for the alternate offshore intake system is estimated to be $60 million more than the proposed intake cooling system. When combined with (1) the increased probability of interfering with commercial trawling activity, (2) the potential of entraining more eggs and larvae of several commercially important species, and (3) moving the proposed intakes from a location which has been demonstrated to be of negligible entrapment potential, the economic and environmental penalties far outweigh any advantage that an extended offshore intake could provide. 10.2-5
Revision 2 N E P 1 & 2 ER 2 10.2.4 References
- 1. U.S. Department of Housing and L han Deselopment,1974. " Department Circular 1390.2, Noire Abatement and Control; Department Policy, Implementation Responsibilities and Standards"
- 2. Raytheon Company,"Charlestown Hydrographic Study, April,1974 to April,1975", Fina! Report, December 1975.
3 Olsen S.B. and D.K. Stevenson,1975. Commercial 31arine Fish and Fisheries of Rhode Island. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island 51 arch Technical Report 34. O O 10.2-6
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Table 10.2-2 INCREMENTAL TOTAL GENERATING COSTS IN MILLION ($) Capacity Factor 60% 70% 80% Present Annualized Present Annualized Present Annualized Value Present Value Value Present Value Value Present Value Proposed Once-Through Base Base Base Base Base Base Cooling System Alternate Once-Through Cooling System with (11) (1) (11) (1) (11) (1) On-Shore Intake Alternate Once-Through Offshore System 60 7 60 7 60 7 Note: Numbers in parenthesis ( ) indicate values less than base.
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 10.2-3 ENTRAINMENT OF EGGS AND LARVAE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES AT THE OFFSHORE INTAKE ASSUMING 100% POWER DURING STUDY PERIODUI Species Year Eggs Larvae Atlantic Menhaden 1974 7.223 x 10' 1.230 x 10' 1975 1.17 5 x 10' 4.316 x 10' Average '6.236 x 10' 2.773 x 10' Bay Anchovy 1974 2.488 x 10' 2.479 x 10' 8 1975 4.572 x 10' 3.010 x 10 8 Average 3.530 x 10' 2.744 x 10 Silver llake 1974 5.837 x 10' 3.374 x 10' 8 1975 1.212 x 10 1.567 x 10' Average '8.976 x 10' '9.523 x 10' Striped Bass - Scup 1974 4.977 x 10' 2.523 x 10' 1975 1.218 x 10' 2.420 x 10' Average '8.580 x 10' *1.336 x 10' Cunner 1974 4.620 x 10' 2.953 x 10' 1975 4.705 x 10' 7.262 x 10" Average 4.663 x 10' 5.108 x 10' 8 4 Sand Lance 1974 1975 - 1.177 x 10 1975-1976 - 5.455 x 10' Average - 8.612 x 10' 8 Atlantic Mackerel 1974 5.657 x 10' 4.393 x 10 1975 2.803 x 10' 5.107 x 10" 8 Average *4.230 x 10' *4.750 x 10 8 Butterfish 1974 1.018 x 10 1.49G x 10' 1975 1.187 x 10" 8.416 x 10' 8 Average *1.102 x 10 *4.95G x 10' 8 Winter Flounder 1975 - 2.327 x 10 8 1976 - 1.140 x 10 Average - 1.733 x 10" 4 TOTAL ICitTilYOPLANKTON Year 1 1.051 x 10' 8 1.306 x 10' Year 2 7.927 x 10' 1.874 x 10' Average 9.220 x 10' 1.G20 x 10' Mussel 1974-75 - 9.241 x 10 1975-76 - 2.158 x 10' ' Average -
*5.699 x 10 '8 liard Clam - -
(2) Squid 1977 - 1.139 x 10' 4 Sand Shrimp - - (3) American Lobster 1977 - 1.130 x 10' Eelgrass I' ) Numbers based on area under temporal abundance curve at EB-C or the sum of 0.6X area under temporal abundance curve at BIS-A (Figure G.2.0-1) and 0.4X area under temporal abundance curve at BIS B times plant flow. I2) Density is cxtremely low. (8 )To be ascertained during 1978.
- Average value is higher offshore than at proposed intake.
O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Chapter 11
SUMMARY
BENEFIT - COST ANALYSIS
11.0 INTRODUCTION
NEP 1 & 2 will provide benefits which greatly outweigh their costs. The value to customers of 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electrical output per year, over the life of the plant, is considerably in excess of social, economic and environ-mental costs of construction and operation and justifies the project. But the benefits of the project are not limited to its primary direct benefits. By selecting nuclear fuel over fossil fuels, a savings in power generation costs is realhed which results in total annual savings to customers of about $200 to $300 million. At the same time, the region's dependence on fossil fuels, particularly imported oil, will be markedly reduced. Some 23 million barrels of oil would be required to generate the electric power expected from NEP 1 & 2; this is equivalent to 10% of the present use ofimported oil in New England. Many jebs will be created: 3000 construction jobs in the year of peak activity, and 200 permanent operating jobs for the life of the plant. Many of these will be filled by Rhode Island residents, and virtually all by New England resi-dents. As a result of secondary effects, additional employment, and personal and family income will be generated away from the job site itself, as the project's needs for materials and services are met by Rhode Island and the New England region. The Town of Charlestown will receive tax revenues from the property for the first time in over 40 years; the esti- h mated tax payment to the town in the first full year of operation is $3 million. This is expected to constitute over 90% of the town's tax revenues at that time. Some 200 acres of land which is generally of high ecological value will be preserved as natural, wildlife areas. This includes much of the shoreline in Foster cove and Ninigret Pond. Other protions of the site, generally oflesser ecologi-cal value, will be cleared of existing unused and unmaintained facilities and devoted to power plant facilities (120 acres) or made available for municipal facilities at the discretion of the town (55 acres). After a period of construe-tion, the remaining 230 acres will be landscaped to provide harmonious surroundings and additional natural areas. All shoreline will either remain in a natural state or be restored following construction. To implement the project, and achieve the benefits indicated, certain economic, environmental and social costs will be incurred, in addition to the direct economic costs of construction and operation. To influx of population to the local communities will cause temporary increases of a few percent in school enrollments, housing needs, costs of local government and public services, and traffic during the construction period. An additional temporary and limited effect relates to construction of the plant and installation of the cooling water intake and discharge systems across Ninigret Pond and East Beach to the ocean During plant operation, approximately 850,000 gpm of Atlantic Ocean water will be used for cooling purposes. There will be minor, regulated releases of radiation, insignificant compared to natural background radiation. The activities indicated have been carefully planned to minimize environmental effects. The design of the cooling f system is such as to minimize its effect on aquatic life during operation. Equipment is to be installed to keep radioac-tive releases "as low as reasonably achievable." The plant will meet the regulations and standards applied by the cognizant government autorities. The environmental, economic and social costs of the project have thus been reduced to a minimum. Taken as a whole, they are greatly outweighed by the benefits as a whole. The remair. der of this chapter explains this fact in greater detail. 11.0-1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 11.3
SUMMARY
OF BENEFITS The objectives and need for the proposed NEP 1 & 2 units have been discussed in Chapter 1 of this report. Power pro-duction constitutes the basis for the primary direct benefits of the project. In attaining these primary direct benefits, the project will also produce certain other benefits which are secondary and indirect. These do not constitute either incentive or justification for the proposed project in their own right. These items are, however, of significant importance to the region, the communities and the objectives of NEPA and are incorporated into the total balancing of benefits and costs. The primary direct benefits associated with NEP 1 & 2 relate to its principal function - the production of electric power and its contribution to society's health, safety, comfort and productivity. A minimum conservative estimate of these benefits can be derived in terms of the value of the energy produced. The primary direct ber.efits discussed in Section 8.1 are summarized in Table 11.3-1. The 2300 MW capacity nuclear plant at Charlestown will provide an annual output at full operation of over 14 billion killowatt-hours. Over a minimum escalation operating period, the customers will pay $4.3 billion on an unescalated basis or $11.3 billion at 5 percent escalation to purchase the electrical output of these units. These values are calculated on a present value basis in the first full year of operation. The operation of this plant will help avert a potential deficit in electrical energy sup-ply to the region in the mid 1980's. The other benefits discussed in Section 8.1.2 are also summarized in Table 11.3-1. A major and very important con-tribution of this nuclear project will be in shifting the energy consumption pattern in New England away from the present high sevel of dependence on oil, particularly insecure supplies of foreign imported oil. By choosing to meet the demand for electric power by nuclear fueled genera
- ion rather than oil-fired generation, Applicant can reduce the oil requirements by 23 million barrels annually. This will produce significant advantages in terms of the use of oil, material dollar outflow and cost savings to customers as shown in Table 11.31. By choosing to meet the demand for electric power by nuclear-fueled generation rat . than coal-fired generation, Applicant can improve regional energy independence and provide lower cost supply of electricity to the region.
In addition to the direct employment that would be generated by thi project, secondary employment and economic activity will be induced. Consequent to the decision to construct and operate the power plant, a.dditional benefits will accrue directly in the form of jobs (up to 3000 peak construction and 200 operational work force) and payroll income ($432 million total con- l4 struction and $6.8 million annually thereafter). In addition, the plant is estimated to constitute over 90 percent of the l Charlestown assessed property valuation and Applicant will pay that part of the local property tax income, the tax levy on the plant being expected at about $3 million dollars annually. Another150 millior. in economic activity in New England will be generated from purchases of materials and supplies during the construction period. Additional benefit to the community will be attained by conversion of the presently abandoned NALF to a power plant site, including the incorporation of landscaped areas, natural areas, municipal reactional facilities, archaeologi-cal preserves, and educational facilities. O 11.3-1
Table 11.3-1
SUMMARY
OF BENEFITS Primary Direct Benefits Magnitude Units of Measure _ Section Net generating capacity 2300 Megawatts 8.1 Annual output at full operation 14 Billions of kilowatt-hours 8.1 Maximum annual sales to customers 8.1 Residential 5.1 Billions of kilowatt-hours Commercial 3.9 Billions of kilowatt-hours Industrial 3.7 Billions of kilo-vatt-hours Other 0.3 Billions of kilowatt hours Revenues evaluated over minimum expected plant life (present value in initial full year of operation) 8.1 Unescalated 4.3 Billions of dollars g Escalated at 5% 11.3 Billions of dollars m u a Other Benefits IP Annual savings in oil consumption by selecting nuclear m 8.1 m rather than oil quantity of oil 23 Million barrels of oil percentage of New England foreign import requirement for electrical generation 50 Percent for all uses 10 Percent Annual gross savings in dollar outflow by selecting nuclear rather than oil at $13 per barrel 300 Millions of dollars 8.1 Generation cost differential for nuclear base-load generation compared to fossil 8.1 oil 15 Mills per kilowatt-hour coal (with scrubber) 20 Mills per kilowatt-hour present-worth of 15 year total generation cost savings 1.7 Billions of dollars per :.ntage savings in rates to residential customer due to project 7 Percent f E' S a
Table 11.3-1 2
SUMMARY
OF BENEFITS (Cont) l., 8 u Magnitude Units of Measure Section Primary Direct Benefits 8.1 Employment Peak construction work force 3000 Number of people Operation work force 200 Number of people Personal Income (Payroll) 8.1 Peak construction - annual 90 Millions of dollars Total construction 432 Millions of dollars Operating - annual escalated to 1989 6.8 Millions of dollars 90.9 Percent 8.1 Plant percentage of total Charlestown valuation (estimated) 3 Millions of dollars 8.1 2 Tax levy on plant valuation at initial operation m 8.1 .o Construction related equipment and material purchases Ithode Island 50 Millions of dollars Other New England 100 Millions of dollars [ 2.1 m Conversion of Abandoned NALF :D to power plant property 120 /,cres to landscaped area 230 Acres to natural area 200 Acres to Charlestown municipal facilities 55 Acres
# G G
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Chapter 12 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRCVALS AND CONSULTATION
12.1 INTRODUCTION
in addition to the NRC construction permit, operating license, license for source material and license for special nuclear material, a variety of ensironmental permits is required at the Federal, state, and local levels in connection l5 with the construction and operation of NEP 1 & 2. Tables 12.1-1 and 12.1-211st the authorities, the applicable environ-mental permits, and the status of each. Table 12.1-1 covers the generating station itself, and Table 12.1-2 covers the transmission system. State of Rhode Island Certification as required under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-ments of 1972 has not yet been obtained. In connection with the effects of the plant on economic development of the region, Applicant has contacted or used information supplied by the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program (Rhode Island's A-95 review clearinghouse), Departirent of Economic Development, Economic Development Corporation, Department of C. mmunity Affairs and University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, as well as the New England River Basins Commission. 12.1-1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 12.1 -1 LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVAL RELATED TO GENERATING PLANT Governmental Statutory Body Citation Permit Categnry (R.I. General Laws unless 3 otherwise notedi Rhode Island Coastal Section 46 234 See Attached explanation Land and water use, Resources hianagement of Council's jurisdiction fish diversion and Council construction effects Rhode Island Section 39130 Determination of appeal und use 3.5 Public Utilities from adoption of amend-Commission ment to Charlestown zoning ordinance 3 U.S. Environmental Federal Water Pollution NPDES discharge Water Protection Agency
- Control Act amendments of 1972, section 402 (33 USC g 1342)
U.S. Environmental Federal Water Pollution Alternate effluent limita- Water Protection Agency
- Control Act amendments tion of 1972, sections 316 (a) and (b)
Rhode Island Depart. Federal Water Pollution Circulating water dis- Water ment of Environmental Control Act amendments charge permit, certifica-51anagement of 1972, section 401(a), tion to Environmental ,3 (33 USC g 1341) and Protection Agency and ~ 4612-2(c), 4612-3(k), (1) approval of discharge of and 4612-4 sewage Rhode Island Depart. Section 23-1 18(8) Approval of sewage Land and water use ment of IIcalth disposal system Rhode Islar.d Depart- Saction 23 25-5 (k),(1) Permit for nonradioactive Air ment of Environmental emissions into the air h!anagement Rhode Island Depart- Section 231, 3-5" License for radiation Air ment of IIealth source Rhode Island Depart- Section 2-1-21,2-1-22 Construction, land 3 Permit for alterations to ment of Environmental fresh water wetlands and water use hfanagement Rhode Island Section 42-64 14.1 "
- Location and construction General Assembly of nuclear plant U.S. Coast Guard 33 CFR 126.19, pursuant Permission for vessel to Water use and to 33 USC 01221(6) carry explosives construction U.S. Army Corps of 33 USC g 403 Work in navigable waters Water use and Engineers
- construction U.S. Army Corps of Public Law 92-532, g 103 Transportation and dump. Water Engineers * (33 USC 91413) ing of dredged materials for installation of intake and discharge facilities and barge landing site U.S. Army Corps of Public Law 92-500 Permit for discharge of Water Engineers 6 404 (33 USC 01344) dredged or fill material
' An application for the NPDES discharge permit and alternate effluent limitation was filed with EPA on 28 February 1977. 3A 5 Anplications br both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits were filed in hfay,1978. Applications for the other licenses, permita and approvals listed herein are expected to be filed at various times after the filire of this application. *
- Applicant believes this statute to be unconstitutional,See Train y Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 44 U.S. Law 3,4 Week 4717 (1976); Northern States Power Co. v Afinnesota, 405 U.S.1035 (1972).
*** Uncertainty exists as to whether this statutory provision applies to NEP 1 & 2 and whether, assuming it dco, the approval is environmental.
Table 12.1 -2 LICENSES, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS RELATED TO TRANSMISSION SYSTEM { g u, Category Permit Goveinmental Body Statutory Citation Public Ilearing I Rhode Island State IIighway R. I. Dept. of Public R. I. General Laws No Crossing Transportation Sections 37-5-1, 37-5-2,42-13-1 Right of Eminent R. I. Public Utilities R. I. General Lawe Yes Domain Commission and Su- Section 39-1-31, perior Court Requirement of Su-perior Court approval is set forth in charter of The Narragansett z Electric Company m o 5 a Major Fresh Water R. I. Dept. of Environmental R. I. General Laws Yes (if written objec- gp P'ver Crossing Management 2 Sections 2-1-21 and tion of a substantive m 2-1-22 nature is filed with g the Department) 5 Alterations to R. I. Dept. of Environmental R. I. General Lawn Yes (if w'titten objec-Fresh Water Management Sections 2-1-21 and tion of a substantive Wetlands 2-1-22 nature Os filed with the Department) To Alter Salt Marsh R. I. Coastal Resources R. I. General Laws Yes or Other Tidal Management Council Section 46-23-6 Areas Zoning Exception Municipal Zoning Board May be required by zoning Yes of Review ordinances of some of the municipalities where transmission system may be located O 9 O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 12.2 EXPLANATION OF JURISDICTION OF COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL The Coastal Resources Management Council has jurisdiction over activities "within, above or beneath the tidal water below the mean high water mark, extending out to the extent of the state's jurisdiction in the territorial sea." In addi-tion, the Council has jurisdiction above the mean high water mark in ecnnection with six types of uses or areas (Rhode Island General Laws @ 46-23-6).These include power generating plants, intertidal salt marshes, shoreline protection facilities and physiographical features. The term "physiographical features" has been defined by the Coastal Resources Management Council to include the entire shoreline, beaches, barrier beaches, sand dunes, and other natural features. 5 The Coastal Resources Management Council regulations applicable to the approval of a power generating plant have been published in the Energy Facilities Policies and Regulations section of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program, 12.2-1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 CONTENTS APPENDIX A Exhibit 1.1.4.1 NEPOOL Expansion Plan Exhibit 1.1.4.2 Working Paper On Reliability Criteria Evaluation Exhibit 1.1.4.3 Summary of New England Load and Capacity Report Exhibit 1.1.4.4 Summary of Findings on Economic Comparison of Base-Load Generation Alternatim for New England Electric APPENDIX B B.1 Sedimentation in Ninigret Pond B.2 Results of Field and Laboratory Tests B.3 NEP 1 & 2 Monthly Joint Frequency Distributions ' B.4 Millstone Meteorological Summary APPENDIX C C.1 Hydrothermal Analysis - Circulating and Service Water Diffuser System NEP 1 & 2 C.1A Transient Analytical Temperature Predictions for Heated l* Diffuser Discharge I C.2 Data Needed for Radioactive Source Term Calculations for ' Pressurized Water Reactors C.3 Radwaste Treatment System Cost Benefit Analysis NEP 1 & 2 APPENDIX D D.1 Letter from Ecological Associates Inc. D.2 Letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game D.3 Natural Area Management Plan for the Charlestown Rhode
- Island Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Site APPENDIX E E.1 Table S-3. Summary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle E.2 Summary Table S-4. Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from 1 Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor 1
E.3 Mathematical Models for Critical Pathways APPENDIX F Requests for Additional Information and Responses APPENDIX G The Environmental Impact of Construction and Operation of the Cooling Water System for NEP 1 & 2 on Selected Repre-sentative Species i
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER CONTENTS (Cont) g d APPENDIX H Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments and Questions APPENDIX I The Potential for incremental Fish Mortality Due to Entrapment Within a Tunnel vs a Pipe Intake System at NEP 1 & 2 0 O
Revision 5 Environmental Report NEP 1 & 2 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Revision 5 ABSTRACT The NEP 1 and 2 nuclear generating station, proposed for Charlestown, Rhode Island, will have a total generating capacity of 2400 MWe and a once-through cooling system withdrawing from and discharging into the Atlantic Ocean. The circulating water flow rate will be 1907 cf s for the two units col iaed, with a temperature rise of 37'F. The primary objective of the present study was to extend the temperature pre-dictions of a hydraulic model study of the diffuser discharge down tc the 1.5'F isotherm, using mathematical modeling techniques. For that purpose, a transient integral surface plume model was used for the prediction of the temperatures in 5 the intermediate field. For summer ambient conditions, plots are given of the temperature rise isotherms at four times during the tide cycle. The correspond-ing areas and volumes of the isotherms 2.5*F and above are given in table form. Farfield eff'ects, resulting from the long term balance of heat input from the generating station with tidal flushing, dispersion and surf ace heat transfer were considered, using a heat balance type mathematical model. Results of an lh in-situ dye study, during which dye was discharged near the proposed diffuser location for several days, were used for comparison with the mathematical model results. For summer ambient conditions and net current velocity (flushing) of 0.05 ft/sec, the final cumulative area of the 1.5*F isotherm was found to be approximately 2800 acres, including the effects of farfield heat buildup. As net current velocities increase, this area decreases. Cumulative isotherms less than 1.5"F and occupying larger areas are tabulated. The second objective of this study was to assess the potential ef fect of the plant discharge on the temperasare of the water in Ninigret Pond, a coastal pond linked to the ocean by a stabilized breachway. This effect was explored using a mathematical model which calculates the pond temperature as a function of the ocean temperature and the meteorology. A rise of the temperature of the ocean water entering Ninigret Pond during flood tide was found to produce an increase of the average Ninigret Pond Temperature equal to approximately 0.3 times the ocean temperature rise. C.1 A-iii
Revision 4 Finally, the transient plume codel developed for the diffuser discharge was applied to the plume issuing from Ninigret Pond during ebb tide. The calcu-lated size of the thermal plume produced by the Ninigret Pond ebb discharge into the ocean was fcund to be comparable to that produced by the diffuser discharge. O I e O C.1 A-iv
Revision 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 5 2.1 Ocean Bathymetry and Currents 5 2.2 Ninigret Pond 5 2.3 Meteorology and Heat Transfer 7 3 TRANSIENT PLUME MODEI- FOR INT'RMEDIATE FIELD 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Similarity Profilec 14 3.3 Integrated Equations 17 3.4 Initial Conditions 24 3.5 Dispersion Region 25 3.6 Transient Treatment 26 4 TEMPERAIURE PREDICTIONS IN THE INTERMEDIATE FIELD 30 4.1 Steady State Calculations 30 Comparison with Hydraulic Model Results 31 Effect of Surface Heat Flux Coefficient 35 Effect of Ambient Stratification 42 4.2 Transient Plume. Predictions 47 5 FARFIELD TEMPERATURE RISES 57 5.1 Development of Farfield Temperature Model 57 5.2 Dye Study Analysis 60 5.3 Farfield Temperature Predictions 66 6 NINIGRET POND ANALYSES 70 6.1 Ninigret Pond Temperature Rise 70 6.2 Ninigret Pond Discharge Plume 72 7 3UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 77 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 79 REFERENCES 80 C.1 A-v
Re"sion 5 N 11 = (3-6) 0( 6u erf( d) + 2 6 V, cos 0)
-6u erf e ( d) + 2 d V acos 0 g . SE . 3 c Q nA 2 [ ( + 2} )
8__ erf I l lu 15 19 2 ( 7 2 j c +3-6AV acos 0 (3-7) and the centerline velocity excess, u , is the solution of the following second degree equation: 2 erf(2) /n/2 u + 6 erf( d) u V, cos 0 + 2 d V cos 0
=E (3-8)
Q (3- 8u eerf(d) + 2d V acos 0) In the above equations, and in the following, an average plume standard deviation is used: 0
+c c= 2 (3-9) 3.3 Integrated Equations Integrating the equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and heat over a cross-section of the plume leads to:
h=2u gy 11 + u ev W (3-10) 8
= V cos 0 - -
W (3-11) C.1 A-17
Revision 4 T F
= -
[ V, sin 0 + f" W + f] (3-12) 4
" W AT (3-13) d ~"ev b~p p
where u,1 = effective lateral entrainment velocity u = effective vertical entrainment velocity W = plume width = 2 d a V, = ambient current velocity H do g z P = pressure force = dz dn Ap g dz o -d a r -m Ap = density difference between plume and ambient water (function of s, n, z) T is
= enterline component of interfacial friction shear stress O T = n rmal c mp nent of interfacial friction shear stress h
F = n rmal rag force on plume due to cross-current D AT = bottom tempercture deficiency in stratified amoient b C = net surface heat tEnsfer across plume surface n The pressure force, as expressed above, can be further developed using the simi-larity profile expressions given in Equations (3-1) and (3-2): P= d erf( ) S AT gH (3-14) is the coefficient of thermal expansion of wat.er. 6 deper da' inwhichS=-f on the ambient water temperature and salinity, and is given in tables of physical properties. O C.1 A-18
Revision 4 Table 4.1 Initial Conditions for Steady Plume Calculations Centerline Centerline Current Speed Temperature Velocity Plume Angle Plume Width V AT u 6 W a co co o o (ft/sec) (*F) (ft/sec) (deg) (ft) 0.0 5.4 2.36 90 670 0.5 4.8 1.96 68 777 1.0 3.3 0.91 35 1107 Comparison with Hydraulic Model Results The tests performed in the model study included both steady and transient long-shore current conditions. Steady tests were performed with longshore currents of 0.5 ft/sec and 1.0 ft/sec, and transient tests were performed with tidally varying currents from 0.5 ft/sec in one direction to 0.5 ft/see in the other direction. In all tests, surface and subsurface temperatures were measured using an array of 370 thermocouples and surface isotherms were plotted. Plume cross-section isotherms were plotted for several tests. The surface temperature rise isotherms calculated by the analytic model for the steady conditions listed in Table 4.1 are plotted in Figures 9, 10, and 11, to-gether with the surface isotherms obtained in the hydraulic model study for similar conditions. It is shown in the following section that the heat flux coefficient only affe>ts the temperature calculations at large distances from the diffuser, which would lie beyond the hydraulic model boundaries. A value of the heat flux coefficient of 200 BTU /ft / day /*F, which is a realistic proto-type value, was therefore selected for the calculations. The following factors should be considered when comparing the analytic and hydraulic model results.
- 1. The presence of physical boundaries in the hydraulic model influences the plume shape (trajectory and width). The extent of the boundary effect is difficult to quantify exactly; however, it is clear that it increases with the distance away from the diffuser. This boundary in-fluence is apparent in Figure 10 for the 2.5'F isotherm which becomes wider near the boundary. The predicted and measured 3*F isotherms, however, are comparable.
I C.1 A-31 4:
N 1'.5 i a l 4
--10000.
I
-y- 9000.
HYDRAULIC MODEL TEST NUMBER R24 S'^" "' 2 . 0 -- 6000. I g _ _ _ _ _ MOD E L B O_U N D A R Y _ _ _ _ , 0 . N 2.5 , 2.0 000. S 1 6000. 4000. 2000. ( 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + -
+ + + +++ + + +,
FIGURE 9 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT .00 FPS T1AX. INITIAL TEr1PERATURE RISE = 5. 40 oF STRATIFICATION TEt1P. DIFFERENCE .00 oF SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT - 200. BTU /FT= =2/ DAY / F O O O
_ _ _. _ __M_OD E L BO_UN DAR Y-_ l
+ 4000.
I N l 2.5 + I 3.0 2. s 1
~ 2000.
~ I N
g i N HYDRAULIC MODEL
\
TEST NUMBER 24 x N
+
p '
.0 x + 6000.
5,
- N O N 4 x + 4000.
SN N + 3k 2000.
\
m 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
FIGURE 10 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1 &2 STEADY CURRENT = .50 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE - 4.80 oF STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = .00 F g SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT= = 2/ DAY / F E'
---- 1 Yb____ _
l + 4000.
- b I +
l 2' 2.5
+ 2000.
3 x l "N HYDRAULIC MODEL
% TEST NUMBER 31 L %
Y 0 ' " s + 4000.
. N N +
D + 2000. 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
++++++++++++++++ 4 + +
FIGURE 11 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = 1.00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE - 3.30 F STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = .00 F SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT==2/ DAY / F O O O
Revision 4
- 2. The model isotherms plotted in Figure 9 are for slack tide in a tran-sient current test. Therefore, the resulting plume indicates heat carried to the left of the diffuser (on the figure) by the current at a prior time. The lower temperature rise isotherms, therefore, correspond to conditions different from that of no current. The higher isotherms, however, correspond to water discharged only a short time before slack and are, therefore, more representative of stagnant conditions. These higher isotherms compare favorably between model and calculations.
- 3. The measured end points of the 2.0*F and 2.5*F isotherms from the hydraulic model in Figure 11 are very close to each other, and it is anticipated that surface heat transfer scale effects are the cause for this observation. This scale effect was previously dis-cussed in (6). Also, the downstream part of the 2.5"F isotherm is very. narrow, suggesting that an earlier equivalent end could be considered.
In view of these considerations, it is concluded that the physical model data support the analytical model predictions. Plots of centerline temperature rise and velocity excess over ambient, as well as plume depth versus centerline distance, are given in Figures 12, 13, and 14 for the three steady runs just discussed. In particular, these plots show that the plume stratifies at a short distance froc ae diffuser. The final plume depth in the dispersion region is of the order of 9 ft for both 1.0 ft/sec and 0.5 ft/sec currents. For stagnant ambient, the final plume depth is approximately equal to 23 ft. Effect of Surface Heat Flux Coefficient Calculated plume surface isotherms using surface heat flux coefficients of 120 and 200 BTU /ft / day /*F are plotted in Figures 15, 16, and 17 for longshore current speeds of 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 ft/sec. As can be seen in Table 2.1, heat flux coefficients at the site are of the order of 120 BTU /ft / day /*F or below during the months of October ta March, while values of about 200 BTU /ft / day /*F C.1 A-35
a' 5-5' 3 CD 9_ o. _ n e o o , b o_ C i_ . u a w '
,8 S o H ..
w ._
" 9-C-
e' W
~9-U wo RC-9 S ci- E
~ so d e P m~- W o $ w 5 O_ og DTM W o ob d ,
~od
, t ,
>9~ Oo I
- v 9- 9- i i i i i O. 5000. 10000. 15000. 20000. 25000.
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER ( FT) FIGURE 12 CENTERLINE CHARACTERISTICS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = .00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE = 5.40 F STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE .00 oF SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT= = 2/ DAY /o F O O O
- m. _ o_.
N C e o R_ C u;~ N s w 5 o_. S m C ;~ e' W o
~g E D we S E M~ E P W o d H g o
m~- s o P l3 S u o_ W _99 u W m - w w , ga y ,
>* a q_ r v
o- o. - i i i i ! O. 5000. 10000. 15000. 20000. 25000. DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER ( FT) FIGURE 13 CENTERLINE CHARACTERISTICS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = .F0 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE = 4.80 oF m STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = .00 F $. SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT==2/ DAY /oF E.
a'. 5s tn Q w N'- d-Q Q o_ e ui N d O _. u- 4
" LD k Q t J- W dE b $ d- h so d Fu o
P m.- W H - e 2 0 tu >' d d g- oE = d , o d t E a
>9- OQ ,_
I v O-G- i i i i i : O. 5000. 10000. 15000. 20000. 25000. DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER ( FT) FIGURE 14 CENTERLINE CHARACTERISTICS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = 1.00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE - 3.30 oF STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE .00 oF SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT - 200. BTU /FT= = 2/ DAY /o F G G G
s l'.5 /
\
\
\
\
-- /
\ ,'
N -- 10000. ,'
/
\ -
/
/
' " B000. /
s / \ /
/ \ /
I 1 I 60fc 0. 9 y _- 0 0 . 000.
. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + 1 + + + + 4 + +
FIGURE 15 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = .00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE = 5.40 F E STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE .00 oF k SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT==2/ DAY /oF 3
----- 120
- i1&:ms
? i T F+ 0 2 1 9 0+ 0 2 P 0 . . . . E 0 e 0 e 0 0
+ N 0 c 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 1 e 6 4 2
+ + + + + + + ++,
F
\
+ Y
/
A
. D 0 /
S 2 g 0+ 2 0 M
=
=
R T F 4
+ E /
H SPFFT U .
. T F o o B 0 O 0+
0 4 S I 0 0800 5 000 2
+ E S
4
- - = -
21
. I TEET-X 0 0+
0 R NSCN-EI NE-RREI ws 6
+
E R R UEEI U CRFF UFF RC-9 T YTI DADOE s
~
0 A AR C R EE s 8 0+ 0 E TPPX St 1 1 tU EEL _ P TTF s s
+ M
' ' _ E LNT
. AOA
' s _ 0 T I I E TTH O~ - 0 I A s ' - 0+
0 1 E C NCE II C FA
' s - A .I F
+ F R
XTR AAU 1 P RS s 0 U T S
~ _
0+ 0 2 S
' s 1
' ' _ 6
~
+
1
, e E
~ _
R N 0 U
~ s s 0 G s ' ' ' 0+
4 I F
~
s s 1 s s
' s +
~ ~ ' .
' 0
' - s 0 0+
t s s 6 1 9 o L > L.
+
+ 10000.
+
+ 8000.
~,
~
4
+ 6000.
~'
O \ ~ s 4 - s
' %s x
~_
+ 4000.
~
+
- c. + 2000.
x 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + 1 + + + * + + + + + + + + + + +
FIGURE 17 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1 &2 STEADY CURRENT = 1.00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE - 3.30 F m S TRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = .00 F i SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT= = 2/ DAY /o F E. 120 3
Revision 5 or above are obtained during the months of June, July, and August. The meteoro-logical data in Table 2.1 are monthly averaged and conditions on individual days may depart from the monthly averages. The comparative plots in Figures 15, 16, and 17 show that the effect of surface heat flux coefficient increases with distance from the discharge point or rather with travel time from the discharge. Tha lower temperature rise isotherms are, therefore, more affected than the higher isotherms. Indeed, for the three cur-rent conditions considered, the 3*F and 2.5 F temperature rise isotherms are practically identical with the two differenc values of the surface heat flux coefficient. The 1.5'F isotherm, however, is 90% to 50% smaller in area with the larger heat flux coefficient. Effect of Ambient Stratification The measured' vertical temperature profiles near the proposed diffuser site, pre-sented in Figure 18 (29), show that thermal stratification naturally exists in the ocean during the summer months. Temperature differences of up to 3*F can exist between the surface and the 20 ft depth. One effect of this natural stratification on the plume derives from the fact that water entrained through the bottom of the plume will be colder than the ambient surface water. At the same time, however, the stability of the plume bottom interface vill be in-creased and the total amount of bottom entrainment will be reduced. In order to investigate these combined effects on the plume temperature rises, plume analyses were made in the steady mode with a stratification temperature difference of 2*F (Arb = 2*F in section 3). The resulting surface temperature rises are plotted in Figures 19, 20, and 21 and compdred to isotherms without stratification. These comparisons show that except for the case with an ambient current of 1.0 ft/sec, stratification produces a small reduction in the surface 5 temperature rises. With currents of 0.0 and 0.5 ft/sec, the 1.5*F isotherm is reduced by 56% and 14%, respectively. At 1.0 ft/sec cu_;ent, the inhibition of vertical entrainment due to increased interface stability has a larger affect than the reduced entrainment temperature and the result is slightly larger plume temperature rises. The 1.5*F isotherm is 1% larger with strati-fication than without. C.1 A-42
b Revision 4 MEASURED OCEAN TEMPERATURES PF) 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 I 4 MAY f 7 APR 19 JUNE 20 - < ' d ' 9 MAR 10 OCT
- , ,, o o 17 JAN w $ 40 - ' " < > o "
e B ,,, m _ o , 9 e " " " 60 - ' t 4 c. 8 17 JULY j 80 - ' > o " o J o FIGURE 18 MEASURED VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES NEAR PROPOSED DIFFUSER SITE (1976) C.1 A-43 M
1'.5
/
s
\
"g I \ :2
/ \ *
\ l
( -~
)
\ l g -- 10000. j
\ /
\ __ /
\ /
' /
STRATIFIED
-- 8000. /
NON-STR ATIFIED \\ -
\
g
\
/
j
/
.o \2 .O- - 6ee0' ~ \ - 1 > \ / \ / 1
\ /--\ /
\ l \ I
\\ / II t ib ;
I r 000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + + + + + A 1 + +
FIGURE la SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURPENT = .00 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE - 5.40 F STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = 2.00 F SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT - 200. BTU /FTa=2/ DAY /oF G e #
+ ~ ' ~
s
~ ~
+ 10000.
% \
~ g N
~
~
~
s__
's s
~
's 8000.
t s ~ s 's N ~
's N s
\ N s s y g s s N
's .O s s
~
s s s ' s '[sls s s'
+ 6000.
s g s g \ N N \ f a
~
s s s
'c
' s
's g + 4000.
E =
~
's g g
's N
+
_ s
' \
STRATIFIED 's N y
's ~
s 2000. NON-STR ATIFIED f 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + + +
FIGURE 20 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT = .50 FPS MAX. INITIAL TEMPERATURE RISE = 4.80 F m STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = 2.00 F $. SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /FT= = 2/ DAY /o F E-
?
+ 3 5~
+ 10000.
+
+ e000.
~_ '
+
~~_ '
~~ s
+ 6000.
~,
a s - s
+
s ~ 5 '
's + 4e00.
L e
. 4 s STRATIFIED NON-STR ATIFIED 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
FIGURE 21 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 STEADY CURRENT - 1.00 FPS t1AX . INITI AL TEt1PERATURE RISE - 3. 30 F STRATIFICATION TEt1P. DIFFERENCE - 2.00 oF SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT - 200. BTU /FT==2/ DAY / F O e ) O
j +
+ 10000.
+
, + 8000.
( I _ +__+7___ 6000. O g e
\ s + 4000, 2.0 1.5 2.5 s 4 g + 2000.
NNs 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + + + + + + + + 2-
+ + + + + +
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1 &2 FIGURE 23 tit 1E IN TIDE CYCLE = T/4
}
g
~
CURRENT VELOCITY = 1.O FPC GTRATIFICATION TEt1P. DIFFERENCE = .00 'F VELOCITY $' SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 220. BTU / 5 FTam2/ DAY /oF $
- N 4
+
+ 10000.
( . \ +
+ 8000.
+
k .
+ 6000.
'N_ +
N
- + 4000, h
o 2.0 2.s + N - pago, w 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 9000. 6000. 4000. 200f3. 2000. FT
+ + ++++++++++++++ + + +
FIGURE 24 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RI'; ISOTHERMS NEP 1 &2 TIME IN TIDE CYCLE - bT/12
}
CURRENT VELOCITY - O.5 FPS STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE .00 oF VELOCITY SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT - 200. BTU / FT==2/ DAY /oF O O O
- s
,/ \
/ \
l \
/
' ' _-s i
,s
/
,/ f'~h, l 4 l ' / '
i
-s l
/ / / - - ./ + 3 geog,
+
+ 8000.
o
'x '
N
+
> . + 6000. N -
'N 2.s +
\ 4000.
3.0 g
'<'030.
, b]
16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + ++++++++++++A 4- + +
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1&2 FIGURE 25 TIME IN TIDE CYCLE = T/2
} m CURRENT VELOCITY = 0.0 FPS i STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE .00 oF VELOCITY 5' SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU /
- FT= = 2/ DAY /o F
N 5. f ._ _ + j' j ~~~ w
's
( ,o + 1e000.
+
2.0 Y 8000. s +
~
+ 6000.
g - - 2.o + h 1.5 h Woi 2.5 I 3.0 1 / 000. 16000. 14000. 12000. 10000. 8000. 6000. 4000. 2000. 2000. FT
+ + + + + 4 + 4 + + 4 4 4 A + + 1 -*- +
FIGURE 26 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ISOTHERMS NEP 1 &2 TIME IN TIDE CYCLE =- 7T/12 CURRENT VELOCITY = 0. 5 CPS STRATIFICATION TEMP. DIFFERENCE = .03 F VELOCITY SURFACE HEAT FLUX COEFFICIENT = 200. BTU / FT==2/ DAY / F G G 9
Revision 5 comparison with the calculated isotherms is limited to distances from the dit-fuser of less than approximately 4000 ft. Also, the calculated isotherm widths have more irregular variations in the transient plots than in steady calcula-tions. The transient results also show that during the quarter tidal period following a current reversal, the isotherms are shorter than those predicted by the analytical model using the steady current speed corresponding to the time of the transient plot. This is due to the fact that the travel time, in the 5 steady calculations, needed to reach the 2*F isotherm is typically on the order of 4 hours. This travel time is longer than a quarter tidal period and, there-fore, the 2*F isotherm in the transient calculations corresponds to water dis-charged prior to the current reversal. The net distance traveled by these water particles, therefore, remains limited. For times in the tidal cycle after the peak velocity in either direction, the
~
isotherms are longer than before the peak. For example, the isotherms at times when the current velocity is equal to 0.5 ft/sec are different before and after the current velocity peak (see Figures 24 and 26). Plume characteristics as calculated by the transient analytical model are pre-seated in Table 4.2 in terms of isotherm areas and volumes, centerline distance to given isotherms, corresponding centerline velocity and travel time from the 5 diffuser discharge. For temperature rises of 2*F and lower, these results are more reliably predicted by.the farfield analysis described in Section 5. For completeness, the data in Table 4.2 include the part of the plume directly above the diffuser not included in the analytical calculations. For this part of the plume, which affects the quoted figures only slightly, the following assumptions were made:
- 1. The width of any isotherm was assumed to be constant over the diffuser and equal to its value at the initial point of calculations.
- 2. The isotherms were assumed to extend vertically down to.the
- ocean floor. ,
- 3. The flow velocity over the diffuser was assuced to be equal to the centerline value at the initial point of calculations.
C.1 A-53
Revision 4 In addition, data regarding isotherms closing between the individual discharge nozzles and the water surface are provided in Table 4.2. These data are based upon turbulent jet theory, neglecting the ef fects of buoyancy and jet inter-action with one another. For the nozzle configuration of the studied diffuser, the interaction between an individual jet and the surface occurs at a smaller centerline distance than the interaction between two jets. The data riven in the tables correspond to isotherms closing before the water surface and, there-fore, not influenced by jet interaction. The following expressions are given in (1) for the three-dimensional distributions of velocity and temperatures in turbulent round jets. 1.5-U=U D x ~ (0.22x -1} AT = AT D 1 - (0.22x -2) in which x is the centerline distance from the discharge nozzle and r is the radial distance from the centerline. For a given temperature rise, AT, the above equations lead to: AT D Centerline distance xg = 4.62D g (4-3) D D Travel time t g=- 3.1 + 1. 72 (g ) (4-4) D , , AT D 3 Isotherm volume Vg = 0.878 (g ) D (4-5) The expression for the travel time includes the presence of a jet potential core of length, L = 6.2D, in which the centerline velocity is constant. In addition, p the majority of the dif fuser nozzle jets discharge in an ambient water already
'neated by upstream nozzle discharges. It was shown in (4) that the resulting mixed temperature rise is approximately constant over the length of the diffuser.
C.1 A. 54
Revision 5 Table 4.2 Transient Plume Characteristics CURRENT Isotherms (*F) SPEED 30 20 10 4 3 2.5 (FT/SEC) DILUTION 1.23 1.85 3.70 9.25 12.3 14.8 Distance from 12 19 48 ---- 2400 6300 Discharge (ft) 1.0 Travel Time (sec) 0.65 1.1 5.5 ---- 2040 3960 Centerline Velocity 18 12 4.6 1.15 1.09 Time = (ft/sec)
/4 Surface Area (acres) 0 0 0 0 16 71 Isotherm Volume 0.011 0.046 0.78 350 997 (acre /ft)
Distance from 12 20 57 2010 3600 5700 Discharge (ft) 0.5 Travel Time (sec) 0.65 1.2 7.6 1330 3500 4700 Ce'nterline Velocity 18 11 3.9 0.83 0.65 0.49 Time = (ft/sec) ST/12 Surface Area (acres) 0 0 0 7.1 33 78 Isotherm Volume 0.011 0.048 1.3 191 580 1300 (acre /ft) Distance from 12 21 78 2250 3200 6000 Discharge (f t) 0.0 Travel Time (sec) 0.66 1.3 14 1450 3470 7900 Centerline Velocity 18 11 2.8 1.5 0.97 0.12 Time = (ft/sec)
! Surface Area (acres) 0 0 0 12 33 131 Isotherm Volume 0.012 0.062 3.4 360 610 2270 (acre /ft) ,
Distance from 12 20 57 1560 3400 4800 Discharge (ft) 0.5 Travel Time (sec) 0.65 1.2 7.6 1530 3300 6200 Centerline Velocity 18 11 3.9 0.85 0.64 0.68 Time = (ft/sec)
! Surface Area (acres) 0 0 0 5.0 32 64 Isotherm Volume 0.011 0.048 1.3 170 640 1150 (acre /ft)
C.1 A-55
Revision 4 Therefore, in Equations (4-3) to (4-5), the temperature rise, ATDand M, were . measured above the nearfield temperature rise, which is conservatively assumed equal to the maximum local surface tempereture rise measured in the hydraulic model tests (6). O O C.1 A-56
Revision 4
'x 4_ dAT g PC Q D = a x dx pC H x AT V -
- a
- dx D p n p
'o (5-4)
This integral equation is re-written as follows: OD 'O dAT D
= 2R n AT dl + F n AT - AT - n (5-5) o DH(a+f) where n = x/L, L being a horizontal length scale (introduced for non-dimension-alization purposes), which can be chosen equal to a representative dimension of the patch of heat. Also, aKL n R= and F=
pCp HD (a + a) D (a + b) a
- Differentiating Equation (5-5) with respect to a leads to the following second order differential equation:
+( - F) d
-( + =0 0-0 dn Two conditions are required to solve this equation. One is given by Equation (5-5) while the other is that AT should go to zero as n goes to infinity.
Equation (5-5) shows that when a goes to zero, AT will go to infinity, which is clearly in contradiction with physical reality. At n = 0, which can be interpreted as the location of the diffuser, turbulent jet mixing (not included in the above derivation), becomes dominant. This diffuser induced mixing could be modeled here by artificially increasing the dispersion coefficient, D, as a goes to zero. Jet mixing, however, and the corresponding temperature rise iso-therms were considered in detail in Sections 3 and 4 and for the purpose of the present farfield analysis, it is sufficient to limit the temperature rise in a nearfield mixing zone, the size of which can be determined based on the plume analyses. This approximation, which affects only a small area relative to C.1 A-59
Revision 5 farfield dimensions does not affect temperature predictions in the farfield. The validity of this approximation can be tested by comparing farfield tempera-ture predictions corresponding to dif ferent assumed nearfield dimensions. If the nearfield is assumed to be contained in the isotherm located at n = n , the corresponding nearfield temperature rise, AT 9
, will be such that, usin; Equation (5-5):
0D D 2 d AT
=
R0 AT +Fn AT -n dq - .(5-7) DH (a + b)a o In the case when there would be no net flushing (V, = 0 -+ F = 0), Equation (5-6) can be transformed to the following form: 5 d AT d AT
- AT = 0 (5-8) d (2 +[1 d6 where ( = n /Eii. This equation is a modified Bessel equation of order zero, for O
which tabulated solutions are available. For the general case of F / 0, a ut.nerical integration of Equation (5-6) was used. Results of the above analysis will be presented in Section 5.3. However, the results of a field dye study will be discussed first to compare equivalent far-field temperatures and local heat build-up to analogous conclusions f rom the above analytic model. 5.2 Dye Study Analysis An in-situ dye study was conducted in August 1974, during which dye was released near the proposed diffuser location for two continuous periods of 8 and 5 days, respectively (5). Dye was released near the water surface at a constant rate of 0.5 lb/ hour at each of 5 injection points. The location of these injection points, as well as that of the stations where dye concentration ceasurements were made, are shown in Figure 28. C.1 A-60
Revision 4
+ ( - F') - T( )=0 (5-10) with V L R' = and F' =
pC DS (a + S) 2D (a + d) a p a Using a length scale L = 10,000 ft for the standard deviation of the heat or dye patch in Equation (3-42) leads to a value of the dispersion coefficient equal to approximately 500 ft /sec. A bottom slope of 20 ft per mile was used. For the dye calculations, the surface heat flux coefficient should be set equal to zero, leading to R' = 0. The aspect ratio of the isotherm shape was taken equal to 1. Using these values, Equation (5-10) was solved numerically and the results are presented in Table 5.1 in terms of nearfield temperature ris2s and isotherm side lengths. Two nearfield sizes x, (see section 5.1) of 5000 f t and 10,000 f t were used with the values of the net current speed, V , equal to 0.0, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 ft/sec. Assuming sinusiodal longshore current variations with an amplitude
.of 1.0 ft/sec, these four net currents correspond to flushing rates of 0.0, 15%,
27% and 47%, respectively. The flushing rate is defined as the ratio of the volume which does not return after a tidal cycle to the volume which crossed a transect during one tide phase (ebb or flood). The data gathered during the dye study were used by others to determine th, flushing _ ate at the site (17). Recent measurements point to net current speeos of 0.05 to 0.1 ft/sec or more (15). C.1 A-65 .
Revision 5 s iabic 5.1 Farfield Analytical Model Results for Fully Mixed Conditions with Zero Surface Heat Flux Nearfield Size x, (f t) 5,000 10,000 Net Current Velocity ' V (ft/sec) 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Nearfield Temperature T9 (*F) 2. 3 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 2.0*F 5.7 5.2 -- --- --- -- --- 4< n d 1.5'F 7.3 6.5 6. 0 5.2
!gEf8 ,
g3o 1.0*F 10.3 9.0 P.1 7.1 10.0 -- --- o V 0 0.5*F 17.0 15.0 13.7 11.6 17.0 15.0 13.5 11.4 The temperature, within 10,000 ft of the diffuser, listed in Table 5.1 are of the same order of magnitude as those derived from the dye study. As the exact values of the flushing rate on the days corresponding to the data presented on Figure 29 are uncertain, it is not possible to elaborate further and, in parti-cular, determine the best value of x . gThis value could, however, change for the diffuser application. It should nonetheless be noted that the selectirn of x which determines the maximum temperature, has very little effect on the g size of the lower isotherms. 5.3 Farfield Temperature Predictions 1 The depth of the heated plume as calculated in section 4 varies from approxi-5 mately 23 ft for stagnant ambient water to 10 ft at a current of 1 1t/sec. A value of H = 15 ft is, therefore, reasonable for the heated layer depth in the farfield temperature calculations. A value of 10 ft was also considered as part of a parametric evaluation. Based on the isotherm shapes obtained in Section 4, a value of a = 1 was selected for the isotherm aspect ratio.
< e C.1 A-66
Revision 5 Results of these calculations for four values of the net (tidal cveraged) current velocity and two values of the surface heat flux coefficient (100 and 200 BTU /ft / day /*F) a're presented in Table 5.2. The size of the nearfield was chosen to be 5000 ft. As seen earlier, this value only affects the temperature of the near-fic1d, but not the size of the lower isotherms. Table 5.2 Farfield Analytical Model Results with 15 ft Heated Layer and Two Values of the Surface Heat Flux Coefficient Heat Flux Co-efficient K (BTU /ft / day /*F) 200 100 Net Current Velocity V (ft/sec) 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Nearfield Temperature T (*F) 3.2 2.7 2.3 1.8 3.6 3.0 2.5 1.9 9
,g 3*F 5.5 --- --- ---
7.0 5.0 --- --- M 9 2*F 9.6 7.7 6.2 12.0 9.5 7.3 --- 10.8 7.3 hh .e u 1.5'F 13.0 11.1 9.3 6.6 16.5 13.6 53 - 1*F 18.4 16.6 14.7 11.1 22.8 20.3 17.5 12.5 O e-t 0 0.5*F 27.8 26.9 25.7 22.3 32.7 31.6 30.2 25.9 g 3*F 680 --- --- --- 1100 560 --- --- jg 2*F 2070 1330 860 --- 3230 2020 1200 a0 uo 1.5*F 3790 2760 1940 980 6100 4150 2620 1200 1.0*F 11600 9250 6870 3600 {O 7600 6180 4850 2800 8 0.5'F 17300 16200 14800 11400 24000 22500 20500 15400 The results given in Table 5.2, as compared to those in Table 5.1, show that a reduced layer thickness increases the isotherm dimensions. C.1 A-67
Revision 5 The predictions of the farfield model are based on a balance of heat tranefer rates at steady state. These predictions, therefore, account for all the heat discharged by the diffuser; however, the shapes and positions of the isotherms are not predicted. In addition, the farfield model is only valid for large distances (on the order of 10,000 f t and up) from the dif fuser, where the dominant heat transport processes are surface heat flux, tidal flushing, and dispersion. The transient plume model discussed earlier predicted isotherms as far as 15,000 ft frca the diffuser but, as a background temperature rise was not considered, these isotherms do not represent cumulative thermal patterns. The two models (tradsient plume and farfield) t.hould, however, have matching results at their interface, i.e. , at the outer boundary of the intermediate field. Isotherm areas predicted by the plume and farfield analytical models , 5 are plotted in Figure 30. The two plots use two values of the heated layer thickness (15 ft and 10 ft) in the farfield model. The transient plume iso-therm areas are the averm 's of the four areas presented in Table 4.2 for four 5 different times in the tide cycle. Also shown in Figure 30 is the average of the isotherm areas for 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 ft/see steady current calculations. ! The farfield isotherm areas are plotted for different values of the net current velocity. A heat flux coefficient of 200 BTU /ft / day /*F is used for both models. 5 Figure 30 allows an evaluation of the background temperature rise, due to long term heat buildup, to be superimposed on the nearfield plume predictions. For example, for the case of a 0.05 ft/sec net current velocity and a 15 ft heated layer, the background temperature rise is approximately 0.5'F. Isotherm areas for temperature rires of 2.0*F and less are given directly by the farfield model, as it accounts for the long term heat buildup. O C.1 A-68
Revision 5 4 i , i i PLUME
- MODEL g NET CURRENT VELOCITY ( FT/SE C) s C
o~ N g
\
TR ANSIENT 0.0 3 - 'sg(AVERAGE - N s w STE ADY ! '\gN 0.05 M - AVERAGE N \ s - 2E '2% 0.1 w N's's-3 2 - FARFIELD - 0.2 Q MODEL w - CL 2 m
& 1 -
0 ' ' ' ' 10 100 1,000 10.000 ISOTHERM AREA (ACRES) 15 FT HEATED LAYER DEFTH
) 4 , , ,
PLUME
, NET CURRENT VELOCITY (F T/S E C)
N \\
's \ TR ANSIE NT 0.05 3 - 's ' / AVERAGE 0,1 0.0 g gs 0- % \ '
g g ST E ADY Ng W - s = 9 AVERAGE s %s E FARFIELD
's2s '
s y 2 - ' s MODEL -
=.
= ==
m 1 p 1 I I I I 0 10 100 1,000 10,000 ISOTHERM AREA (ACRES) 10 FT HEATED LAYER DEPTH FIGURE 30 MATCHING OF PLUME AND FARFIELD MODELS C.1 A-69
Resdsion 4 6 NINIGRET POND ANALYSES 6.1 Ninigret Pond Te:cerature Rise It was shown in Section 5 that the ocean temperature near the Charlestown breachway, which leads to Ninigret Pond, could be raised due to the background heat buildup produced by the diffuser discharge. This ocean temperature rise could lead to a rise in the temperature of the water entering Ninigret Pond during flood tide and consequently to a rise in pond temper-zeres. During flood tide, the longshore current is directed towards the west, carrying the diffuser plume away from the breachway (see Section 2) so that direct entrain-ment of the heated plu=e into the breachway will not occur. Ninigret Pond has an average depth of less than 4 ft and the te=perature of its waters is, therefore, largely controlled by atmospheric heat fluxes. Figure 5 shows measured te=peratures in Ninigret Pond and in the ocean compared to the calculated equilibrium te=peratures listed in Table 2.1. All these temperatures are monthly averages, and the Ninigret Pond values are the averages of tempera-I ture measurements at four stations distributed throughout the pond. This plot shows that the temperature in Ninigret Pond is always between the ocean te=- perature and the equilibrium temperature, confirming the importance of surface heat fluxes in the deter =ination of the pond temperature. It is, therefore, expected that a rise in the inflow temperature would cause a much lower rise in the overall pond te=perature. In order to examine this point, a fully mixed model was developed for the prediction of the Ninigret Pond temperature as a function of the meteorological condition and the inflow temperature. The heat conservation principle applied to Ninigret Pond leads to the following equation: 0 jh- (VT) = -f f T, - A (6-1) p 9 C.1 A-70
Revision 5 7 SlRDIARY AND CONCLUSIONS As a complement to results obtained with a hydraulic model, several mathematical models were used to predict temperature rises associated with the proposed NEP 1 & 2 cooling water discharge in Block Island Sound. These models and the nature of their predictions are as follows: i) A transient, three-dimensional surface jet model was used to obtain the distribution of temperature rises in the heated plume downstream of the diffuser discharge. ii) A farfield heat balance model was used to predict the areas of the lower temperature rise isotherms and the background heat buildup in the dif-fuser nearfield, iii) A transient, fully mixed model was used to determine the temperature rise which would result in Ninigret Pond from a rise of the ocean temperature entering the pond. iv) The transient plume model mentioned in (i) was used to predict the distribution of temperature rises resulting from the discharge, during ebb tide, of water heated by solar radiation in Ninigret Pond. Salient results of these mathematical models are listed below. 5
- 1) Transient plume calculation results are given for summer ambient con-ditions in terms of plots of temperature rise isotherms and in table form list-ing areas and volumes of isotherms, distance from discharge, travel time, and centerline velocity.
ii) For summer ambient conditions and net current velocity (flushing) of 0.05 ft/sec, the final cumulative area of the 1.5*F isotherm is less than 2800 acres, including the effects of farfield heat buildup. As net current velo-cities increase, this area decreases, as shown in Table 5-2. C'.mulative iso-therms less than 1.5*F and occupying larger areas are tabulated. C.1 A-77
Revision 4 iii) A rise of the temperature of the ocean water entering Ninigret Pond during flood tide produces an increase of the average Ninigret Pond Temperature equal to approximately 0.3 times the ocean temperature rise. iv) The calculated size of the thermal plume produced by the Ninigret Fond ebb discharge into the ocean is comparable to that produced by the dif-fuser discharge. 9 O C.1 A-78
Revision 5 NATURAL AREA MANAGDEh"I PLAN FOR THE CHARLES h... RHODE ISLAND NAVAL AUXILIARY LANDING FIELD SITE APPENDIX D.3 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY August 15, 1978
Revision 5 NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DIARLESTOWN R110DE ISLAND NAVAL AUXILIARY LANDING FIELD SITE I Summary A variety of proposals have been nade for use of the abandoned Charlestown (R.I.) Naval Auxiliary Landing Field.. New England Power Company proposes a multi-use plan including a nuclear power plant and a wildlife ma nagement area. The site's physiographic and zoological characteristics are treated first; then options for managenent of the natural areas are presented and discussed. Finally, evidence of the compatibility of a nuclear power plant wi th the wildlife nanagement areas is presented. D. 3-iii
Revision 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I) Introduction i II) Nature of Area 4 A) Location 4 B) Physiographical Characteristics 4 C) 7.oological Characteristics 7 D) Special Site Features 9 III) tianagement Philosophy 9 A) General Manas:enent Plan Outline 9 B) Management Plan for Natural Area and Areas Used Only 11 During Construction
- C) Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant and Wildlife 17 Compa t ibili ty IV) S unna ry 24 D. 3-v
Revision 5 I. Introduction New England Power Company proposes to use portions of the former Charlestown (Rhode Island) Naval Auxiliary Landing Field as a nuclea- power station. This proposal for managing certain portions of the property is of course contingent upon the Conpany's success in obtaining the property f rom the Federal Government. The objective of the managenent plan is to
]
promote optimum habitat utilization by wildlife populations. In addition, educational opportunities compatible with wildlife use would be promoted. At present, the 604 acre tract is traversed by three 200 foot wide runways each about a nile in length, along with one and a half miles of connecting taxiways and several dozen abandoned Navy buildings and structures. Under NEP's proposal, these existing structures and the runways I would be removed and replaced by a cluster of structures located just south of the center of the site. Plans are presented for those areas other than the plant site and land allocated to the Town of Charlestown (see Figures I A and IB). Over 200 acres of the most valuable .ildlife habitat would remain in a natural state, being untouched during construction. An additional 80 acres would be restored to useful wildlife habitat. The state of plans for restoration of the 150 acres of land that would be used during construction (now chiefly developed in runways and airport structures) is discussed briefly. D. 3-1
Revision 5
!!ajor management emphasis would be placed on preserving the natural habitat which is attractive to nigrating waterfowl, principally Canada geese, black duck, nallard, teal, redhead and canvasback both during nigration and during the winter. Managenent activities would stress factors which benefit nesting and wintering incidental species such as terns, gulls, wade rs , marsh hawk, osprey and many passerine species. The proximity of the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge to the NALF enhances the site's attraction of avian species. The undeveloped shoreline of the site is
[ valuable for oysters, scallops and hard-shell clams which are found in both Ninigret Pond and Foster Cove. The site has valuable nannalf an species as well. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed to use about 367 acres of the NALF for a National Wildlife Reful:e. (See Attachment A.) The proposals of the FWS and New England Power Company are I similar in the following ways:
- 1) Both have set aside the permanent wetlands south and west of runway 17-35 for wildlife.
- 2) Roth leave the shoreline essentially intact.
- 3) As a ninimun, New England Power Company proposes to provide all of the nanagement opticns proposed by the FIG.
Areas of dif ference between the two proposals relate primarily to extent and location of upland old field habitat. These areas are relatively unproductive and not as valuable to wildlife as those preserved in a natural O D.3-2
Revision 5 state under both proposals (see NEP 1 & 2 Environmental Report Section 2.2.1 and Ascendix F page F.2-20). New England Power Company's proposal provides for preservati' n of the valuable wildlife resources on the NALF. This includes all /. ural pe rma nent nonds, Fos ter Cove, Coon Cove and the entire shoreline of Ninigret Pond. Additionally, all runways, paved areas, and buildings would be removed and this land plus the land utilized during construction would be restored. New c.ngland Power Company is willing to turn management of the natural areas over to the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), or manage the area itself, or work cooperatively with DOI in funding and managing the area. Public access on a controlled basis would be available to all areas except that portion of the 120 acre area marked " Power Plant Area" in Figure 1A in the innediate vicinity of the plant structures. The Department of the Interior has expressed serious interest in the exploration of this joint use of the NALF for refuge and power plant purposes, and may conside r modifying i ts original request for 367 acres. (R.L. Herbs t, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior, to J.W. O'Connell, General Services Administration, Letter of July 18, 1978.) The purpose of this Natural Area Management Plan is to present New Fngland Power Company's proposal for the ma nageme nt of natural and restored areas surrounding the proposed plant facilities. It was reviewed in draf t forn with representatives of DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service, and their comments were incorporated. The Natural Area Management Plan was found by DOI to be acceptable as a conceptual planning document, and consistent with DOI's approach to refuge management. D.3-3
Revision 5 O II. Nature of Area A) Location ' The site consists of approxinately 604 acres in the southern part of Charlestown, Washington County, Rhode Island, and is the location of the now abandoned Uas. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF). The site is separated f rom Riock Island Sound to the south by a 1560 acre salt water cond (Minigret Pond) and a narrow barrier beach (East Beach) which lies between Ninigret Pond and the Sound. The site is bordered on the west by Foster Cove, on the north by U.S. Route 1, and on the east by a residential developnent and a commercial gravel pit. The site is 8.5 miles east of the center of Westerly, Rhode Island, and 35 miles south of Providence, Rhode Island. B) Physiographical Characteristics
- 1) Climate -
Lying in the path of the prevailing westerif es, the site exposed i to weather conditions ranging f rom cold, dry air to warm, moist air producing a climate which is continental in nature but with an important marine influence. Temperatures of the area have averaged 50.SoF over a thirteen year period with extrene high and low temperatures of 1000F and -80F. Regional winter tenperatures are moderated by the proximity of the ocean while onshore O D.3-4
Revision 5 breezes noderate lower summer temperatures. Precipitation is uniformly distributed throughout the year resulting in a mean annual precipitation over a thirteen year period of 44.7 inches. During the winter, however, northeasterly storms can produce heavy rain, snow or ice while during the summer, thunderstorms may cause locally heavy rainfalls.
- 2) Topographie Features -
The acreage proposed for the natural area contains no dramatic topographical changes and is relatively flat. Land elevations range from 2 to 18 feet above sea level, with slopes of zero to a naximum of three pe rce nt .
- 3) Hydrologic reatures -
The numerous ponds present on the NALF (Figure 2) are divided into four main categories, these being temporary ponds, the fire pond, permanent ponds with nuck bottons and brackish water ponds. All types of ponds except the fire pond exist in the natural area. The size, age and biological natures of these ponds vary, all being at come time of the year an inportant part of the ecosystem of the area. With the exception of Coon Cove, the levels of the ponds on the natural area are regulated entirely by groundwater levels. The groundwater here is principally recharged by precipitation and to a lesser extent by seepage which percolates through the Charlestown moraine onto the site. D.3-5
Revision 5 With no surf ace runof f system, it is evident that the major portion of the precipitation infiltrates the groundwater aquifer. Coon Cove is a brackish water pond with a small opening to Ninigret Pond. The salinity here is quite variable and measurements have ranged f rom 1.8-16.4 o/oo or roughly 10-85 percent seawater.
- 4) Soil Features -
The natural area contains five main soil types (Figures 3 & 4). These range in textures from sandy loam to soils of peat and muck. Such va riat ions in soil texture also produce a wide variety in soil productivity resulting in a wide diversity in flora and fauna over the entire area.
- 5) Vegetation Features -
O A number of dif ferent vegetative types existing at a variety of serial stages are present at the proposed natural area (Refer to Volume 1, Figure 2.2-1). The site contains habitat types ranging from early successional grasslands to a later successional red maple / black cherry complex, each providing suitable habi it for a variety of different animals. . Predominant habitat types are grasslands, which exist mainly along the runways; shrublands, located throughout the base, are in a mid to late secondary successional stage; PhraRaftes, a dominant species where it occurs, some 3-4 meters tall and located in the southwestern quarter wetlands; and the red maple / black cherry / alder swamp complex which is on the eastern and northern sides of Foster Cove. O D.3-6
Revision 5 blackbird (Agelai'is phoeniceus), common yellowthroat (Geothylips trichas), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Habitats dominated by phragmites find the long billed marsh wren (Telmatodytes calustris) and the red winged ' blackbirds as permanent residents, and yellow warblers (Dendrocia perchia) as temporary inhabitants. Finally, the red maple / black cherry / alder swamp complex which has the greatest. number and diversity of birds due to a greater diversity of vegetation has birds ranging from chickadee (Parus atricapillus) size to the larger red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) as inhabitants.
- 3) Fligratory Birds The NALF area is sfiuated within the Atlantic flyway and plays host to a large number of migratory species. Waterfowl are primarily visitors to Ninigret Pond and Foster Cove, yet make significant use of the site's ronds for resting, feeding and refuge from inclement weather. !!igratory upland game birds like the woodcock (Philohela minor) have been found to also use the site during seasonal migrations.
In addition to the migratory use, the site has permanent waterfowl residents. Small numbers of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and possibly black duck (Anas rubripes) or mallard (Anas platyrhynchose) use the site for nesting and the rearing of their young.
- 4) Total Zoologic Character Whether the site is viewed as a whole or as a number of units, a high diversity of animal life can now be found. The site however, has a O
D.3-8
Revision 5 greater potential in terms of animal productivity than is now realized. The key to higher numbers of individuals of dif ferent species is diversity i of habitat with a high degree of interspersion. Habitat management can provide the diversity and interspersion required to increase the diversity and number of animals to meet the optimum notential of the area. As is well known, wildlife do not exist independent of the surrounding biotic communi ty. Wildlife must be managed along with the other ecological f actors. Di Special Site Features The site has a number of special features which include its proximity to the ocean, its diversity in habitat types, the presence of both freshwater and brackish ponds and an extensive existing trail system. III. Management Philosophy Due to the number of possibilities for habitat management and education at the natural areas, a number of management options are possible. An outline (A) and discussion (B) of one such option follows. A) General Management Plan Outline
- 1) For the Southwestern 160 acre natural area.
a) Public access through a common gatehouse located on the NALF outside of the natural area b) Major management plan
- 1) Vegetation - increased diversity, dispersion and emphasis D.3-9
Revision 5 on those species used by wildlife ,
- 2) Wildlife - manage the area to produce optimum habitat for major species
- 3) Plans to construct a nesting platform for osprey (Pandion hali aetu s) .
- c) Trail system - improvement with possible expansion d) Observation tower (optional) e) Educational demonstrations of management techniques with interpretive signs f) Any or all of the foregoing components can be combined to produce the final management plan.
- 2) For the Northeastern 40 acre natural area a) Construction of Buffer zone b) Vegetative Maintenance Schedule of Buffer Zone
- 3) For the Southern 40 acre natural area a) Protection of shoreline and marsh areas as well as over half of the natural community b) Restoration of area used during construction to a natural condi*fon
- 4) For the Northeastern 40 acre vegetative replant area 9
D. 3-10
Revision 5 a) Renoval of man made structures and runways b) Informstion center & classroom space (optional) c) Research Center (optional) d) Restoration of area to a natural community
- 5) For the Northern 150 acre area used during construction only a) Removal of man made structures b) Final use, consistent with management of the southwestern 160 acre natural area, to be developed later with DOI, other agencies or organizations B) Management Options for the Natural Area
- 1) Southwestern 160 Acre Natural Area The Management Plan would utilize the resources of the natural aret to benefit wildlife through intensive management, and the public by enhsncing educational qualities of the site.
The Management Plan provides for the removal of all runways on the N ALF . Therefore, vegetative cover for the exposed soil will be required regardless of any further management options chosen. This option will take advantage of the exposed soil by planting wildlife foods and cover along with the construction of artificial ponds and nesting structures. Both of these greatly enhance wildlife's use af an area. Artificial ponds are D. 3-11
Revision 5 significant in that they aid in improving on habitat diversity, which is essential in producing viable populations. Although the immediate vicinity of the power plant structures will not be open to the public, public access to the natural areas is an important aspect of this management plan. ControIIed access through a guardhouse and/or information center located outside of the natural area will monitor the number of people visiting the refuge. The public can use these areas in a variety of ways. Uses may include nature study, bird watching, hiking and other education p'urposes associated with wildlife. Public understanding and interaction with the wildlife management features would be a beneficial addition to the program. Management intensity of the area can vary depending on the species managed and the type of the program. In general, a high degree of management to produce increased habitat diversity in specific areas is desirable. Specific species of plants, once determined to be benef fef al for wildlife food or cover, would either be released, planted, propagated or simply fertilized and limed to bring them to an optimum condition. Manageme nt for wildlife then, would be through habitat manipulation to produce or maintain required food and cover. Manipulation may also include the construction of special nesting areas or s:ructures (platforms and boxes) along with the maintenance of escape or feeding areas. Depending on the species, management might be Ifmited to supplying adequate food (e.g. , a high mouse population to serve as food for red fox), this requiring ma nageme nt of grassland only and not the fox. O D. 3-12
~
\
d c O
Revision 5 Use of the trail system is important to the site. Existing trails can be cleaned up and new trail construction should be considered. Wildlife management techniques could be demonstrated along this system, enhancing the site's educational qualities. Constructing a observation tower is a possibility at some point along the trail system. The main criterion for its siting wou d be a location that would provide maximum view of the management area, Ninigret Pond and the neighboring shores. Maintenance of an area of this size would be a substantial ef fort. It would require either a full time manager who could serve as an educational instructor, or a part time individual to maintain the trails, do periodic management of habitat, and have general control over all activities. If the site were maintained on a periodic basis, brochures and informative signs could serve as the main educational stimulus. Maintenance of the structures such as the observation tower, information center and research f acility would be minor compared to their initial construction. Individual Factors - All or part of any of the suggested options in this plan are possible for the natural areas. The intensity of management for a species of flora or f auna is highly variable and should be related to the overall plan for the natural area. The management of suitable habitat for one species may also affect habitat conditions for others. General habitat improvement emphasizing increased diversity and interspersion are censidered to be the mos t important habitat manipulation practice for increasing the diversity D. 3-13
\
Revision 5 of wildlife species. Trail System - a) Purpose The purpose of including a trail system in the natural area of the proposed power facility at Charlestown's NALF is to allow access to the wildlife management area, and to provide educational enlightment with an understanding of the interaction of both the management area and power facility. Figure 5 describes the trails mentioned below. With the exception of a small portion of Trail #8 which will beve to be made to complete the system, all of the trails utilize existing t rails and roads. b) Trails already on the site Trail #1 - From the western end of Runway 12, along the northeastern shore of Foster Cove and the western edge of a small temporary pond, to the middle of Runway 04 Trail #2 - From the western end of Runway 12 to the middle of Trail #1. Trail #3 - From the middle of Runway 04, between two freshwater, pe rma nent ponds, and connecting at its end with Trail #4. Trail #4 - From the middle of Runway 04 to the middle of the taxiway betwern Runways 04 and 35. Trail #5 - Running f rom Runway 04 to a connection with Trail #4. O D. 3-14
Revision 5 Trail #6 - Running f rom the end of Trail #5 to the southern end of Runway 04. Trail #7 - Beginning at the end of Runway 04 running up the taxiway to the end of Trail #4 Trail #8 - Beginning at the end of Trail #4 and #7 down to an existing trail over Coon Cove. c) Changes in the Trail System Changes in the trails would be designed to produce a system in whicn coverage of the natural area would be available witbout interfering with management practices and especially those areas not intended to receive impact from the public. With the removal of the runways, connections now found between many trails will be lost. For this reason, it is proposed that new trails be made along the old runway paths to form Trails 6, 7 and portions of 8. d) Maintenance of Trails All trails that presently exist in the natural area have deteriorated since the abandonment of the NALF. Restoring then to a safe useable condition wfl1 require a combination of clearing, brush cutting and grading. Trails such as Trail #3, will in f act, need little maintenance, while Trails
- 1 and #2 will require extensive maintenance and cleanup. All trails, despite their present conditions, are going to need constant inspection D. 3-15
Revision 5 and maintenance if they are to be used by the public.
- 2) Management Plan for 40 Acre Northeast Natural Area The 40 acre natural area, located along the ortheast boundary of the site, will be utilized as a buffer zone through the planting of trees and shrubs. Because of the harshness of a coastal environment, s peci es will be chosen for their ability to withstand the climate and saline aerosols which damage plant tissues, primarily the buds and leafy vegetation. S pecies will also be chosen for qualities of growth rate, maximum size, ability to buffer both visibility and sound and for wildlife utilization.
Trees and shrubs will be purchased as seedlings and planted as soon as possible. These should be planted so that at maturity, either one or several buf fer layers interspersed with earlier successional habitat types will be achieved. Suggested species (Table 5), would be maintained to ensure a healthy state to produce an optimum growth rate. Soil cultivation and f ertilization will be considered both prior to and af ter planting.
- 3) The Southern 40 acre Natural Area Both during and af ter construction, all shoreline and salt marsh will be protected. Of the forty acres, roughly half will remain f ree from interference even during construction. The remaining half (which does not include the salt marsh or direct shoreline) will be used during construction and will afterward be regraded and restored to a natural condition. The area will however be managed as necessary to maintain the natural habitat that now exists.
O D. 3-16
Revision S 3
- 4) The Northeastern 40 Acre Vegetative Replant Area This area will be used during the construction of the plant and will be restored to produce a natural community of esthetically pleasing flora. The area is composed or primarily man-made structures and runways and these, as in other areas, will be removed.
- 5) The Northern 150 Acre Area This area, now comprised principally of runways, taxiways, buildings and early successional grassland, will be used during the construction of the plant. At this time, no detailed proposal for its long-term use nas been made, although the interin assumption has been restoration to a natural habitat, with access via the site gatehouse. Other options obviously exist.
C) An Assessment of the Compatibility of a Nuclear Power Plant and a Wildlife Refuge at Charlestown, Rhode Island Infornation is available on several operating nuclear power generating stations which indic&tes that wildlife refuges have been and can be successfully managed in the immediate vicinity of power plants. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is located on a portion of a 954 acre tract with 7250 feet of frontage along Lake Erie. A total of 615 acres of the site is managed marshland and 582 acres have been leased to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as the Navarre Division of the Ottawa D. 3-17
Revision 5 National Wildlife Refuge. Navarre Marsh, adjacent to the upland site of Davia-Besse, has retained a wild and unspoiled character. Once part of an extensive marshland that covered mech of northwestern Ohio, Navarre is one of the few remaining primitive areas of Ohio. It continues to exist in this unspoiled state, its wildlife being protected through joint efforts of Toledo Edison and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Management policy is set by the FWS and is carried out by the owners of the power plant. As a result of the management activities, the number of watertoul and muskrat has increased. Tha behavior and responses of the wildlife are normal. The resident FWS refuge manager considers the joint use of the site to be successful. Af ter construction, a series of gates-were implemented (6 in total), to restrict motor vehicle use of the many dikes in the narsh, thus reducing the possibility of damage to the habitat that they protect. Access to the refuge is available and can be set up through the Davis-Resse refuge managet. No obvious disturbance of wildlife occurred as a result of construction on that portion of the tract which had been set aside for the refuge. Despite the presence of a cooling '.ower and canal (features not planned for the Charlestown site), wildlif e has thrived on the Davis-Besse refuge. tiillstone Nuclear Power Station Owned by Northeast litilities, fif ty acres of this 500 acre site near New London, Connecticut have been dedicated for restricted use. Osprey have successfully been reared on artifical platforms erected beside the station. O D. 3-18
n . _ - . . . , . ~ ..-, .n a Y
~, ,
_.g 6 w . p.. - i
. , ,. C ' y * -A ,a
- _.. ' -+ , s l 3 .t. . .,;f/f 4 . , w- - ,~<
m .-.
'e- : -
- - - -A"
_ .- A4
-: , N. , _ Af l>.l]
'O~'
_ ;; w: >-
?
v' g e
. d
~'D N ~
;. ., . - ' %w. w . .p_g !f?h* g3 ; pg -. ,.,. y ) _ 4 . n7~
, - p.;gt,. ,
.;. ~~~ Q [; g.; ,
p-g e .p . y y y,
,p 1 .- ,
, +j ..
, Y[Y$ I s p
- y -[ Me ,, f .
j N i g i,-..._-.._ gg 9 h., c y.f w%
, gwt. 4. ,
D -
=-
t,
,a c
f, Yl_ L. t r1 p-
.t : h, ' .. t ,w , . _ . - . - .g.
=
s* ,< . 4 *
>e
- - ;~ _
,';f c --
; g.
.. ~_
.~ . -
.. . ., y, y .
+ _
-[
- L - x . 4gy. . ! '
!z
+ :n
. k' + -
m a >
$ler % p..
.m ..n 4 co 's., <f-. e t ,
4
- kg =g
~
. (, .'h- 3 s' i
~ '
'- = f,'.
,4 ,. _ ,
'xN'w x n, -
;4; ,_py,, .-
; -.~ . - s. <.
. s ,w g
f, :~ y%y . g $erap, 9 g, g. .- 6-
- R <
1;
- L = . ;c. y ~ <- .,;,~~-
,g ,
- N *N se~-
-s - . . , _ , , ,
g,g . .jfy [, . , : '. } , :j9 l gf y ,, m.. .-- ..._g_ ..
. ' * ' . _ - -...<~[.
Aerial View of a Toledo Edison Company's @ Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station E. O Pre-operational a un
Revision 5 _ ,[ # ?,
^
- 3x
.v-
[ N s4 $g ,f. ;; %m.l%n) 1 c,o- u..._g r
.- e >. - '
Mt,r (:ff N
+ s 3g,r @, s.'{ ql- y[ . ,.. 4--,,.
.w '
3
, ,3 I
's- ., _Xv._p[.' c , s y'
,O , i
> 'To , d j
y i,., g .g- _%% v %.c
',.'Q_t,7'.
- 4. D Q.j,$ j,,..,7 a
- 5
, s, q ,
%gg ' ~ . ' ; v - _
<. ;/ 3., f r '
~ ',,.; ] ]f,I{( if:y* D./,1,(E'y .k'p' ;N)f,'l,-[i.'. y;s.- ,
> t,,
t g, . .,g
;m< L p
' { .. , .t
'3I .
,- j y ~~.~ x. w * ,
y v L; . ,;n:-};Q'p,:l.',.;.,-,qkk;,,qf{';Q!y ,. h# . . (( *
. . w .n . . , .. &.
w ., ,e -
,s , f:;j. , T
;<t .-
.,,T.? :g."t'Irl(@Wu g_ f f3 {(j
->- ', f{: S.Se,M. , ' .j(t g*r yt 9,
*g,g: ,
.. .,e .,- - , , ' , ,
- p;. .;
". j gt ' # 3
}3.,p[g;u\ '; 3t .y;'.4,'Q
.hy " ; y . p G T. , x.,, , .,
- m;4 .
s, j : 4 .- . j w.
? m, nyt,g,Ch{.,r,y$
't
- w# - :m.
Qp.Mqw
+
, ~.
g.%~- n ?e-
- (.::,.+ , :
n,7.m.ygn ,)1 g : i
/
., g M p. ue9
. / *
. 3 3 . ~ ?A, Jl g.f 1,) . . , : p'4 % tl 0
[p .q ,; a p'- * '
,g As (") > CO
- . . mr
(:: --Jf" ,[.c* i, ,. ' .d"3j).,. h' ,. I Q,. g$E]$ [l, w.x* n 3
- m .,
t w..ms. r
.~
ecUM
- 6. y , h c_
<' . J; 4.s.4 1,r f 5e44 , , . .I,;4 .,.%, h,l.'e *),g p ', . s. . w ~-
y nO C 5 s Y 2*5' ,
!.'s.
E
~~ n- a~. , ,- L,kJ f~
e . 4 ' G .:.m .'v, }+ g o# j g.)
$ ,j-a5
.f.,f ^$'
' f k s , _' . , , - <
t . ., C9d '_ .
=y.
/ , .. ; .ci . n
i k 4..efy [ 33- .' . s [. -v T-. .m 4 .gQ.,- g_ ~_g i Ay,. v
,-vp,
' - *.'j* df .-
- c. -
b.
,",f
( ,. 5, e (,
. A _ '
, 'I
,r. , -
g
, f'- 4 i ,
~, -(
i Sy v. a f,
*' i .
p .# .,, ,8,..,'. *
- l
.,- n g-O ,k '
w ,A <i, A ,. 4' ~ ([ ' [ j. ~ d ,. i '
, 1,-
s V:1 2 y*.
~
p y
- i 3 p ',c. y. .
l'a
^
s ., M , g.
. f , , s l*
%%fg. ,,, _ W : 3 m E j c,+
"f'
/f.- -
~4 ,,
. ~. ,
.~pW"%. ,4,,' , b.4- ;te- c
- . ., s. *
,' * ((
- Y _m [ -[
",'"#Jh ,,. .
J, ! . D.3-20
Revision 5 Trojan Nuclear Power Station This Portland General Electric plant is in a remote area on the lower Columbia River. The 600+ acre site is primarily forest with some wetlands. Small ponds were constructed by the company. A wildlife viewing area was established and waterfowl hunting is allowed. A four year monitoring program has documented no changes in species' numbers or composition. Salem / Hope Creek Stations This 700 acre site is located on the southern half of a peninsula in the Delaware River at the southern tip of New Jersey. Public Service Electric and Gas Company's two Salem Generating Station units are complete or nearly so, while the adjacent two Hope Creek units are in the early stages of cons t ruct ion. The site surroundings are an extension of the tidal marshland/ upland field habitat found on the site itself. Large populations of muskrat are found, their nesting and breeding areas preser .2d through special drainage culverts within the marsh. Osprey have flourished through the construction period, of ten using the high voltage transmission towers as artificial nesting structures. Yankee Rowe Yankee Rowe, owned by Yankee Atomic Electric Company and located on the Deerfield River in rural northwestern Massachusetts, began operation in the fall of 1960. With approximately 1900 contiguous acres owned by Yankee, the plant is esthetically placed in an area which has remained in its natural state. All of this, except areas within the security fence (approximately D. 3-21
;m-p r.y 3 , ,t .s , . .; -r -
g}
,,._e:--*"'
.'"**,,n-
.c
, h u ,fAry ':,. ;,'
* ' h, _ q ::
~
"^
~'
'4',
k
'( % , f
. ;g y
_ .y . . . _ ,_ _ 4 * . - Y 3.; .
~ -n ; y- , %g.,-';:~
W
;;4 , ',.
yh
#*<"' ym:h.p.Q: y ( W((i{h - % 5 ^ &[ g # f 9 a
. f. \4,; f;[ j
'{. .
fh ? 4
^~
I a$ ,
^
-we f ',g , $ Q "jp: ww ,- T
'% e y , p) f _ ,p*i
-'~
'"n v "
& x_ l,l*Q.
i tSh
$2A.,- lLi M'"tkl}.fg k'M a
.3 g- "f3 W., -^
_,n
, v stb %5 ,y,y"j.,>... ,3_ j % n ' '
^
. ;; . g , ^ w *d%
.pr g.2 6.""
.. ; ,nrx*
D% G e ~-%"W
. .o st 4 e,n giftMi' , '.. r~ = . , ,. :np
' ,.- =.
jw
~ M-p > :nn, '*
. , V :' , . s1 ..
. w .5,1* . -c y q nc ,j ~~]-
.b^~.% % l,n @4g3y&,fr%s
,. ; 3 j' ,(. ' ~. 5 .. ~~+ fr _ [ ' .'~,[ ;%, if , sY . j W; n.
_, . a . 4r& ' {l ' - sc .t fA m}.7.? , ,. m
- r. ,
. Y,5 f
.;i rf,.* ;e_'
' f.(.
x 4p p., ,4
> ' ' ' l; ,_Q:
'p4 ',.- 2' y- yl. vy T ' j;; }. i x ;y): -y
,k .
p- .. . m r
< , -( ' ')[,- _ -
a .. . - 5 [ t , y,:4 n % 3- @3$g: gSQ ;. lr Q p- : ;. y
< m ,, fr$Q +
p [' g [ ?' y ,~; 4 4. y.g , .
.w gip -
ig&L' W g j?* e * ;' ; ;_ v _.. 9024
'~
m g:: hQ y= - -
., " 4.g.; m mg&gfy~
,g.]# CWh"7,1 ' y" g . A ;y *~- c D J mg:g g.fg. f g.9(k 9*
2y,, \,. _ w _,,3 - m View of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Plant E (Rowe, Massachusetts) O a u,
Revision 5 1000 feet from the plant), has remained open to the public for many activities such as snowmobiling, hiking, cross country skiing and hunting. Wildlife has remained and flourished on the adjacent lands. Many species of mammals, including beaver (Castor canadensis), bear (Ursus americanus), deer (Odocoileus virginiana), red f x (Vulpes fulva) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) are seen periodically in the woods around the plant while raccoon (Procyon lotor), otter (Lutra canadensis) and mink (Mustela vison) are often seen at the water's edge of the adjacent Sherman Pond. Waterfowl are also very plentiful. These include the black duck (Anas rubripes), mallard (Anas platyrhynches), merganser (Mergus merganser) and the canada goose (Branta canadensis). The blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle Lalcyon), robin (Turdus migratorius) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) are other species typically found in the vicinity. Beaver have built dams inside the owner controlled area and have been observed f rom the guard-house. The plant and wildlife have coexisted in harmony for many years. Zion Nuclear Power Station Located on Lake Michigan, about six miles north of Waukegan, Illinois, Zion, a plant owned by Commonwealth Edison, began operation during 1973. At this time, all land other than the plant site itself (approximately 175 acres), was set aside as natural habitat for small animals and plants native to the dune region. The site is unique in being the only remaining dune area in Illinois and is a remnant of the tall grass prairie assemblage. Chief f auna are squirrels, rabbits and mice as primary consumers with these preyed D.3-23
Revision 5 O upon by foxes and skunks. Birds such as bobolinks, meadow larks and grouse nest in the grasses. Hawks are common preditors. Additionally, directly adjoining the site is the Illinois Beach State Park (nature preserve, public beaches, campground) and a 3 mile long area of sand dunes and marshlands. No detrimental ef fects of the combined use of these areas have been reported. Other Other stations with natural or managed areas proposed include: Delma rva Power and Light's Summit Station, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's San Joaquin Station, Mississippi Power Light's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Illinois Power Company's Clinton Station Northern States Power's Prairie Island Station, Detroit Edison's Greenwood Station, Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey Point Power Station, and Indiana REMC, Inc.'s Merom Station. IV) Summary As an integral part of its proposal for a nuclear power station on the former NALF in Charlestown, R.I. , New England Power Company is committed to establishing and maintaining natural areas for the benefit of wildlife. A total of 200 acres has been specifically designated as natural area, to remain untouched during construction. Subs tant ial additional portions of the site would be landscaped and subjected t.o no further use except during periods of power plant construction. (Figure IA). In short, more than 2/3 of the site including all permanent wetlands and shoreline on the air station will be available for wildlife af ter construction is complete, and much will remain untouched during construction. D.3-24
ATTACHMENT A Revision 5 CHARLESTOWN NAVAL AIR STATION EXCESS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLANS Management will be to protect the natural habitat for migrating waterfowl, particularly canvasback, redhead, black duck, mallard, teal, pintail, and Canada geese. The area will provide incidental benefits to nesting terns, gulls, wading birds, marsh hawk, and passerine birds of many species. The area is contiguous to the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge, immediately to the southeast and will help protect a large brackish oyster, scallop and hard-shell clam pond, and provide periodic wintering habitat for limited numbers of black ducks, Canada geese, raptors, and passerine birds of several species.
- 1. Water Management:
Precipitation, runoff, and groundwater are the sources of fresh water on the study area. Water is held in natural ponds, marsh, and swamp areas throughout the year.
- 2. Marsh Management:
The marsh areas would be managed to keep Lnem in the marsh succession stage.
- 3. Swamp Management:
The swamp areas would generally be managed to preserve their present type. In some areas, large swamp portions would be more valuable to wildlife if set back to marsh stage, thereby providing greater interspersion of types.
- 4. Upland Management:
Generally the upland forested and grass areas would be managed to preserve them in a natural successional condition. Developed or damaged areas such as the runways and a small dump would be gradually eliminated and restored to natural condition. Large brush areas should be opened to grassland to provide greater interspersfon of types.
- 5. Physical Plant Ir.provement:
Unneeded buildings will be removed and sites restored to natural condition. Any unimproved roads found excess ;o management needs will be allowed to revert back to natural condition. It will be necessary to block or fence off the runways at the northerly end of the proposed acquisition boundary, restore and install fencing along about a mile area on the west boundary, and a half mile on the northeast boundary. Posting as a National Wildlife Refuge will be necessary. D.3-25
Revision 5 0
- 6. Recreational Management:
The study area vill be open to the general public for wildlife-oriented recreation, except hunting, throughout the non-nesting season--August through February. Limited use control regulations will be necessary, to protect the wildlife habitat and general ecological community of the area.
- 7. General:
- a. The area comprises about 367 acres of open freshwater marsh, swamp, grassland, and woodland on the southern coast of Rhode Island.
- b. The area 1s of significant value to migrating canvasback, redhead, black duck, pintail, teal, mallard, and Canada geese. It is also of great value to migrating and nesting wading birds, shorebirds, gulls, terns, passerine birds, and limited numbers of wintering waterfowl, particularly black ducks and Canada geese.
- c. Physical development will consist of cleanup-restoration to -
natural condition following acquisition, plus necessary security requirements of limited fencing and posting.
- d. The habitat types of this area, its natural condition, its size and proximity to the Ninigret National Wildlifa Refuge, make it a desirable addition to the National Wild *ife Refuge System.
U S. Fish & Wildlife Sve., One G:iteway Center "uite 700 Newton Corner,,MA-02158 D.3-26
Table 1 HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF INCIDENTAL MAMMAL SIGHTINGS,1974 OF Gr Sh RC Ph RM BB Ilesidential Opossum Didelphis virginiana X/ /* Short-tailed shrew filarina brevicauda X/ / Masked shrew Sorex cinereus / /X Bat Chiroptera X/X/ Raccoon Procyon 'a'or X/X/ /X/ Weasel Afustela sp. X/ / /X/X River otter Lutra canadensis X/ / /X/ Striped skunk Afephitis mephitis X/X/X /X/ h Red fox Vulpes fulva X/ / X/ /X X/ / [ Woodchuck Afarmota monar X/ /X XIX/X X/ / X/ / X/ / X/X/X N N Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus /X/ X/X/ Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis / /X Flying squirrel Glaucomys sp /X/ /X/ Muskrat Ondarra rebithico X/ /X XI / / /X Rat Rattus sp. /X/ /X/ Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonus /X/ Cottontait rabbit Sylvilagus sp. /X/ X/X/X XIX/ XIX/X X/XIX X/ / XIX/ White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus X/ /X / /X
- Spring /SummerfFaH k
sr b 3 U1
- o Table 2 E O
LIFE HISTORIES OF SELECTED MAMMALS, CHARLESTOWN STUDY AEREA ", o Reported Optimum Preferred Population Reported Species liabitat Food Densities llome Range Short-tailed shrew Many habitats, Mostly soil 25/ acre 0.5 to 1 acre Blarina brevicauda particularly where invertebrates, 0.8 and 2.2/ acre soil litter is some small 4/ acre abundant vertebrates 8/ acre 8 to 104/ acre Eastern cottontail Areas with IIerbaceous Maximum 1/ acre 0.17 to 21.6 acres Sylvilagus floridanus shrubby and and shrubby herbaceous plant material ground cover White-footed mouse Forested areas Seeds, fungi 10.7/ acre (November) 0.5 to 1.5 acres p Peromyscus leucopus with heavy small invertebrates 8.2/ acre (December) ground cover 7.2/ acre (February) to Meadow vole Meadows with lierbaceous plant 10 to 200/ acre (cyclic) 0.1 to 1.0 acre
- Microtus pennsylvanicus abundant vegetative material and cover bark of shrubs Muskrat Ponds, marshes Aquatic plants 1 to 26/ acre liighly variable, Ondatm zibethicus slow moving up to several streams acres Woodland jumping mouse Forested areas with Seeds, nuts 0.26 to 2.7/ acre 1.0 to 9.0 acres Napaeozapus insignis ample ground cover, fungi, grass, 5.2/ acre usually near water invertebrates 2 to 24/ acre Red fox Forested and Rabbits, mice 0.48/ square mile 142 to 1,200 acres Vulpes fulva agricultural areas birds, insects River otter Aquatic Fish, crayfish - -
Lutra canadensis environments frogs, insects White-tailed deer Forested areas Mast, herbaceous 0.7 to 27.3/ square 1/2 to 1 mile in Odocoileus virginianus and woody plant mile diameter material O O O
Revision 5 Table 3 AVIAN SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE EVALUATIONS FOR BREEDING BIRDS IN SURVEY AREAS, CHARLESTOWN, SPRING 1974 Area No. Species Scientific Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Green heron Butorides virescens U U
.\tarsh hawk Circus cyaneus ?
American kestrel Falco sparverius U Bobwhite Colinus virginian us C U Rock dove Columba livia A Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus U 1forned lark Eremophila alpestris ? Long-billed marsh wren Telmatodytes ludovicianus C Gray catbird Dumetcila carolinensis C C C C Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum U U U American robin Turdus migratorius U C Starling Sturnus vulgaris A White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus U U U Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus U Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia C C C U Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas A A A A A U Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens U llouse sparrow Passer domesticus A Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna C Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus A C C C C C Brown-headed cowbird 3folothrus ater U Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus C Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus satunnarum U Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta C Field sparrow Spizella pusilla A Swamp sparrow 31elospiza georgiana ? Song sparrow Stelospiza melodia C C C C C U A
- A = Abundant, C = Common, U = Uncommon, and ? = Undetermmed.
D.3-29
Revision 5 Table 4 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BREEDING PAIRS OF BIRDS PER 100 ACRES OF HOMOGENEOUS HABITAT TYPE CHARLESTOWN, SPRING 1974 Red Maple / Black Cherry / Shrubland Alder Forest Red Cedar Species Scientific Name (19.7 Acres) (5.6 Acres) (15.2 Acres) Green heron Butorides vires.~ ens X(1) Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax X(1) Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 2.5 13.2 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus X Common flicker Colaptes auratus X Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tymnnus 2.0 Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum X Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata X X Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 16.1 Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus 17.9 Ifouse wren Troglodytes aedon 23.2 Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis X 32.1 7.9 Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum X X X American robin Turdus migratorius 9.2 Wood thrush Hylocichia mustelina 26.8 Veery Catharus fuscescens 10.7 White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus 17.9 Red-eyed vireo Vireo olituccous 35.7 Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus 21.4 5.3 Yellow warbler Dendroica perchia X 23.2 X Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor X 10.7 40.1 Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 66.5 37.5 37.5 Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens America : redstart Setophaga ruticilia 23.2 Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna X X Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 58.4(2) 37.5(2) 28.3(2) Northern oriole Icterus galbula X Brown-headed cowbird Stolothrus ater X Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 10.7 Putple finch Carpodacus purpureus 6.6 Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo crythrophthalmus 28.6 5.3 Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramas satunnarum Field sparrov- Spizella pusilla 17.9 14.5 Song sparrow 3felospiza melodia 23.4 13.2 (1)X = Observed on less than half of the sampling trips. (2)Often polygynous. 9 D.3-30
Revision 5 Table 5 SALT TOLERANT SPECIES , Species Maximum Growth (feet) Sycamore Maple 40-100 Acer pseudo-platanus Norway Maple 40-60 Acer platanoides Red Maple 20-60 Acer rubrum Black Cherry 40-60 Prunus serotina Sycamore (London Plane hybrid) 50-70 Platanus occidentalis Lowland Hackberry 50-100 Celtis laevigata Black Locust 60-70 Robinia pseudo-acacia Apple 20 Pyrus malus Eastern Red Cedar 20 Juniperus communis Japanese Black Pine 35-40 Pinus thunbergii Pitch Pine 40-60 Pinus rigida Bayberry 6 hlyrica pensylvanica Shadbush 10-25 Amelanchier arborea Winged Sumac 4-10 Rhus copallina Bristly Locust 2-10 Robinia hispida Multiflora Rose 4+ Rosa multiflora Autumn Olive 3 Elaeagnus umbellata D . 3 - 31
ReviSion 5
/
s o+g# . . L 'o \'
, x
, 150 ACRES s #
TO BE USED DURING \g h9gsg
, CONSTRUC1 SON ONLY s g (See Note 2)
, , , , , \,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL N * #
/ \ \+\ g PRESERVE \ s e
[ '9 ' i N s e
/ ~4
/
N/ ,s
/ 120 ACRES FOSTER COVE {' POWER PLANT AREA 1
160 ACRES NATURAL AREA (See Note 1)
'\ s ,/
N
)
\. A
\, 7' /e ye***, ,
\
NINIGRET ? ? - POND SCALE IN FEET NOTES:
- 1. Natural area; no development; existing runways to be removed and landscaped foilowing construction.
- 2. In uso during construction; to be graded and landscaped following construction; access road, underground transmission lines, wells, and/or cooling pipes in these
+ 3. o cleared of existing buildings and roadways during construction; graded and landscaped; no further use of this area.
- 4. All acreages approximate.
LAND USE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSAL NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY FOR CIIARLESTOWN, R.I. NALF SITE FIGURE 1A D.3-32
Revision 5 s %,
' :f
. I y-3'i[i
\ 4h h,~
7.-'.,'
. ,,. .. y ,~
; ;y r'; ,
j'
+
;%?qsA:g . ,/ :.
~
.'.ll+:&sg!h$,h w uf ;;^ j(fffh'be/h,,&hf,?Na k
o?. l$.? x.. > a c w ~ 4u m i (g.l~ ' g A+ nme.g~y
,.5 )f, lg s Q; ..y; ,
%. l l
;; g[ g,
,.y.
1, .; ,8
' f . Es , rjk. M-WR' ,
*8 ,; ,
j2 / [lihkf[gg:4h,5;r
~
~
\ . ;;4
/ ,. N [, f. . ,,'
?g'?"
;t '.>.;yj }~
f; . >
,.- 1 m ._ }e 'm,& j tg 5 a-: > q .w -
1 j ,N:ng . - "
, % 'i *7 {
ffi ' h -h Njf _ . ' - f$
T.u., ?
.: l-_}.)_
. J 9;i. ki . N Q ' l
*!p} _
~~
- .,4 -
ja. , f(\ y d0s. : f,
.f ,y
g NINIGRET PON
..y :
.? -
).
'l;
- a
_Q sl Y FIGURE IB PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN CHARLESTOWN (R.I.) NALF New England Power Company D.3-33
p% ,Y , BORRO\
- I,3s' A
\
bl
)
< \U '
\
< FOSTER \ f t.OVE tl/ A (\
I eT D g ,, gnz - 7-
~;~;;""
.# oi f COO ~ J COVE (s 35
$ s 1.
Marzm. :., o, , _ BLOCK ISLAND SOUND CIRC
Revision 5 ( LEGEND PERMANENTWATER BODIES TEMPORARY WATER BODIES b N WETLANDS 1 PHRAGMITES l D r ~ PONDS AND WETLANDS OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY CHARLESTOWN, R.I. NALP SITE FIGURE 2 D.3-34
Revision 5 2 I n i s C ?
=
< .= .: , = < ,
O
< -g 22 ce
! - 4:
5 , 25
- 52 < ==
g' ax
- S a"
55
-- =em o
!! !!:S$3 3S!! E.
=r g
o
- i
=
sa 25 Si.:ssS:nz a vs 5.5 lo 55 5
$<"g-=se:
Oh ia:SS $$ EE
$ I !!!ali!!!!!!n!! !!!!!!
- ...=...= ===.=.= <-----
3 UQ- .\ i T'
=
=
3 U (h; 4 !
~
- /
ysg
.. q=Snm ,
. l
.f
,e
' N
.- - +.) r y/ s 3a.
O/',j. 8 . 's s 'h 'DGJ I J , _k
.,g .\ ,W ; bc5. + r
, / s ,
! P.. .N. 'a ' n ' 11
~? . c
\ t
,E 8 q
a
).
k T',. % ,i
=
i,e s i D /.
- , I D.3-35
Revision 5
*s E
7: 8 E 5 Es ; os a b sa E
!!I11I f l- ]j!)l 11Il!ljI I
I - jg 1 J li!lr. ii l i 3l1 ilf!l.iIl}lllli} ll }I l lfl!! I fik!lli i 1 j ij s 1 is l ,
') l si it j }}
1 - 3 1 11 : I li 1iis ! 3 . 1 J 31l 1 3 3 3 11 s
.I J ! Il ! !
! 1 em
.- 2
- : : i .. : 1 ,
i : -. 1 e i i i i i'
!!s1i i i 5 I
11 ' i i a l i4i ii 's ii i gl x x , ! , 3 ,
-l*
. :* ,i . : : -
<lt * "
[. ?. . . . t. ?. ?. .Y: . : g i i 8 j j i ; i I { . l, l i lJ. I ! ] l! JI i fil 1 11 i .l
=p u . = .
!sl!
eese D. 3-36
Revision 5
//
N
/
Mk
~
_ o
\
NALF
'm5jl" 5 % 1,
/ ~
/
\ \
\
/
f\ N'
\ 'O 7 s '
_ j- -.$ 5 , g s y _- g #
- 1
~ an ,
;W I,~,
l
- d
'N h, 1
. 0
~ Btorg gSt AND SOUNO
.lRCLE OF 1 MILE RADlus TRAILS OF CIIARLESTOWN, R.I.
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY NAI.F SITE FIGURE 5 D. 3-37
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title , Page No. APPENDIX F REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RESPONSES F.0 INTRODUCTION ................................... F.0-1 F.0-1 RAI AND RESPONSES INDEX ........................ F.0-2 I' F.0-2 NRC RAI TO APPENDIX F PAGE NUMBER CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX ................................ F.0-5 l2 F.1 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 1 ............. F.1-1 F.2 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 2 ............. F.2-1 F.3 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 3 ............. F.3-1 F.4 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 4 ............. F.4-1
\
F.5 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 5 ............. F.5-1 F.6 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 6 ............. F.6-1 F.7 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 7 ............. F.7-1 F.8 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 8 ............. F.8-1 F.9 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 9 ............. F.9-1 F.10 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 10............. F.10-1 F.ll RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 11............. F.ll-1 RAI AND RESPONSES FOR ER CHAPTER 12............. F.12-1 F.12 F-iii
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF TABLES Table Title O N o. 301.2-1 Applicant's service Area...................... F.1-19 301.2-2 New England................................... F.1-20 301.2-3a Statistics for All-Electric Dwelling Units Within Applicant's Service Area............... F.1-22 301.2-3b Comparison of 1975 and 1972 Saturations of Major Appliances and Devices of Residential Customers Within Applicant's Service Area..... F.1-23 301.7-1 New England Peak Loads by Planning Area for Winter 1984 and 1986...................... F.1-24 301.13-1 Comparison of Sources of Energy for U.S. and New England, 1974......................... F.1-25 301.13-2 Comparison of Sources of Petroleum Products for U.S. and New England, 1974................ F.1-26 301.71-1 New England-Summer Peak....................... F.1-26A 301.71-2 New England-Annual Energy and Winter Peak................................... F.1-26B 301.75-1 Estimated "New England" Coefficients of the Regression Equations Used to Predict Cooking, Clothes Drying and Water Heating Saturations..................... F.1-26C 301.75-2 Regression Results o f Net Usage of Electricity................................ F.1-26D 301.75-3 Regression Results of Commercial Demand Model.................................. F.1-26E 301.75-4 Commercial Price Effects...................... F.1-26F 301.75-5 Estimated Output and Price Elasticities of Electricity Usage by Manufacturing Industries in the United States................................. F.1-26G 301.75-6 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Cooking Fuel......................... F.1-26H O F-iv
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Title N o. 301.75-7 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Electric and Gas Clothes Dryers................................. F.1-26J 301.75-8 Regression Results of Ratio of Electric Clothes Dryer Saturation to Total Clothes Dryer Saturation................. F.1-26K 301.75-9 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Water Heating Fuels................... F.1-26L 301.75-10 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Space Heating Fuels................... F.1-26M 301.76-1 Total System Load.............................. F.1-26N 301.76-2 Municipal Group, Contracted and Total Loads................................ F.1-260 301.77-1 Total System Load and Load Factor.............. F.1-26P 301.78-1 New England Electric System Companies, "Best Estimate"..................... F.1-260 301.82-1 Gross National Product (1972S) and Gross State Product (1972$).................... F.1-26R 301.82-2 U.S. Sales of Electricity, U.S. GNP............ F.1-26S - 301.82-3 Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers............................. F.1-26T 301.18-1 Vegetation Types Within Five Miles of NEP 1& 2.......................................... F.2-37 301.18-2 Land Use Within Five Miles of NEP 1 & 2........ F.2-38 301.22-1 NALF Ponds..................................... F.2-39 301.25-1 Terrestrial Vertebrates Which May Range But Were Not Observed Within One Mile of the Proposed NEP 1 & 2 Nuclear Power Stations....................................... F.2-40 301.32-1 Birds Observed December 17, 1976............... F.2-43A 301.32-2 Mammal Observations (December 1976-March 1977).................................... F.2-430 F-v
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Title O No. 301.33-1 Average Dry Weight (MG/M ) of Zcoplankton Night Samples, Block Island Sound, May 1974-September 1974................................ F.2-44 301.33-2 Average Zooplankton Densities by Month for Each Station and Depth, Block Island Soun1, April 1974-March 1975............. ........... F.2-45 301.33-3 Average Zooplankton Densities by Month for Each Station and Depth, Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975............................... F.2-47 301.33-4 Block Island Sound Meroplankton, Mollusca, and Decapoda Densities........................ F.2-50 301.33-5 Ninigret Pond Meroplankton, Mollusca and Decapoda Densities............................ F.2-56 301.33-6 Total Zooplankton per Date, Depth, and Station, Block Island Sound, April 1974-March 1975.................................... F.2-65 301.33-7 Total Zooplankton per Date, Depth, and Station, Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975.................................... F.2-69 301.33-8 Number of Mollusk Larvae per M at Block Island Sound, April-May 1974.................. F.2-75 301.34-1 Total Phytoplankton per Date, Depth, and Station, Block Island Sound, April 1974-March 1975.................................... F.2-80 301.34-2 Total Phytoplankton per Date, Depth, and Station, Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975.................................... F.2-84 301.34-3 Average Phytoplankton Densities per Month, Station, and Depth, Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975............................... F.2-90 301.34-4 Average Phytoplankton Densities per Month, Station, and Depth, Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975............................... F.2-92 O F-vi
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Title N o. 301.34-5 Monthly and Yearly Averages of Chlorophyll A (MG/M 3 ) in Ninigret Pond by Depth, April 1974-March 1975................................ F.2-95 301.34-6 Monthly and Ten-Month Averages of Chlorophyll A (MG/M 3 ) in Block Island Sound, June 1974-March 1975..................................... F.2-96 301.34-7 Monthly and Yearly Averages of C 14 (MG Carbon /M3 / Day) in Ninigret Pond, April 1974-March 1975..................................... F.2-97 301.34-8 Monthly and Ten-Month Averages of C l4 (MG Carbon /M3 / Day) in Block Island Sound, June 1974-March 1975................................ F.2-98 301.35-1 Total Egg and Larval Densities (#/100 M 3) at Ninigret Pond Stations, April 1974-March 1975..................................... F.2-99 301.35-2 Total Egg and Larval Densities (#/100 M 3) at Block Island Sound Stations, April 1974-Merch 1975..................................... F.2-101 301.35-3 Average Yearly Egg and Larval Yearly Densities (#/100 M3 ) at Ningret Pond Stations, April 1974-March 1975................................ F.2-103 301.35-4 Average Yearly Egg and Larval Densities (#/100 M3 ) at Block Island Stations, April 1974-March 1975.......................... F.2-104 301.35-5 Average Yearly Densities of Eggs (#/100 M 3) Appearing at Both Ninigret Pond and Block Island Sound Stations.......................... F.2-105 301.35-6 Average Yearly Densities of Larvae (#/100 M 3) Appearing at Both Ninigret Pond and Block Island Sound Stations.......................... F.2-106 301.35-7 Total Egg Densities (#/100 M 3) Tucker Trawl, Block Island Sound ............................ F.2-107 301.35-8 Total Larval Densities (#/100 M 3) Tucker F.2-108 Trawl, Block Island Sound...................... F-vii
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont) O Table Title N o. 301.36-1 Finfish Length-Percentages..................... F.2-109 301.36-2 Average Finfish Lengths and Age Class, Ninigtet Pond........................................... F.2-133 301.36-3 Average Finfish Lengths and Age Clas, Block Island Sound................................... F.2-134 301.36-4 Average Weight (Pounds) of Finfish Taken Commercially and Recreationally, 1974.......... F.2-135 301.28-1 Ecological Diversity Rating System - Categories and Scores..................................... F.3-20 370.1-1 Millstone Annual Average Chi /0 (Undepleted) Dilution Factors (Sec/M 3 ) Primary Vent Stock Release........................................ F.6-13 370.3-1 Annual Frequency (Percent) of Wind Reversals for Various Time Periods and Sector Angles..... F.6-14 370.3-2 Wind Reversals for Various Time Periods and Sector Angles.................................. F.6-15 301.40-1 Capital Cost Summary Oil - NO SO2 Scrub - 3 800 MW Units............ F.8-20 301.40-2 Capital Cost Summary Coal - SO2 Scrub - 3 800 MW Units.............. F.8-20B 301.40-3 Capital Cost Summary F.8-20D Coal - NO SO2 Scrub - 3 800 MW Units........... 301.40-4 Capital Cost Summary Nuclear - 2 1150 MW Units...................... F.8-20F 301.41-1 Breakdown of Levelized Bus-Bar Power Costs ( m i l s/ kwhr ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F.8-20H 301.43.b-1 Construction and Operation Personnel Who Are Movers By Year............................. F.8-20J 301.43.b-2 Three Town Annual Population Projections Both With and Without Project Employees and Families................................... F.8-21 O F-viii
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Title N o. 301.42-1 Electric Power Research Institute Program Funding, 1976................................. F.9-123 301.42-2 New England Electric System 1975 R & D Programs...................................... F.9-124 300.12-1 Summary of Salisbury, E. Pepperell and Charlestown Sites......................... F.9-126 300.13-1 Potential Sites............................... F.9-127 300.14-1 List of Deferred Potential Sites and Reasons for Deferral................ F.9-129 300.15-1 Potential Visual Impacts of the Erving Site............................ F.9-136 300.15-2 Potential Visual Impact of the Charlestown Site....................... F.9-140 300.15-3 Charlestown and Erving/ Gill Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles...................... F.9-144 300.16-1 Charlestown and Rome Point Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles...................... F.9-145 300.17-1 Charleste.m and Westerly Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characterist ic s in Mile s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F.9-146 300.18-1 References........................... ........ F.9-147 300.18-2 New England Power Company Recreation Inventory January 1, 1977............................... F.9-152 F-ix
N E P 1 & 2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title N o. 301.5-1 New England Power Company Load Duration Curve 301.5-2 New England Power Company Load Duration Curve 301.7-1 Principal Generating Plants and Interconnecting Transmission Lines of New England Projected to 1985 301.7-2 New England Load Planning Areas 301.82-1 Annual Percent Change Gross National Product (1972$) Gross State Produce (1972$) 301.82-2 Annual Percent Change I U.S. Kilowatt Hours / Gross National Produce (1972$) [' 301.82-3 Annual Percent Change U.S. Kilowatt Hours New England Kilowatt Hours NEES Kilowatt Hours 301.32-1 Location of Strip Counts and Stationary Observation Points-Winter, 1976-1977, 1-Mile Radius 301.64-1 Point Judith Pond Shellfish Map 301.66-1 Vermont Yankee Fish Impingment vs. River Flow and < Plent Operating Characteristics, March 1975 301.66-2 Vern,ont Yankee Fish Impingment vs. River Flow dnd Plant Operating Characteristics, April 1975 p 301.66-3 Vermont Yankee Fish Impingment vs. River Flow and Plant Operating Characteristics, May 1975 , Composite Proposed fransmissions Systems for Gill / r 300.15-1 Erving, Rome Point and Westerly Alternate Sites k F-x
TJ E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 e APPENDIX F REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RESPONSES F.0 INTRODUCTION This appendir of the ER contains formal Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) Requests for Additional Information (RAI) and Applicant Responses. It is divided into thirteen sections: one section cor-responding to each ER chapter, and one section corresponding to the appendices. Each RAI is uniquely identified by an RAI number assigned by the NRC. l* Most responsec appear directly after the RAI; however, in some cases revisions to the ER have been made instead and are so noted. F.0.1 RAI and Responses Ir.dex Index F.0-1 is an index of NRC RAI and the responses to them. The RAI numbers are grouped by the ER section number to which they pertain. The Appendix F page number, where the RAI and its response is printed, appears opposite the RAI number. F.0.2 NRC RAI to A awndi. F Page Number Cross-Reference Index Index F.0-2 is a cross-referencetindex of NRC RAI numbers to the Appendix F page numbers on which each RAI appears with its response. F.0-1
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-1 REQUESTS AND RESPONSES INDEX (Sheet 1 of 4) ER NRC RAI Appendix F ER NRC RAI Appendix F Section Number Page No. Section Number Page No. 1.1 i 301.1 F.1-1 2.1 330.1 F.2-1 301.2 F.1-1 330.2 F.2-1 301.3 F.1-1 330.3 F.2-1 301.4 F.1-2 330.4 F.2-2 301.5 F.1-4 330.5 F.2-2 301.6 F.1-4 330.6 F.2-2 301.7 F.1-4 330.7 F.2-2 301.8 F.1-5 330.8 F.2-3 301.9 F.1-5 330.9 F.2-3 301.10 F.1-5 330.10 F.2-3 301.11 F.1-8 330.11 F.2-4 301.12 F.1-9 340.1 F.2-4 301.13 F.1-9 340.2 F.2-4 301.14 F.1-11 350.1 F.2-6 301.15 F.1-15 350.2 F.2-6 301.16 F.1-17 350.3 F.2-7 301.17 F.1-17 350.4 F.2-8 dl301.68 F.1-18 345.5 F.2-9 5 301.71 F.1-18A 350.6 F.2-12 301.72 F.1-18B 350.7 F.2-14 301.73 F.1-18E 2.2 301.18 F.2-14 301.74 F.1-18G 301.19 F.2-15 301.75 F.1-18J 301.20 F.2-15 301.76 F.1-18J 301.21 F.2-15 301.77 F.1-18K 301.22 F.2-16 301.78 F.1-18K 301.23 F.2-16 301.79 F.1-18L 301.24 F.2-17 301.80 F.1-180 301.25 F.2-18 301.81 F.1-18P 301.26 F.2-18 lf 301.82 F.1-18Q 'l301.32 F.2-20 F . 0-2
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-1 REQUESTS AND RESPONSES INDEX (Sheet 2 of 4) ER NRC RAI Appendix F ER NRC RAI Appendix F Section Number Page No. Section Number Page No. 2.2 F.2-20A 3.5 2 320.1 F.3-2A ( ") F.2-20B 320.2 F.3-2A , 301.33 F.2-20B 323.3 F.3-2B 301.34 F.2-22 320.4 F.3-2B 301.35 F.2-23 3.6 340.12 F.3-3 301.36 F.2-24 3.7 340.13 F.3-5 2l 301.48 F.2-26A 3.9 301.27 F.3-6 3 301.50 J.2-26A 301.28 F.3-9 301.51 F.2-26A 301.31 F.3-13 301.52 F.2-26B 2l 301.49 F.3-16 301.53 F.2-26B l301.63 F.3-16A 301.54 F.2-26B 5l301.84 F.3-16B 340.3 F.2-47 340.14 F.3-16B 340.4 F.2-28 340.15 F.3-17 340.5 F.2-28 340.16 F.3-18 340.17 F.3-18 2 2.3 372.1 F.2-34A 340.18 F.3-18 372.2 F.2-34A 350.8 F.3-19 372.3 F.2-34A 4.1 301.29 F.4-1 372.15 F.2-34A dl301.64 F.4-1 372.16 F.2-35 3l 301. 65 F.4-1D 2.4 300.2 F.2-15 340.19 F.4-1E 340.6 F.2-35 340.20 F.4-3 2.7 340.7 F.2-36 340.21 F.4-3 3.1 5l 350.19 F.3-1 350.9 F.4-8 3.3 340.8 F.3-1B 350.10 F.4-8 3.4 340.9 F.3-1B 350.11 F.4-9 340.10 F.3-1B 4.2 340.22 F.4-9 340.11 F.3-2 5.1 dl301.37 F.5-1 F.0-3
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-1 REQUESTS AND RESPONSES INDEX (Sheet 3 of 4) ER NRC RAI Appendix F ER NRC RAI Appendix F Section Number Page No. Section Number Page No. 2 5.1 301.38 F.5-1 6.1 372.9 F.6-12A (Cont) F.5-3 372.10 F.6-12A , 31301.66 . F.5-3A 372.11 F.6-12A F.5-3B 372.12 F.6-12B dl301.69 F.5-3C 372.13 F.6-12B 340.23 F.5-3C 372.14 F.6-12B 340.24 F.5-4 372.17 F.6-12B 340.25 F.5-4 7 (no Rt I for Chapter 7) 2l372.4 F.5-4A 8.1 350.12 F.8-1 5.2 330.12 F.5-5 350.13 F.8-3 330.13 F.5-5 350.14 F.8-3 330.14 F.5-5 2 301.55 F.8-4 5.3 340.26 F.5-5 301.56 F.8-AA 5.6 340.27 F.5-6 301.57 F.8-4A 6.1 301.30 F.6-1 8.2 301.39 F.8-4B 330.15 F.6-5 301.40 F.8-4C 330.16 F.6-6 301.41 F.8-4C 330.17 F.6-6 301.43 F.8-5 330.18 F.6-6 301.44 F.8-8 . 340.28 F.6-6 301.45 F.8-9 370.1 F.6-8 301.46 F.8-10 370.2 F.6-9 2 301.58 F.8-10 370.3 F.6-9 301.59 F.8-10 370.4 F.6-11 301.60 F 8-10A 370.5 F.6-11 301.61 F.8-10A 370.6 F.6-11 301.62 F.8-10B 2 372.5 F.6-12 350.15 F.8-10B 372.6 F.6-12 350.16 F.8-12 372.7 F.6-12A 350.17 F.8-16 372.8 F.6-12A 350.18 F.8-18 F.0-4
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-1 REQUESTS AND RESPONSES INDEX (Sheet 4 of 4) ER NRC RAI Appendix F ER NRC RAI Appendix F Section Number Page No. Section Number Page No. 3.2 300.1 F.9-1 9.3 2l300.6 F,9-117 300.3 F.9-1 5 300.18 F.9-118 300.4 F.9-1 300.19 F.9-121 300.7 F.9-1A 10.1 dl300.8 F.10-1 301.42 F.9-2 301.47 F.10-1 2l 300. 5 F.9-2B 340.29 F.10-1A 5 300.9 F.9-4 51340.30 F.10-1A 300.10 F.9-5 340.31 F.10-2 300.11 F.9-6 340.32 F.10-2 300.12 F.9-7 10.3 'l301.70 F.10-3 300.13 F.9-8 11 (No RAI for Chapier 11) 300.14 F.9-73 12 (No RAI for Chapi er 12) 300.15 F.9-74 Apper. dices 3l301.67 F.A-1 300.16 F.9-89 5l301.83 F.A-1 300.17 F.9-109 F.0-5
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-2 NRC RAI TO APPENDIX F PAGE NUMBER CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX (Sheet 1 of 4) NRC RAI Appendix F NRC RAI Appendix F Number Page No. Number Page No. 300.1 F.9-1 301.10 F.1-5 300.2 F.2-35 301.11 F.1-8 300.3 F.9-1 301.12 F.1-9 300.4 F.9-1 301.13 F.1-9 2 300.5 F.9-2B 301.14 F.1-11 300.6 F.9-117 301.15 F.1-15 d 300.7 F.9-1A 301.16 F.1-17 300.8 F.10-1 301.17 F.1-17 6 300.9 F.9-4 301.18 F.2-14 300.10 F.9-5 301.19 F.2-15 300.11 F.9-6 301.20 F.2-15 300.12 F.9-7 301.21 F.2-15 300.13 F.9-8 301.22 F.2-16 300.14 F.9-73 301.23 F.2-16 300.15 F 9-74 301.24 F.2-17 300.16 F.9-89 301.25 F.2-18 300.17 F.9-109 301.26 F.2-18 300.18 F.9-118 301.27 F.3-6 300.19 F.9-121 301.28 7.3-9 301.1 F.1-1 301.29 F.4-1 301.2 F.1-1 301.30 F.6-1 301.3 F.1-1 301.31 F.3-13 301.4 F.1-2 3l 301.32 F.2-20 301.5 F.1-4 F.2-20A 301.6 F.1-4 301.33 F.2-20B 301.7 F.1-4 301.34 F.2-22 301.8 F.1-5 301.35 F.2-23 301.9 F.1-5 301.36 F.2-24 O F.0-6
tr Revision 5 INDEX F.0-2 NRC RAI TO APPENDIX F PAGE NUMBER CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX (Page 2 of 4) NRC RAI Appendix F NRC RAI Appendix F Number Pace No. Number Page No. dl301.37 F.5-1 dl301.64 F.4-1 301.38 F.5-1 3 301.65 F.4-1 301.39 F.8-4 F.4-1 A 301.40 F.8-4C 301.66 F.5-3 301.41 F.8-4C F.5-3A 301.42 F.9-2 F.5-3B 301.43 F.8-5 F.5-3C 301.44 F.8-8 301.67 F.A-1 301.45 F.8-9 4 301.68 F.1-18 301.46 F.8-10 301.69 F.5-3C 301.47 F.10-1 301.70 F.10-3 2 301.48 F.2-26A 5 301.71 F.1-18A 301.49 F.3-16 301.72 F.1-18B 3 301.50 F.2-26A 301.73 F.1-18E 301.51 F.2-26A 301.74 F.1-18G 301.52 F.2-26B 301.75 F.1-18J 301.53 F.2-26B 301.76 F.1-18J 301.54 F.2-26B 301.77 F.1-18K 2 301.55 F.8-4 301.78 F.1-18K 301.56 F.8-4A 301.79 F.1-18L 301.57 F.8-4A 301.80 F.1-180 301.58 F.8-10 301.81 F.1-18P 301.59 F.8-10 301.82 F.1-18Q 301.60 F.8-10A 301.83 F.A-1 301.61 F.8-10A 301.84 F.3-16B 301.62 F.8-10B 2 320.1 F.3-2A 320.2 F.3-2A
~
31301.63 F.8-16A F.3-16B 320.3 F.3-2B F.0-7
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-2 NRC RAI TO APPENDIX F PAGE NUMBER CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX (Sheet 3 of 4) NRC RAI Appendix F NRC RAI Appendix F Number Page No. Number Page No. 2l320.4 F.3-2B 340.9 F.3-1B . 330.1 F.2-1 340.10 F.3-1B 330.2 F.2-1 340.11 F.3-2 330.3 F.2-E 340.12 F.3-3 330.4 F.2-2 340.13 F.3-5 330.5 F.2-2 340.14 F.3-16B 330.6 F.2-2 340.15 F.3-17 330.7 F.2-2 340.16 F.3-18 330.8 F.2-3 340.17 F.3-18 330.9 F.2-3 340.18 F.3-18 330.10 F.2-3 340.19 F.4-1 330.11 F.2-4 340.20 F.4-3 h 330.12 F.5-5 340.21 F.4-3 330.13 F.5-5 340.22 F.4-9 330.14 F.5-5 340.23 F.5-3 330.15 F.6-5 340.24 F.5-4 330.16 F.6-6 340.25 F . 5 -4 330.16 F.6-6 340.26 F.5-5 330.17 F.6-6 340.27 F.5-6 330.18 F.6-6 340.28 F.6-6 . 340.1 F.2-4 340.29 F.10-1A 340.2 F.2-4 51340.30 F.10-1A 340.3 F.2-27 340.31 F.10-2 340.4 F.2-28 340.32 F.10-2 340.5 F.2-28 350.1 F.2-6 340.6 F.2-35 350.2 F.2-6 340.7 F.2-36 340.3 F.2-7 340.8 F.3-1B 350.4 F.2-8 F.0-8 9
Revision 5 INDEX F.0-2 NRC RAI TO APPENDIX F PAGE NUMBER CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX (Sheet 3 of 4) NRC RAI Appendix F NRC RAI Appendix F Number Page No. Number Page No. 350.5 F.2-9 370.5 F.6-11 350.6 F.2-12 370.6 F.6-11 350.7 F.2-14 2 372.1 F.2-34 350.8 F.3-19 372.2 F.2-34A 350.9 F.4-8 372.3 F.2-34A 350.10 F.4-8 372.4 F.5-4A 350.11 F.4-9 372.5 F.6-12 350.12 F.8-1 372.6 F.6-12 350.13 F.8-3 372.7 F.6-12A 350.14 F.8-3 372.8 F.6-12A 350.15 F.8-10B 372.9 F.6-12A 350.16 F.8-12 372.10 F.6-12A 350.17 F.8-16 372.11 F.6-12A 350.18 7.8-18 372.12 F.6-12B 5l 350.19 F.3-1 372.13 F.6-12B 370.1 F.6-8 372.14 F.6-12B 370.2 F.6-9 372.15 F.2-34A 370.3 F.6-9 372.16 F.2-35 ~ 370.4 F.6-11 372.17 F.6-12B F.0-9
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.71 Revise Table 1.1-7 to include the weather-normalized winter and summer peaks for New England (1971-1977). Discuss the difference between normal weather and actual weather for each peck day, including analysis of the factors determining weather sensitivity (i.e., translate temperature, humidity, etc., into kilowatts, kilowa t t-hour s) . Compare the final NEPLAN load forecast with the sum of the individual company peaks adjusted explicitly for diversity and 345 kV transmission losses. RESPONSE: The requested weather-normalized summer and winter peaks for New England (1971-1977) will be found in Table 301.71-1 and Table 301.71-2, res pectively. The measure of weather (weather-variable units) used in adjusting summer peak load is a complex combination of dry-bulb temperature and humidity. A heat build-up ef fect is calculated from recorded dry-bulb temperatures for the period beginning three days prior to the occurrence of the peak load. Additionally, relative humidity at the hour of the peak is introduced to calculate an index for the heat-content of the air at that time. The summer base or normal value of 177 is the mean of the calculated summer extremes for the eight reporting stations over the past twenty years. The measure of weather (weather-variable units) used in adjusting winter peak load is the dry-bulb temperature (OF) at the hour of the occurrence of the peak. Values used as representative of New England as a whole are calculated as the weighted average of readings for eight weather stations across the region. The winter base or normal value of +4.60F is the mean of the winter extremes for the eight reporting stations over the last twenty years. The weather sensitivity factors for both summer and winter have been determined by statistical (regression) analysis. Annual energy is not adjusted for weather ef fect,s at this time. The final NEPLAN load forecast presented in Chapter 1 of the ER jj! the sum of the individual company peaks adjusted explicitly for diversity and 345 kV transmission losses. F.1-18A
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 301.72 Calculate the compound annual growth rates assuced in the forecasts h using 1977 as the base year for weather-adjusted sucner and winter peak and total energy requirements. Express confidence intervals on the probability of " normal" weather conditions for given years. Discuss the appropriateness of the choice of 1977 as the base year for forecasting purposes (i.e., consider loan factors, peak demands, energy requirements, economic and demographic factors for given years). PESPONSE: The requested information appears below: Forecast
. Compound Annual Growth 1977-1990 1975-1990 Sumner Peak (weather- 4.6% 4.6%
adjusted) Winter Peak (weather- 4.3% 4.4% ad justed) Annual Energy 4.2% 4.5% The above growth rates have been computed directly from forecast figures appearing in ER Table 1.1-7 under the assumption that these figures are implicitly weather-no r ,ali zed . The values for 1975 and 1977 used in the es.iculations are weather-normalized values taken from the response to RAI 301.71. The probability of the occurrence of normal weather conditions during the forecast period is not appropriately expressed in terms of confidence intervals. The base weather conditions to which raw actual loads are - adjusted, and the prevalence of which is implicitly assumed by the forecast, are the mean of the extreme conditions at the hour of peak load over the twenty-year period 1952-1972, not the mean of the normal conditions for those hours. In the case of the winter season where the weather-variable is the dry-bulb temperature expressed in degrees Fahrenheit, the period of observation is the 1900-hour from December 11 thru January 31 from 1953 thru 1972. The mean of the seasonal extreme minimum temperatures for the period at the 1900-hour is 4.60F (in a weighted composite of eight New England weather 0 stations) with a standard deviation of 5.8 F and an extreme single observation of -50F. For comparison, the mean of the daily temperatures for the 1900-hour during the period is 26.9 F with a standard deviation of 9.720F. F.1-18B
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The selection of the appropriate base year from which to project the post energy-crisis long-range trend of the demand for electricity is still at this time an uncertain and highly subjective exercise. We are just emerging from a period of trauma during which the fundamental relationships linking energy to society have been shaken. A national energy policy is not yet formulated , and the long-range implications of what has ye t to emerge are even more unknown. When preparing a forecast or considering revising an existing one, it is normal procedure to collect and analyze the most current data and information available. We continuously monitor our forecasts in terms of most current information. However, it is not a truism per se that the most current point in time provides the proper base from which to launch projections of the trends of future behavior, particularly when making longer-term projections where focus is on longer-range patterns of behavior. The most current position must be examined and weighed in terms of all other information, and perhaps even be discounted completely at times. LittJ e more is known today than was known a year ago, or in 1976, regarding the future long-range behavior of the demand for electricity. There has been much speculation as to what this might be, however, it is only speculation and it has been wide-ranging. We believe we have properly represented the range of this speculation by our chosen band-width. Particular care must be exercised at this time that short-term or purely cyclical ef fects from the 1974-1975 recession are not erroneously identified as the early impact of long-term structural changes. No hard basis yet exists for the adoption of a specific long-term posture, and the same must be said regarding the adoption of a take-of f point for that po s ture . At the time of the original preparation of our filed forecast, 1975 was selected as the base year for long-range planning purposes. It was selected not because it represented the most current information available at the time, but because it represented the post energy-crisis point in time from which we reasoned the future long-range trend should be based. Experience since 1975 has tended to confirm our judgement. Experienced load growth appears to be cycling around the 1975-based projection. Kilowatthour load growth in 1976 was near the extreme upper-bound of our 1975-based expectations, and that in 1977 was near the extreme low-bound of those expectations . It appears at this time that 1978's experience will be relatively central to the 1975-based expectations. Had we updated the forecast each year to be based on the most current year's information, we should have raised the forecast based on 1976's experience, adjusted it downwards based on 1977's experience, and be looking to raise it again at the end of 1978. We would erroneously have been adjusting a long-range forecast for short-term cyclical ef fects. Of the post energy-crisis years,1975 still appears the most appropriate F.1-18C
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER S from which to extend long-range patterns of the demand for electricity. It is our belief that long-range projections' based on 1977 will tend to be understated. Annual load factors calculated from data furnished in the response to RAI 301.71 confirms the appropriateness of 1975 as base year. 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Annual load factor * (%) 59.7 59.0 68.1 62.5 60.6 59.7 64.9
- Calculated using weather-adjusted winter peak MW There is little evidence to suggest that normal post-crisis load factor is yet very different from pre-crisis values.
The value for 1977 is the nost sus pect of being non-typical, and consequently 1977 is the least appropriate year upon which to base a long-term projection. Demographic factors do not change significantly over short periods of time, and therefore, they have not been decisive in the choice between 1975 and 1977 as the base year. O F.1-18D
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.73 Describe how conservation is addressed in the NEP00L forecasts through 1990. RESPONSE: As noted in the response to RAI 301.71, the final NEPLAN (NEPOOL) forecast presented in Chapter 1 of the ER is developed from the sum of the individual company forecasts. Conservation is addressed separately by each company in the manner that it has selected in the preparation of its own forecast. The three largest members of NEPOOL, Boston Edison Company, Applicant, and Northeast Utilities, whose combined loadu total nore than 50% of the NEP00L load, address conservation in their forecasts as described below: I. Boston Edison Company Conservation is recognized to be reduction in consumption of electrical energy. It is addressed by major consumer class. Residential: Conservation is reflected in this sector by the introduction of higher efficiencies for electrical appliances. The replacement of existing appliances with more ef ficient ones is in response to long term elasticity. Short term elasticity is introduced directly by a factor. Commercial: The Commercial sector forecast has two components. The first is an econometric equation that includes a variable for the growth of the real price of electricity which captures the effect of short-run elasticity. The second component is a linear trend regression of sales from 1971 through 1977. The regression points implicitly include the effects of conservation, price impacts, and psychological reactions to the oil embargo. Industrial: The sales for each SIC have been forecast using historical data and subjective judgement. The effects of price elasticity and conservation are implicit in the data points that extend through 1976. II. Applicant Conservation is recognized as potentially impacting the use of energy in any or all of its several forms, of which electricity is but one. Such recognition is perhaps the largest single consideration in the determination of the width of Applicant's planning band. Depending on the level at which conservation occurs, and the form it takes, the effect could well be a significant increase in the consumption of electric energy as a significant decrease. A discussion of these points against the background of New England's extreme dependence on imported petroleum as a basic source of F.1-18E
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O energy will be found in the responses to RAI 301.13 and 301.15 In addition to potential conservation being reflected in the width of the forecast band, conservation is specifically incorporated in both the High-Growth and Low-Growth scenarios of Applicant's forecast for the Residential sector by increased future efficiencies for electrical appliances and/or their reduced usage. III. Northeast Utilities Conservation is specifically defined in terms of reduction in consumption of electrical energy. It is addressed by major consumer class. Residential: Conservation enters into the Residential sector in four ways: (1) the application of energy efficiency target-standards; (2) improved insulating values in new and old dwellings; (3) the increased application of the heat pump; and (4) the increased application of electric-assisted solar space and water heating systems, Commercial: Energy efficiency standards developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE 90-75) are applied to 90% of new commercial building construction by 1982. Industrial
- Energy efficiency guidelines developed by Northeast Utilities are applied across forecast sales by SIC to reduce energy consumption in this sector by two percent by 1985. Measured conservation for the 1973-1974 period due to the assessment by industry of their excess energy use is held constant throughout the forecast period.
O F.1-18F
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.74 Delineate all assumptions and provide the background for the
" economics" argument presented for New England. Include specific sections on fuel cost savings, NEP00L operation and maintenance savings, and capacity costs with and without NEP Units 1 and 2.
RESPONSE: Planning for NEP 1 & 2 nuclear units has been done as an integral part of an overall New England regional plan developed by the New England Power Pool (NEP00L) to add approximately 9,000 MW of generation, mostly nuclear, over a ten-year period. The intent is to bring the nuclear component of New England's generation mix from its present 19% to approximately 37%. This is an initial step toward an ultimate target of 50-60% nuclear capacity in the overall mix. The bulk power supply for New England is planned and operated on a regional basis by NEP00L. Within the context of NEP00L a schedule of planned generation additions is prepared to meet the overall needs for the region, and all generation is operated under the NEPEX central dispatch as a regional supply. The actual participation of each member of the pool in new generating units is based on anticipated requirements to provide that member's share of the region's capacity. This may be adjusted later, however, through contracts or other means to reflect variations of load growth within the region. The basic requirements for planning the actual unit, however, is regional in scope and has two objectives. First is a reliability objective, which is to provide adequate capacity to meet the peak load needs of the region in accordance with acceptable reliability standards. The second is to provide the most economic energy possible to minimize electric cost to New England consumers. Summarized here are the results of a group of studies done by NEP00L and NEP on various phases of generation planning which determine the optimum timing of NEP 1 & 2. Taken together, they lead to the conclusion that (1) NEP 1 & 2 are needed, on their present 1986/88 schedule, to meet the reliability objective assuming a 4.5% load growth, and (2) even if load growth as low as 3% is experienced, NEP 1 & 2 are needed to meet the second objective of providing the most economic energy possible. A summary of specific studies follows: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ' A description of reliability requirements applicable to NEP00L has been presented in ER pages 1.1 1.1-13. To meet > reliability requirements, total generation in New England during the mid-to-late 1980's should be sufficient to cover the expected peak plus a 23% reserve. The NEPOOL forecast F.1-18G
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER projects an annual growth rate for both energy and peak load of 4.5% per year. To supply this load with adequate reserve the present schedule of pool planned units including NEP 1 & 2 must be met by 1986 and 1988. Further delays of NEP 1 & 2 or any other major unit at this time will leave New England with inadequate generating capacity. GENERATION MIX Analysis of the optimum mix of generation types to supply the New England load has been presented in a series of NEP00L reports 1,2,3. Conclusions drawn by the NEP00L Planning Committee from these studies with regard to an optimum mix which bears upon the planning of NEP 1 & 2 units are as follows:
- 1. " Nuclear generation containues to be the most economical type of base load expansion for New England.
- 2. Total nuclear generation of 60-70% of the annual peak load is recommended for the middle-weather-sensitive load shape. The upper limit of the nuclear component in an optimum economic mix will be dictated by the ability of future nuclear units to load-follow and eventually to cycle. It is not expected that this will be a major consideration before the 1990's.
- 3. There are indications that nuclear installations of as much as 80% of the peak load could be justified provided that the operational problems indicated in this analysis are economically overcome . . . ."
OPTlMUM TIMING OF UNITS The optimum economic timing of new nuclear units has bgen addressed by two studies. The first is a NEP00L study , which is concerned with the question of timing new nuclear units to meet the New England needs. The second is a specific study of NEP 1 & 2 and the impact on the optimum schedule of the units of a significantly lower load growth than that now projected. The NEP00L report 4 , study period is the twenty year period (1980-2000). The report considers two load growth rates which bracket the present 4.5% forecast. The higher rate is 5.4% and the lower one is 4.0% per year. The main focus is on planning with uncertain load growth and the economic consequences of error. A comparison was made of the economic penalties which would be incurred if nuclear units were planned and scheduled for the low load growth (4%) and the high load growth rate (5.4%) is actually experienced vs. whatever t penalties might be incurred if capacity is planned for the high growth rate and the low is actually experienced. F.1-18H
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The results of the study demonsrate a very high penalty is incurred in the cost of power to New England if the nuclear units are not brought in on time to meet the actual growth experienced. If planning is based upon 4% and a 5.4% load growth occurs, the increase during the first 15 years in the total cost of power to the consumer is 3.4 billion dollars compared to a system which brought the nuclear units in when needed. In addition, there is a very substantial increase in oil usage amounting to as much as 350 million barrelsof oil throughout the period under study. The obvious conclusion is that the penalties of under building nuclear are very large. Alternately, the analysis was made of the economic impact of scheduling and installing nuclear units assuming a 5.4% load growth with a 4.0% load growth rate actually realized later. In this case during tne first 15 years there was an actual net savings to the customers because of substantial reduction in oil consumption and lower capital costs of the units. During the period 1980-1995, this amounted to $1.4 billion. The report summarizes ti;e NEP00L position as follows:
"The results of this study reconfirm those of the November 1975 study; namely, it is economic to plan the long lead time base load and pumped storage generation to the top of a reasonable band of load growth uncertainty. Such a planning strategy provides the maximum number of options, before large scale capital commitments are required, to supply a range of load growth rates and avoids a mandatory catch up generation expansion, without options, which invariably leads to uneconomic and unreliable system conditions.
With nuclear units requiring 12 years of advance planning, such a strategy allows the installations of these units to be delayed in the event the bani of uncertainty lowers or narrows with the passing of time. This study indicates that even if the option to delay the installation of these base load nuclear units is not exercised, the resulting system, with excess generation over that required for reliable service, will yield long term NEP00L econcmic and fossil fuel savings"... ihe second report 5, was prepared by the New England Power Service Company. This report specifically addresses the timing of NEP 1 & 2 should a much lower than expected load growth develop in the New England region. In particular, an analysis is made of the economics of rescheduling NEP 1 & 2 nuclear units for load growth in New England developed at a rate of 3% per year rather than the currently projected 4.5% per year. The conclusion is reached that optimum scheauling of NEP 1 & 2 is dictated by economic consideration rather than reliability consideration alone, and that for a range of load growths of 3% per year or higher, the current schedule of 1986 for F.1-181
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Unit 1, and 1988 for Unit 2 will provide economic benefits to New England consumers. The reason for these benefits of continuing the present schedule is a combination of a substantial oil savings in the early years of operation coupled with reduced capital costs because of less escalation associated with the earlier date of completion.
REFERENCES:
- 1. "New England Base Load Generation Study 1980/81 to 2000/01" prepared by the NEP00L Planning Committee, February 1977.
- 2. "New England Intermediate and Peaking Mix Study 1980/81 to 2000/01, Supplement to February 1977 Base Load Report" by the NEP00L Planning Committee, August 1977.
- 3. " Summary of Generation Task Force Long-Range Study Assumptions" by NEPLAN and Generation Task Force, revised October 1977.
- 4. " Planning for Load Growth Uncertainty" by the NEP00L Planning Committee, February 1978. .
- 5. " Impact on New England of Four-Year Delay of NEP 1 & 2 With a 3% Load Growth" by Robert O. Bigelow and Robert H. McLaren of the New England Power Service Company, August 1978.
301.75 Specify the t-ratios of the included variables in all regression equations and any other coef ficients presented in the National Economic Research Associates report to NEES. RESPONSE. The tabulations of the requested information as provided by National Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA) appear in Tables 301.75-1 thru 301.75-10. 301.76 Provide the weather-normalized winter and summer peak loads for NEES from 1970 through 1977. Provide appropriate contracted demands of municipals .ad/or other data which will f acilitate a consistent comparison of both summer and winter weather-normalized peak loads from 1970 through 1977. O F.1-18J
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 RESPONSE: Applicant's loads as reported in Table 301.76-1 are distorted by municipal contracts and certain other minor definitional changes. The distortion from municipal contracts can be renoved by deducting the " Contracted" figures in Table 301.76-2 fron the values in Table 301.76-1 for the appropriate years and adding to these figures the " Total Load" values in Table 301.76-2. Completely consistent figures will be found in the response to RAI 301.77. 301.77 Provide the applicant's consistent weather-normalized losd factors since 1970. With respect to the "best estimate" forecast, support the selection of the base year relative to the appropriateness for forecasting purposes of the load factor, peak demand, and energy requirements in that year. RESPONSE: The requested information is provided in Table 301.77-1. Because Applicant uses similar planning bands for both energy and peak load, computations of future load factors on a consistently defined basis will yield a constant value equivalent to the last historical computation. Applicant considers such calculations to be inappropriate. However, a load factor on the order of 60 percent is not considered unreasonable for association with the "best estimate" scenario. For a discussion of the rationale behind the selection of the base year for forecasting purposes, see the responses to RAI 301.72 and RAI 301.82. Applicant has used the same year as base for both its bandwidth forecast and its "best estinate" forecast. 301.78 Break down the "best estimate" forecast from Table 1.1-18A of the ER into the corresponding residential, commercial, industrial, and other sectors. RESPONSE: The requested information appears in Table 301.78-1 F.1-18K
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 301.79 Update for 1977 and 1978 any efforts the applicant has initiated to achieve energy conservation including attempts aimed at load management. Briefly discuss any future effects on load growth trends pursuant to State Energy Conservation Plans resulting from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163). RESPONSE: Applicant's efforts in the areas of energy conservation and load management during 1977 and 1978 were primarily continuation and extension of those programs described in the responses to RAI 301.11 and 301.14. Further description and a current assessment of Applicant's efforts will be found in a report filed by the Massachusetts Electric Company ( Applicant's principal retail affiliate) with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities on April 14, 1978. A copy of this report, entitled Optional Peak Load Rates and Load Management Program Filed Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 Respectively of Regulations Adopted by the Department of Public Utilities in D.P.U.18810, was forwarded to NRC on May 3, 1978 by letter NRC-N-71. Applicant has discussed the likely impact on electrical consumption in the NEES service area of federal and state government sponsored energy conservation programs and incentives in the response to RAI 310.13. At the time of that discussion it was noted that no coherent energy policy then existed at any level, world, national, state, or local. Such is still the case today. Recognition was also made at that time of the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (PL 94-163) under the provisions of which some 150 million dollars'was to be made available over a three-year period for the development and implementation of State Energy Conservation Plans which would guarantee a 5% reduction in energy consumption in 1980. The state of Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to receive a grant from the Federal Energy Administration (DOE) for implementation of its state energy conservation plan. Its plan was approved in April 1977, and set an overall goal of a 7.4% reduction in energy consumption by 1980. The aspects of Massachusetts' plan which impact most directly on the consumption of electricity are those relating to mandatory lighting standards, thermal ef ficiency standards for new and renovated buildings, and inducements for the business sector to conserve. Fbndatory Lighting Standards A new state lighting code designed to promote energy consciousness in building design and operation went into effect on July 1, 1978. It sets a power limit for all new buildings regardless of size, and for all existing buildings with total fh floor space of 10,000 square feet or more. The code sets F.1-18L
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 the lighting power limit by calculating the maximum watts per square foot allowed for different building areas. The sum of the areas then represents the total lighting power limit for the entire building. Accoroing to the 3 tate Energy Office, the emphasis of the code is on effective lighting, not darker buildings. A designer will be able to highlight certain display areas by making up for it elsewhere in the building. Building owners are required to submit specific data on lighting power loads to the state building code commission and local building inspectors by August 1, 1978. Necessary modifications are to be made by October 1,1978. The future impact of the code requirements is not clear at this time as many of the requirements are already being revised and rewritten in response to the reaction of the business community to the initial specifications. Even so, Applicant's experience in complying with the code as written is revealing. Applicant has completed survey of most of its buildings in Massachusetts and finds that with one exception all already comply with the new specifications without the necessity for further modifications, as a result of conservation efforts instituted by Applicant over the 1974-1976 period. The information as to the degree by which buildings owned by others also already comply with the new code is not yet assembled, however, a high level of compliance would not be surprising, for similar reasons. Applicant's exception to meeting the code requirements is its headquarters building, where the lighting system is an integral part of the heating system. A request for variance is being prepared for this building. In filing its data in compliance with the code, Applicant has found that not only are a number of the local building inspection departments unfamiliar with the requirements and dates of the new code, but they are undoubtedly under-staffed to administer it effectively. Thermal Efficiency Standards ?bssachusetts is in the process of developing thermal efficiency standards and insulation requirements for new and renovated buildings, along with the resources and organization to administer them. The impending burden to be imposed on local building officials by these regulations is recognized by the state as a major problem yet to be solved. The initial regulations are in accord with ASHRAE 90-75. Efforts to Conser;a in the Commercial Sector The Massachusetts energy conservation plan is heavily dependent on voluntary actions to . :hieve its goal of energy savings. The main focus of the plan is on the Commercial sector, for, as the plan cites, several reasons.
"First, the potential for energy savings appears to be F.1-18M
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER greatest in this sector. Commercial enterprises use the largest share of energy in the state, and yet they have had the poorest performance in terms of reducing energy use. Second, although there are strong monetary incentives for commercial users to reduce energy consumption, there appears to be a number of institutional constraints that block firms from taking advantage of energy-saving improvements. It is felt that the state conservation program could help to remove some of these institutional problems. Third, there are a number of cost-effective conservation measures ths t can improve the productivity and profitability of firms in the state..... Fourth, reduction of energy use by certain firns and groups -- hospitals, supermarke ts, municipal buildings -- can result in lower costs of services and goods and lower taxes for consumers and taxpayers. Finally, the inef ficient use of energy in the commercial sector presents a highly-visible bad example and causes resentmenton the part of individuals and families in the state."1 The state believes that the reluctance of the commercial sector to adopt strong conservation measures, reluctance it finds does exist, can be overcome by a strong program of education stressing how saving of energy can be accomplished while retaining or increasing business activity and profitability, stressing that energy conservation is a good investment and sound business practice. However, a 1977 study by the Massachusetts Public Interest Creup concludes that energy waste in retail business "has gone from excessive to more excessive in the past two years".2 In summary, the future effect on electrical consumption of one of the most progressive State Energy Conservation Plans in the country today is hardly conclusive. As previously stated, Applicant is very much aware of the tremendous interest and activity in the area of energy conservation at the state and federal level. Applicant believes that its planning band provides the appropriate and proper recognition of the potential impacts of energy conservation in all its forms, including those of state and federal programs.
REFERENCES:
- 1. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Energy Conservation Plan, Public Law 94-163, Energy Policy and Conservation Act; March 1977; p. 3-4.
- 2. " Individual, Sporadic Conservation Resulting f rom High Energy Costs";
an article in the New York Tines, June 29, 1978; Les Ledbetter. F.1-18N
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.80 What level of confidence is attached to energy and peak load growth ranges developed in the NERA report? How was the 5.4% "best estimate" growth rate determined to be the value representative of these ranges? RESPONSE: NERA's response regarding the level of confidence NERA attaches to the energy and peak load growth ranges developed in its report for NEES follows: in the present situation, we do not have an unchanging underlying social and economic structure and this enormously complicates the problem of estimating variation in a forecast. With regard to forecasting kilowatthour requirements, several sources of potential variation in the forecast may be identified. These would include:
- 1. Statistical error in supportinh regression equations as measured , for example, by staedard errors of estimate.
- 2. Uncertainty in projecting future levels of explanatory variables.
- 3. Uncertainty in projecting changes in government policy affecting consumer decisions.
Again, based upon related studies, we can offer a general estimate of the impact of these combined uncertainties, however. The range of low and high average annual growth rates, 1975-1985, in the NERA report to NEES is 4.3 to 6.4 percent with a middle value of 5.35 percent. This range appears to account for slightly less than plus or minus one stcndard deviation about a mean value at the middle of the range. No strong evidence of significant asymmetry in the estimated distribution of average annual growth rates has been observed. Thus, as rough estimates--and for the input forecasts of explanatory variables and associated standard deviations assumed--the following probabilities for portions of the estimated range in average annual growth rate values may be used: Average Annual Probability of Growth Rate in Kilowatthours Value Falling in 1975-1985 This Range Less than 4.30 percent 18% 4.30 to 5.38 percent 32% 5.35 to 6.40 percent 32% Above 6.40 percent 18% The NERA " middle value of 5.35%" has been labeled median by Applicant to designate that it represents the mid position F.1-180
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER of a range of symmetrically distributed pcssibilities. It O was calculated from figures for Total Sales to Ultimate Customers appearing in Table I-l of the NERA study. Gigawatthours 1975 1985 Total Sales to Ultimate Cust. 13,333 20,350 Low 24,756 High 22,553 Computed Median Compound annual growth 1975 to 1985(median):5.4% 301.81 What objective reserve margin for the applicant corresponds to the 23% objective reserve requirement projected for NEP00L for 1986 through 1988? RESPONSE: Based on a review of historical and projected required reserves of NEP00L participants relative to total NEP00L required reserve margins, the Applicant expects to have approximately 2 percent less required reserve than that required on the NEP00L coincident peak. Therefore, Applicant expects to have a 21 percent required reserve margin for the years 1986 through 1988. O F.1-18P
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.82 Note any studies done by NEES of recent trends (1975-1978) in econonic and demographic variables which would influence choice of the base year for projecting peak loads and energy requirements. RESPONSE: NEES' choice of 1975 instead of 1977 as the base year from which to project the long-term performance or trends in ir.s peak load and energy was influenced more by recently experienced peak load and energy denand directly than by recent trends in economic and/or demographic variables. As discussed in the response to RAI 301.72, NEES believes that the traditional linkages between economic / demographic factors and the consunption of electricity are grossly distorted at this time, and that particular care must be exercised that short-term or purely cyclical ef fects from the 1974-1975 reccssion are not erroneously identified as the early impact of long-term structural changes. Experience since 1975 has tended to confirm our judgement as to the "sof tness" of the economy-to-electric consumption ties. We continuously review data and forecasts relative to economic and demographic parameters for the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island , the New England region, and the nation. The patterns of progression of these factors are all relatively smooth after the 1974-1975 recession period, providing little economic reason to distinguish between 1975 and 1977 in selecting a base year from which to project future long-term economic performance. Among our sources of this information are: the New England Economic Project; the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston; the New England Telephone Company's publication
" Business Conditions"; the Conference Board; Wharton Fcononetric Forecasting Associates; and numerous business, banking, and investment house publications.
We have correlated Gross State Product (GSP) for Massachusetts, Phode Island, and New England with Gross National Product (GNP), and find the patterns to be similar pre , during, and post- the 1974-1975 recession period (see Table 301.82-1 and Figure 301.82-1). Comparing national consumption of electricity with GNP similarly shows complementary movement pre , during, and post- the 1974-1975 recession period (see Table 301.82-2 and Figure 301.82-2). However, when the consumptions of electricity within the 12ES service territory and within New England are compared to that for the nation, it is readily apparent that performances in 1977 did not produce typical or expected relationships (see Table 301.82-3 and Figure 301.82.3), and that of the post-recession years, 1977 provides the least appropriate base from which to project the long-term pattern of electricity peak ) - and energy demand for the NEES service territory, as well as the New England region. As noted in the response to RAI 301.72, 1975 still appears to be the most appropriate of the post energy-crisis years for this purpose. F.1-18Q
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.71-1 New England
-Sumner Peak-(1) (2)
Weather- Weather Adjusted Calendar Raw Peak Time Variable Sensitivity Peak Year (MW) Date (Hour Ending) Units Factor (MW) 1970 - - - - - - - NOT READILY AVAILABLE ------------------ 1971 10,915 7/01 1200 179 -31.0 10,853 1972 11,464 8/25 1200 173 -36.6 11,606 1973 13,679 8/30 1400 175 -42.0 13,163 1974 12,141 6/10 1403 162 -45.0 12,816 1975 12,822 8/01 1400 183 -52.0 12,510 1976 13,085 6/24 1400 169 -60.0 13,565 1977 14,234 7/21 1200 186 -65.0 13,649 (1) Summer weather-variable units are similar to a temperature-hunidity index; base value is 177. (2) MW per w.v.u. departure from base. F.1-26A
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 a l $
/
TAELE 301.71-2 New England
-Annual Energy and b' inter Peak-(3) (4) ,
(5) Annual Raw Weather- Weather Adjusted Calendar Net Energy Peak Time Variable Sensitivity Peak Year (GWH) (W) Date (Hour Ending) Units Factor (WT 1970 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOT READILY AVAILABLE - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1971 65,208 12,135 12/22/71 1800 - - - 12,026 1/17/72 1100 13.0 +53.1 12,47J 1972 70,587 13,548 1/8/73 1800 6.0 +59.5 13,631 1973 76,202 12,852 1/18/74 1100 3.1 +55.0 12,770 1974 73,216 12,891 1/20/75 1800 14.1 +51.0 13,376 1975 73,379 13,908 1/22/76 180d 2.9 +56.6 13,812 1976 77,918 14,725 12/13/76 18' 0 6.6 %2.0 14,849 1977 79,785 14,846 12/12/77 1800 12.8 +68.0 15,404 (3) Annual Energy is not adjusted for weather ef fects. O (4) Winter weather-variable units are F; base i s +4.60F. (5) W per FOdeparture from base. O F.1-26B
TABLE 301.75-1 Estimated "New England" Coefficients of the Regression Equations Used to Predict Cooking, Clothes Drying and Water Heating Saturations Dependent Variables Logit of Saturation of (1) (2) (3) Electric Cook- Totsl Electric Water ing (Net of Clothes Heating (Net of Independent Variables Utility Cas) Dryers Utility Cas) Coeffi- t-statis- t-statis- t-statis-cient tic Coeff{- cient tic Coeff{- cient tic I. Income 2
- 1. Personal Inca f- o cupied Housing Unit +1.47 +3.1 +0.85 + 3. 3 +1.28 +2.7 II. Price 2 p UN Nd
- 1. Electricief +1.67 +3.9 - -
-0.64 -1.7
'3 a
/, Ill. Housing m C' h3
- l. Percent Structures: 5 or More - -
-0.02 -3.8 - -
- 2. Percent Structures: Built 1960-1970 - -
+0.01 +2.6 - -
- 3. Rural Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing - - - -
+0.004 +1.6 4 Occupied Rural Farm Units as a Percent of Total Occupied Housing Units -0.05 -3.4 - - - -
- 5. Steam or Hot Mater Units as a Percent of All Year-Round Housing Units - - - - -0.03 -4.0
- 6. Seasonal Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing Units -0.01 -2.6 -0.005 -2.1 - -
IV. Temperature 2
- 1. Heating Degree Days -0.97 -1.6 +0.50 +1.9 +1.72 +2.9 V. Dummy variable
- 1. Utility Cas Availability +0.33 +2.2 - - - -
2 Coefficient of Determination (R ) 0.79 - 0.48 - 0.61 - 1 Coefficients of all included variables are statistically significant 73 2In logarithms g G b 3 Ut
m a-6 TABLE 301.75-2 3 m Regression Results of Net Usage of Electricity Dependent Variables Logarithm of Noncompetitive Use (1) (2) Personal Per Capita Income Per Income of Hcuse-Occupied holds with Cash Independent Variables 1 Housing Unit Income >$3.000 t-statis- Coeffg- t-statis-Coeffg- tic Income cient tic cient I.
- 1. Personal Income per Occupied Housing Unit 3 +1.61 +4.6 - -
- 2. Per Capita Income of Householde with Cash Income >$3,000 3 - -
+1.56 +4.6
- 3. Percent Households with Cash Income <$3,000 +0.04 +3.7 +0.02 +2.7 2
- m
.g g II. Price 3 a
I Electricity (1,000 Kwh-500 Kwh)/500 -0.48 -5.3 -0.48 -5.3 go y 1.
.048 - -0.48 -
y t:# Elasticity m III. Housing 3
- 1. Total vacant, Seasonal, Migratory and Held for Occasional Use as a Percent of Total Occupied Housing Units -0.01 -1.5 -0.01 -1.5
- 2. Katio of Rural Occupied Housing Units to Total Occupied Housing
-0.45 -1.9 -0.45 -1.8 Units IV. Sales Expenses 3 % .10 +1.6 % .11 +1.6
- 1. Sales Expenses per Residential Customer V. Temperature
- 1. Cooling Degree Days +0.13 +2.7 +0.13 +2.7 Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.81 - 0.81 -
1 Variables tested and rejected: humidity data; median rent; and percent structure - 5 or more units and built 1960-1970. 2 Coefficients of all included variatles are statistically significant. 3 1n logarithms
- O O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.75-3 Regression Resulte of Commercial Demand Model Independent Variables Dependent Variable Commercial Salesi Coefficient 4 t-statistic l I. Price
- 1. Electricity (TEB at 40 kw and 10,000 kwh) -0.39 -1.8 Elasticity -0.39 -
II. Income
- 1. Income per Household l +1.31 +2.9
- 2. Percent Households with Cash Income
<$3,000 +0.02 +1.9 III. Economic Activity
- 1. Urban Index +0.13 +2.8
- 2. Ratio of Retail Employment to Total Commercial Employment -1.29 -1.8 l
- 3. Number of Residential Customers +0.95 +24.52 IV. Cooling Degree Days l +0.25 +2.7 V. " Size" Dummy Variable 3 -0.51 -2.1 0.94 Coefficient of Determination (R )
l In logarithms 2 Coefficients of all included variables are statistically significant 3See text for a more detailed discussion of this dummy variable F.1-26E
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.75-4 Commercial Price Effects As stated on page III-9 of the NERA Report, the price elasticities used in the commercial forecast were taken from a model Kent Anderson prepared for the commercial sector. Coefficient t-statistic electric price -0.82 -2.81 substitute fuel price +0.81 +2.04 O O F.1-26F
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.75-5 Estimated Output and Price Elasticities of Electricity Usage by Manufacturing Industries in the United States (1) (2) (3) Alternative Industry Output Electric Price Fuel Price t-statis- t-statis- t-statis-Elasticity tic Elasticity tic Elasticity tic Textile Mill Products +1.18 +12.1 -0.632 -2.4 - - Paper and Allied 2 Products +0.98 +19.1 -0.56 -2.7 +0.41 +1.6 Chemical and 2 Allied Products +0.98 +19.5 -0.91 -8.2 +0.27 +1.7 Petroleum Refining +0.98 +17.0 -0.91 -1.7 - - Primary Metals +1.03 +18.4 -0.98 2 -4.7 +1.11 2 +2.4 All Other Industries +0.92 +10.7 -0.26 3 -1.4 - - 1 Assumes oil is the alternative fuel 2 Significant at the 5 percent level 3 Significant at the 10 percent level F.1-26G
"I)
(D i
?.
o 3 TABLE 501.75-6 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Cooking Fuel Derendent variables Saturation of (1) (2) (3) (4) On Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Electrig Utility ps Electric Net of Net of j Cooking Cooking Conki ngI Utility Cas M 11tv Cas (National) (New England) (New Engle g gew A lan g (Boston) Independent variables Coef.2 t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. I. Income
- 1. Percent Households with Cash Income *$3,000 -0.05 - - -
- 2. Per Capita income of huseholds with Cash Income
>$3,000 -1,19 - - - - - - - - -
3. I - - - - +0.71 +2.5 +0.24 +2.9 - - Personal Income per p:cupied Housing Unit +0.17 -
- 4. Median Family income - - - - - - - -
Z q 11. W fTl 3 yy 1. Electricity Elasticity
-0.74
-0.74
+0.56
+0.56
+1.3
+0.24
+0.33
+3.3 a
g & N % 2. Cas (or other Fossil Fuels) +0.65 - - - +0.27 +1.7 - - - -
+0.27 FTl Elaaticity +0.65 - - - - - - - -
3 111. Housing
-0.03 - +0.01 +1.3 -0.015 -2.7 - - +0.003 -
- 1. Percent Structures: 5 or More imit s
- 2. Percent Structures: Built 1960-1970 +0.02 - - -
+0.01 +1.9 - - - -
- 3. Ratio of Rural Occupied Housing Units to Total Occupied Housing Units +1.22 - -6.63 -2.2 - - - - - -
- 4. Occupied Rural Fara Units as a Percent of Occupied Housing Units - - - - -0.02 -2.7 -0.01 -4.1 - -
- 5. Seasonal Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing Units - - -0.01 -1,6 -0.003 -1.1 -0.002 -2.5 - -
(more)
- O O
TABLE 501.75-6 (continued) Dependent Variables Saturation of (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Electrig Utility gGas Electrig Net of Net of Cooking Cooking Cooking Utility Cas Utility Cas l (National) (New England ) (New England) (New EnglanQ (Boston) Independent Variables Coef. t-stat. Coef. t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. Coef.2 t-stat. Coef. t-stat. IV. Temperature l
-2.59 +1.04 +3.5 -0.14 -1.3 -0.82 2
- 1. Heating Degree Days - -
-4.8 -
N 171 H V. Dummy variables N I a H 1. 2. Utility Cas Availability Boston, etc.
+0.56
+3.7
+0.06
+2.2
.09 Re y
2 0.62 0.82 0.35 0.78 0.34 Coefficient of Determination (R ) - - - - - I In logarithms 2 Coefficient of all included variables meet differing levels of statistical significance 23 m 5. E. o 3 U1
D e
'G.
U. TABLE 301.75-7 @ ln Regression Results of Saturation Data for Electric and Gas Clothes Dryers Dependent Variables Logarithm of Saturation of Electric and Gas Clothes Dryer (1) (2) (3) National "New England" " Boston" Independent Variables Coef.1 t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat. N f.1 t-stat. I. Income
- 1. Percent Households with Cash Income <$3,000 -0.02 - - -
+1.01 -
- 2. Personal Income per Occupied llousing Unit 2 +0.18 -
+0.57 +3.5 - -
- 3. Median Family Income 2 - - - -
+2.78 -
II.
- e2
+1.4 z
y 1. Electricity -0.35 -
+0.18 - -
m
. Elasticity -0.35 -
+0.18 - - -
7 2. -0.58 - - - - Cas - N Elasticity -0.58 - - - - - p 4 PJ III. Housing m 2
- 1. Percent Structures: 5 or More Units -0.02 -
-0.01 -4.6 - -
- 2. Percent Structures: Built 1960-1970 -0.01 -
+0.01 +2.7 +0.005 -
- 3. Seasonal Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing Units - -
-0.004 -2.4 - -
IV. Temperature 2
- 1. Heating egree Days +0.24 -
+0.37 +2.2 - -
V. Dummy Variables _
- 1. Boston, etc. - - - -
-0.52 -
Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.57 - 0.50 - 0.88 - 1 Coefficient of all included variables meet differing levels of statistical significance 2 In logarithms 9 9 9
o TABLE 301.75-8 Regression Results of Ratio of Electric Clothes Dryer Saturation to Total Clothes Dryer Saturation Dependent Variables Logarithm of Ratio of Electric Clothes Dryer to Total Clothes Dryer Sat uration (1) (2) (3) Independent Variables National "New England" " Boston" Coef.1 t-stat. Coef.I t-stat. Coef.I t-stat.
- 1. Personal Income per Occupied flousing Unit l -0.62 -
+0.13 +1.0 - -
- 2. Percent ilouseholds wgth Cash Income <$3,000
+0.004 +1.5 -0.007 -
- 3. Median Family Income - - - -
+0.34 -
- 11. Price 2
- 1. Electricity -0.20 -
-0.09 -1.0 - - Z W1 Elasticity -0.20 -
-0.09 - - - p1
'g 2. Cas +0.48 - - - - - T I Elasticity +0.48 - - - - - -* $ R' X III. 11ousing PJ m
- 1. Percent Structures: 5 or More Units - -
-0.01 -4.1 - - 2
- 2. Percent Structures: Built 1960-1970 +0.01 -
+0.003 +1.5 +0.003 -
- 3. Ratio of Rural Occupied Housing Units to Total Occupied flousing Units +0.3 - - - - -
IV. Temperature 2
- 1. Heating Degree Days +0.07 -
+0.27 +2.4 - -
V. Dummy Variables
- 1. Boston, etc. - - - -
+0.005 -
Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.56 - 0.48 - 0.48 - 1Coef ficients of all included variables meet dif fering levels of statistical significance 2 1n logarithms 3
<n 5.
E'. O 3 CD
'D TABLE 301.75-9 $
m-Regression Results of Saturation Data for Water Heatirig Fuels { Dependent Variables Logarithm of Saturation of (1) (2) (3) (4) Electric Water Electric Water Water IIcating Net Electric Water IIca ting Heating of Utility Cas Heating Independent Variables National "New England "New England" " Boston" Coef.I t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat. I. Income
- 1. Personal Income per Occupied llousing Unit 2 - -
+1.08 +3.2 +0.71 +2.7 - -
- 2. Percent Households with cash Income
<$3,000 - - - - - -
-0.02 -
- 3. Median Family Income 2 - - - - - -
+1.08 -
II. Price 2 2 m M
- 1. Electricity -0.97 -
-0.45 -1.6 -0.24 -1.1 - - 9 g "*
I Elasticity -0.97 -
-0.45 -
-0.24 - - -
$ 2. Cas (or other Fossil Fules) +3.79 - - - - - - - E' t* Elasticity +3.79 - - - - - - - N m III. Itousing
- 1. Ratio of Rural Occupied llousing Units to Total Occupied Housing Units +1.11 - +0.27 +1.5 - - - -
- 2. Steam or Hot Water Units as a Percent of all Year-Round Housing Units -0.02 - -0.02 -3.5 -0.02 -7.5 - -
- 3. Seasonal Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing Units - - - -
-0.003 -1.1 - -
IV. Temperature 2
- 1. Heating Degree Days - -
+1.25 +2.9 - - +5.94 -
V. Dummy Variables
- 1. Utility Cas Availability - -
-0.14 -1.3 -0.08 -0.9 - -
- 2. Boston, etc. - - - - - -
-0.06 -
Coef ficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.83 - 0.62 - 0.58 - 0.64 - 1 Coefficients of all included variables meet differing levels of statistical significance 2In logarithms O O O
TABLE 301.75-10 Regression Results of Saturation Data for Space Heating Fuels Dependent Variables Logarithm of Saturation of (1) (2) (3) Electric Space Electric Space Space Heating Net Independent Variables Heating Heating of Utility Cas ("New England ("New England (National) minus Maine") minus Maine")
- 1. Income coef.I t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat. Coef.1 t-stat.
- 1. Personal Income per Occupied Housing Unit - -
+1.02 +1.4 +0.05 +1.2
- 2. Percent Households with Cash Income <$3,000 - -
+0.03 +1.7 +0.001 +1.2 II. Price 2
- 1. Electricity -2.43 - - - - -
25 nn Elasticity -2.43 - - - - - rn
- 2. Gas (or Other Fossil Fuels) +2.45 - - -
-0.03 -1.7 93 T' Elasticity +2.45 - - -
-0.03 - -*
S! UP p: III. Housing hJ m
- 1. Ratio of Rural Occupied Housing Units to Total 33 Occupied Housing Units -8.05 -
+0.97 +2.5 +0.04 +1.8
- 2. Percent structures: 5 or Hbre Units - -
+0.02 +1.9 +0.001 +2.1
- 3. Percent Structures: Built 1960-1970 +0.05 -
-0.02 +1.5 +0.001 +1.5
- 4. Seasonal Housing Units as a Percent of Total Housing Units - -
-0.01 -1.3 -0.0003 -1.0 IV. Temperature 2
- 1. Heating Degree Days -0.83 - - - - -
Coef ficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.80 - 0.20 - 0.20 - 1 Coefficients of all included variables r.eet differing 1mvels of statistical significance 2 In logarithms 32 a-b 3 U1
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER TABLE 301.76-1 O Total System Load (per ER Table 1.1-18) Feak Demand (MW) Calendar Total Annual Summer Winter
- Year MWH (000 omitted) (June-Sept.) (Nov-Feb) 1970 14,953 2220 2628 1971 14,937 2463 2812 1972 17,944 2551 3018 1973 li ,965 2926 2883 1974 3i,699 2788 3048 1975 17,080 2865 3046 1976 17,614 2925 3106 1977 17,581 3035 3171
- Winter peak demand figures have been adjusted to a standard temperature base of 15 F. Neither Summer peak demand nor annual MWH are routinely adjusted for weather effects.
O F.1-26N
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.76-2 Municipal Group Contracted & Total Loads Annual Summer Winter MWH (000 onitted) Peak MW Peak MW Calendar Totri Total Total Year Contracted Load
- Contracted Load
- Contracted Load
- 1970 0 -
0 - 0 - 1971 0 - 0 - 0 - 1972 0 - 0 - 0 - 1973 0 - 0 - 0 - 1974 0 - 0 - 0 - 1975 109.1 141.3(2 mos) 0 - 127 177 1976 961.1 1251.0 167 215 147 257 1977 842.2 1571.7 147 225 132 290
- Total Load is exclusive of any Municipal Own-Generation.
F.1-260
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER TABLE 301.77-1 O Total System Load & Load Factor (consistently defined) Calendar Total Annual Peak Demand
- Annual Year MWH (000 omitted) MW Load Factor * %
1970 14,876 2618 64.9 1971 14,873 2805 60.5 1972 15,880 2988 60.5 1973 16,867 2876 (2898 Summer) 66.9 (66.4 Summer) 1974 16,635 3035 62.6 1975 16,953 3066 63.1 1976 17,728 3185 63.4 1977 18,166 3306 62.7
- Based on Winter Peak adjusted to a standard temperature base of 150F.
O F.1-26P
N E P 18: 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.78-1 New England Electric System Companies "Best Estimate" Frat (000 omitted) Resale, Street Losses, Total Year Residential Commercial Industrial Lighting Internal Use Output 1975(act) 5495 4291 3390 159 3745 17,080 1976(act) 5728 4555 3646 160 3525 17,614 1977(act) 5704 4624 3691 169 3393 17,581 1977(est) 6097 4775 3611 160 2874 17,517 1978 6423 5036 3727 160 2742 18,088 1979 6804 5343 3866 161 2654 18,828 1980 7227 5683 4024 162 2671 19,767 1981 7601 6097 4209 163 2761 20,831 1982 7995 6541 4400 164 2752 21,852 1983 8408 7015 4601 165 2777 22,966 1984 8841 7523 4810 165 2780 24,119 1985 9294 8067 5026 166 2639 25,192 1986 9738 8629 5237 167 2781 26,552 1987 10201 9229 5456 168 2932 27,986 F.1-26Q
?
5. E 8 TABLE 301.82-1 m Cross National Product (1972 $) and Cross State Product (1972 S) U.S. CNP New England CSP Massachusetts GSP Rhode Island CSP Calendar % % % % (Billions of S) Change (Millions of $) Change (Millions of $) Change (Millions of $) Change _ Year 1960 736.8 2.3 44,930 2.2 22,774 2.2 3,253 1.1 61 755.3 2.5 46,315 3.1 23,564 3.5 3,345 2.7 62 799.1 5.8 48,599 4.9 24,616 4.5 3,525 5.4 63 830.7 4.0 49,797 2.5 25,091 1.9 3,591 1.9 64 874.4 5.3 52,538 5.5 26,366 5.1 3,792 5.6 1965 925.9 5.9 55,456 5.6 27,690 5.0 4,027 6.2 66 981.0 6.0 58,723 5.9 29,074 5.0 4,273 6.1 67 1007.7 2.7 60,699 3.4 29,956 3.0 4.433 3.7 g 68 1051 8 4.4 62,453 2.9 30,923 3.2 4,575 3.2 , 69 1078 8 2.6 61,105 (2.2) 31,873 3.1 4,623 1.0 y .M H 1970 1075.1 (0.3) 64,031 4.8 31,856 (0.1) 4,586 (0.8) , b 71 1107.5 3.0 64,036(est.) 0.0 32,055 0.6 4,437(est.) (3.2) y & 72 1171.1 5.7 66,356 3.6 32,971 2.9 4,792 8.0
# 73 1235.0 5.5 68,817 3.7 33,575 7.9 4,984 4.0 74 1217.8 (1.4) 66,384 (3.5) 32,193 (4.1) 4,729 (5.1) 3 1975 1202.3 (1.3) 64,551 (2.8) 31,397 (2.5) 4,450 (5.9) 76 1271.0 5.7 67,750 5.0 32,600 3.8 4,698 5.6 77 1332.7 4.9 - - - - - -
Sources: GNP: Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, Inc. CNP Deflator: Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. Inc. CSP: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 9 9 9
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 301.82-2 U.S. Sales of Electricity
- U.S. GNP Calendar % %
Year (Billions of Kwhrs) Change (Billions of $) Change 1960 683.2 - 736.8 2.3 61 720.7 5.5 755.3 2.5 62 776.1 7.7 799.1 5.8 63 830.8 7.0 830.7 4.0 64 890.4 7.2 874.4 5.3 1965 953.4 7.1 925.9 5.9 66 1,039.0 9.0 981.0 6.0 67 1,107.0 6.5 1,007.7 2.7 68 1,202.3 8.6 1,051.8 4.4 69 1,307.2 8.7 1,078.8 2.6 1970 1,391.4 6.4 1,075.3 (0.3) 71 1,466.4 S.4 1,107.5 3.0 72 1,577.7 7.6 1,171.1 5.7 73 1,703.2 8.0 1,235.0 5.5 74 1,700.8 (0.1) 1,217.8 (1.4) 1975 1,733.0 1.9 1,202.3 (1.3) 76 1,849.6 7.6 1,271.0 5.7 77 1,950.8 5.5 1,332.7 4.9
- Total Electric Utility Industry Sales to Ultimate Consumers, including Alaska and Hawaii, per Edison Electric Institute.
F.1-26S
?
S. T. TABLE 301.82-3 S un Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers U.S. New England NEES Calendar % % % Year Billions of Kwhrs Change Millions of Kwhrs Change Millions of Kwhrs Change 1960 683.2 - 26,570 - 5,534 - 61 720.7 5.5 28,652 7.8 5,865 6.0 62 776.1 7.7 30,558 6.7 6,181 5.4 63 830.8 7.0 32,086 5.0 6,382 3.3 64 890.4 7.2 34,207 6.6 6,778 6.2 1965 953.4 7.1 36,984 8.1 7,367 8.7 66 1,039.0 9.0 40,184 8.7 7,951 7.9 z 67 1,107.0 6.5 43,361 7.9 8,548 7.5 m
- 68 1,2M.3 47,386 9.3 9,340 9.3 5
. 8.6 { e 69 1970 1,307.2 1,391.4 8.7 6.4 51,373 55,454 8.4 7.9 10,047 10,911 7.6 8.6 y y
- 59,097 6.6 11,770 7.9 m 71 1,466.4 5.4 64,119 8.5 8.1 3 72 1,577.7 7.6 12,721 73 1,703.2 8.0 68,527 6.9 13,805 8.5 74 1,700.8 (0.1) 66,823 (2.5) 13,364 (3.2) 1975 1,733.0 1.9 66,894 0.1 13,333 (0.2) 76 1,849.6 7.6 71,173 6.4 14,087 5.7 77 1,950.8 5.5 72,751 2.2 14,187 0.7 Sources: U.S.: Edison Electric Institute (see Table 301.82-2)
New England: Electric Council of New England NEES: Company Statistical Reports 9 O O
2mm"2 0 $ mg o0 1 se h I l I i lll l I , l l[ . I llI ill' II l i a. =
" i7 5
I i \\
\ I\ lL
(,
'3 i
(
;\ = I I',
I , i
~
. i a f
./
#l / I )' " R I
4 1
=_ I A
E Y
.\i\ , \l{f /, t R A
, X* i7 0
D
,I,l N
\ E
'\ '
L
\ ,
A I i C i 1 \
\ ,' \s
\
h \" i I
'\ i
/ /
; I
,\
\
I a I
" i5 6 e P S
P G P S S
. G S GT D T D I N E N A
L S A U L
/ G H S E
I N C i I
\ E AE S D s
\
g P WS O
\ N E A H l
G N MR 1 I ' A. D. M R i e _ I
- ' A[L MR
- 0 6
- 9
- - - - - - - - - ~
d.
~ 1 7 6 5 < 1 1 a i 2 3 4 5
+ + + + + ~ - -
,a$y _<S5
>z%Cpr mM pd a $Z m Ms mZ >y on x 8gi<
Cm0Wm Z> sr mW cQ 5y $ 2mmaeN Ox0Wm Md aoOC] m$$ $ m.8j.R15tg IOCAm aO - ~ ZA . FN M. 7 un
N E P 18t 2 ER Revision 5 t fi / 4
~_~~~~__
_g
-e
._A a -
_ q._,.. t
- 4. ~s -
% g
" M -R p- - y a
'$ _ g' s
- g z
s a N 9- i g -s
\
4 9
%s I
'M !
,/ s$
4~, '
~~
O$ - l
y od
\
L 8 l l l l l 1 'l i I I E t- ? ? ? T T 7 7 7 o i 7 7 T 3DNVH3 % 1VflNNV ANNUAL PERCENT CIIANGE NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY U.S. KILOWATT IIOURS NEP1&2 GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (1972 $) Environmental Report FIGURE 301.82-2 NEP1&2 F.1-32
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5
,,-z -
- z_"',- _
~_
~~_
- '- ., _g
's 3
's >z z
\
\
- z _
\
z) -
/
/
z( N -R. 5
>z =
' s 5
-z s
;f u
)= -
.A z4 E -:g
' a x
s
% o _
's m 5 E
's i e3=
>z 3 5, a
' d w
,' o z z Y OC z
/ l 1
z O O 2 8 I I I I I i 1 I i
. . . . . . . . . = T ? ? i 3DNYH3 % IVONNV ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY U.S. KILOWATT HOURS NEP1&2 NEW ENGLAND KILOWATT IIOURS Environmental Report NEES KILOWATT HOURS FIGURE 301.82-3 NEP1&2 F.1-33
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The potential impacts of construction and station operation upon these resources should be addressed.
- i. Discussions with local experts during the site sisit revealed that a small commercial pot fishery for eels exists in Ninigret Pond. The fishery should be described and the potential effects of construction upon this fishery should be assessed.
RESPONSE: a. Representative aquatic species are identified and discussed in detail in ER Appendix G.
- b. Fefer to the response for RAI 340.30. l5
- c. The "n" refers to the number of fish measured to provide the basis for the histogram. Only 14 data points are shown.
- d. The responses to this question are contained in ER Section 2.2.2.5. The two commercial vessels that fished near the site, whose catch records are presented in ER Table 2.2-81, are essentially the only vessels that regularly fish in that area. Their catch, therefore, represents the magnitude and species diversity of the commercial harvest near the site. The locations of areas fished are presented in ER Figure 2. 2-64.
- e. The data tabulated below, taken from gill net and otter trawl catches in the late summer of 1975 and 1976, show three important species that were present and the percentages of the total catch that they comprised.
Inshore otter Trawl (BIS- A)
# Scup % of Catch 8 Butterfish % of Catch Aug., 1975 26 11.6 28 12.0 Sept., 1975 226 22.6 448 48.8 oct., 1975 59 7.8 348 45.2 offshore otter Trawl (BIS-C) 8 Scup % of C. itch 8 Butterfish % of Catch Aug., 1975 1 0.1 590 56.9 Sept., 1975 590 15.0 2696 68.5 oct., 1975 823 17.1 3142 65.3 F.2-31
Revision 1 N E P 1 & 2 ER Ninigret Pond Gill Net Narrows Breachway
# Bluefish % of catch # Bluefish % of catch Sept., 1975 49 14 126 34 Aug., 1975 214 31.7 221 58.5 Young-of-the-year fishes of these three species were seen to be relatively abundant in the site area. Young-of-the year bluefish were caught in Ninigret Pond with overnight gill net sets at the Narrows and near the Breachway. In September,1975, of 701 total fish caught by gill net, 27.4% were young-of-the-year bluefish. In October, 1975, the relative abundance of bluefish decreased markedly. In August, 1976, 41.3% of 1054 fish captured in pond gill nets were young-of-the-year bluefish.
The otter trawl data shown above includes all size ranges of scup. For this time period, young-of-the year comprised greater than 95% of all scup captured. All butterfish recorded above were young-of-the-year. From August - October, 1975, 1985 fish of numerous species were taken at the inshore station. Of this total, 43.3% were young-of-the year butterfish and 15.7% were young-of-the-year scup. For the same period at the offshore station, 9640 total fish were captured. Of these 65.8% were young-o f-t he-year butterfish and 14.7%, young-of-the year scup,
- f. (1) The tabulation below shows the catches of squid in otter trawl tows made during May-Octob er, 1975.
DIS Squid Catch Inshore Tow (BI S- A) offshore Tow (BIS-C) Month e sauid % of catch a of squid % of Ca tch May 113 22.0 40 2.9 June 54 37.0 55 5.7 July 8 4.0 131 14.0 Aug 69 29.6 188 21.0 Sept 125 12.5 307 7. 8 oct 211 27.5 368 7. 6 Total 580 25.5 1089 8.4 The greatest numbers caught y'r month were in September and october and for the F.2-32
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 350.19 Section 3.1, External Appearance In addition to the information stated in the EP, Regulatory Guide 4.2 requires the applicant to describe efforts made in locating facilities on the site to use existing terrain and vegetation to achieve seclusion and site screening as appropriate to the topography. In addition, the architectural design efforts made to integrate the facilities into their environmental setting and to create aesthetically pleasing buildings and grounds should be noted. A. The applicant should submit evidence of compliance with this requirement. B. The color scheme for the siding (as shown on the cover), i.e. , red and yellow, needs justification, in view of the aesthetic considerations intended in Regulatory Guide 4.2 and with the national goal of assuring aesthetically pleasing surroundings (Public Law 90-100, NEPA Section 101(b)2). The applicant should provide an assessment of the visual ef fects on the station and transmission lines on nearby valued cultural, scenic, historic park and recreation areas. This should include consideration of aesthetic impacts to transportation corridors and nearby residential areas. Since the plant, including basic architecture, will be a replicate of the proposed Seabrook Station, by definition the applicant has not complied with or given consideration to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3; i.e. , describe ef forts made to integrate the facilities into their environmental setting (the Seabrook Station does not have the same environmental setting). C. In order for the applicant to describe the architectural design ef forts made to integra a the facilities into their environmental setting and to create aesthetically pleasing buildings and grounds, he must first identify the aesthetic amenity resources of the site and environmental interf aces as specified in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Regulatory Guide
4.2. RESPONSE
The placement of the station on the site was primarily based on the superior foundation conditions at the present loca tion. This specific location yields an adequate exclusion radius. The NEP 162 PSAR Figures 2.5-14 and 2.5-17 can be consulted for an illustration of the site plot plan with bedrock contours. It can be seen in these figures that the bedrock is very near the surface and is of high quality at the station location. These bedrock conditions will facilitate construction thus decreasing construction related environmental impacts and costs. F.3-1
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O The axial orientation of the station was optimized due to two f acto rs . The meat important are that the circulating water system piping and structures avoid unnecessarily complicated yard piping and construction impacts on brackish pond-4E (ER Figure 2.2-4) are mitigated. Also, the present orientation decreases the length of the underground transmission f rom the station to the electrical substation. Due consideration has been given to the proposed site land use and aesthetic appearance. Applicant has proposed an extensive site restoration program. The site presently bas many airport buildings, structures and residences which are in poor maintenance and/or have been badly vandalized. As can be seen in ER Figure 4.1-1, construction related activities will be primarily confined to those disturbed areas; grading and landscaping af ter the construction period will leave these areas in a more visually pleasing state than currently exists. In developing this plan, extensive ef forts have been made to leave undisturbed natural habitats (ER Figure 2.1-16). Applicant's proposal for the management of the natural areas can be found in Natural Area Management Plan for the Charlestown Rhode Island Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Site. It should also be noted that Applicant has deviated significantly from normal power plant design practice in order to minimize aesthetic impact. All permanent power lines to and f rom the plant are to be placed underground and the electrical substation is in a well-screened location, invisible from the shore and U.S. Route 1. Also, for reasons of aesthetics among others, a once-through cooling system is proposed rather than cooling towers. Applicant commissioned an artist to provide a color rendering of the completed project. The perspective used was chosen because it of fers a raised vantage point accessible to the general public. The artist suggested that the red and yellow siding would be complementary to each other and the site area; Applicant agrees. These colors are applied as ribbons to the top and middle of the turbine buildings. This effeet visually reduces the height of the turbine buildings by continuing the flow of the horizon line. The horizontal qualities of the buildings are thus emphasized. As part of RAI 300.15.f, Applicant provides a visual impact analysis of the major important visually sensitive areas near the site. This response includes information on the aesthetic impact of the transmission lines. Applicant described in great detail its studies to select F.3-1A
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 appropriate transmission routing. Please refer to ER Section 3.9 and Requests for Additional Information in ER Appendix F.3. We especially refer you to ER Section 3.9.7.5 or transmission Visual and Scenic Features and Section 3.9.18.3 for more detailed comparison analyses. 340.8. Section 3.3 Plant Water Use Provide a figure showing the location of the settling basin to be used for some plant effluents during operation. Provide a description of the dimensions of the basin, the locations and details of the inlet and outlet, the hydraulic cnaracteristics of the pond (i. e. , the retention time, maximum capacity, free board, discharge flow rate, evaporative rate and seepage rate) and the projected inlet and outlet concentrations of such parameters as total and suspended solids and oil and grease. RESPONSE: The settling basin will be located as shown on ER Figure 4.1-1. The final design of the settling basin, including the detailed design information requested, is not available at this preliminary stage of the project. When established, the design criteria of the basin will ensure that the discharge effluent meets all applicable regulations, including those regarding the concentrations of total and suspended solids, oil and grease. 340.9 Section 3.4 Heat Dissipation System Provide the major dimensions of the intake and discharge structures on figures similar to those used in this section of the ER. Where the exact data are not available pending finalization of the structure design, indicate when this information will be made available to the staff. RESPONSE: Revised ER Figure 3.4-4, " Circulating Water Intake Structure", indicates the major dimensions of the intake structure. Preliminary dimensions for the proposed multiport diffuser are provided on Figure 15, page C.1-66 of ER Appendix Col. Detailed structural design will not be available until appro ximately 1 year prior to the start of construction. 340.10 Section 3. 4. 2. 2 Intake System Neither this section nor Section. 5.1.4.2 (Entrapment) discusses the fate of entrapped or impinged organisms. F.3-1B
Revision 2 N E P 1 & 2 ER It is thus unclear whether all organisms so impacted are considered lost. De applicant should discuss his rationale for not addressing this problem and for not including such a return system in his considerations of alternatives. W e applicant should also address the feasibility of a return system to deliver organisms to both Block Island Sound and Ninigret Pond. RESPONSE: Entrapped organisns which are subsequently impinged on the traveling screens in the on-site purphouse will not be returned to the ocean. Impinged organisms as well as all screened debris will be collected and transported offsite for disposal at designated approved disposal areas. Applicants rationale for not providing an on-site fish screening and return system is based on the offshore intake design concept which represents the best technology available for minimizing entrapment (ER Section 5.1.4.2) . As explained in ER Section 5.1.4.2 the fish entrapment potential of the proposed offshore intake has been minimized. Consequently, there is no anticipated need, nor rational justification for providing a fish return system for the relatively small numbers of live fish expected to arrive at the traveling screens. In response to questions concerning the feasibility of a return system to deliver impinged organisms to both Block Island Sound and Ninigret Pond, 23 Applicant has prepared a revision to ER Chapter 10 l (Section 10.10). 'Ihis revision addresses the technical feasibility, environmental considerations and cost associated with a fish return system. 340.11 Section 3.4.2.4 Minimization o_ff Thermal Shock to Marine Life On ER page 3.4-3 the applicant states that it is unlikely that marine life could reside in rising bouyant jets of heated discharge water due to the velocity of the jets, which is greater than the sustained swim speeds of the indigenous fish population. Since no data or references are cited in this regard, this is an assurption without substantiation. Further, "important" species in this regard have not been identified. Data pertinent to swim speeds and behavior of indigenous organisms of the NEP site should be ccupiled and the information applied to an assessnent of the potential F.3-2
N E P 1 & 2 EH Revision 3 RES PONS E: The numbers assigned to the " Diversity Cells" category in 2 ER Tables 3. 9-5, 3. 9-6, and 3.9-9 represent the totals of
" Highly Diverse Cells" through which alternate routes pass.
" Highly Diverse Cells" are those having component scores of 40 or greater using the values from ER Table 301.28-1
" Ecological Diversity Rating System - Categories ~and Scores,"
on ER Page F.3-20; e.g., a cell with the following combination of components (total score 40) would be considered " Highly Diverse." Mixed larest 10 Abandoned Field 5 Fresh Marsh 5 Upland-Lowland Edge 5 Pond 10 Class 1 Stream _ji Total 40 3 301.63 These questions concern the Millbury to West Farnum line; ER, Sect. 3.9.18.4.
- a. What is the height of the present 69 kV double circuit steel towers presently in the right-of-way?
- b. What is the height of the 345 kV wood H-fraeo structures that will replace the steal lattice towers?
- c. How wide is the present right-of-way between West Farnum Substation and Millbury No. 3 Substation? Will it need to be widened? If so, list the number of acres of each habitat that will need to be cleared. What will be the final right-of-way width?
RES PONS E: a. The average height of the existing double circuit 69 kV towers that are to be removed is 75 feet.
- b. The height of the proposed 345 kV wood H-frame structures will vary according to span and topography with average height above ground estimated at 75 feet,
- c. The width of right-of-way between West Farnum Substation and Millbury #3 is generally 250 f t. wide and contains a double circuit 69 kV tower li..e plus two 115 kV wood nolarm IIcas.
The existiag West Farnum-Millbury #3 right-of-way is adequate to accommodate the proposed 345 kV circuit. The tower line to be repisced diverges from the 250 ft. right-of-way at three locations for a total length of 3.5 miles. F.3-16A
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O 3 It is planned to align t'.ie new circuit on the existing 250 ft. right-of-way. Approximately 35 acres of second and third growth hardwood and coniferous (60%/40%) woodland will be cleared to allow for the shift in location. Approximately the same area of divergent cleared right-of-way will be allowed to regrow.
- 5. 301.84 Ey letter dated August 31, 1977, from Joseph Harrington to Larry D. Voorhees (copy attached), certain information regarding transmission facilities was supplied. The letter indicated that this information would be incorporated into the ER. This has not been done. We have used this information and it should be put in the ER.
RESPONSE: The ER has been revised to include the material reauested. 340.14. Sectio _n_ 3.9.3.1 Systems Operations - Phase ,l_ Expand this section to include evaluation of transmission. at 500-525 kV. Include an analysis of 500-525 kV at first stage partial energization for connection to existing 345 kV system presently operating in New England. Indicate where preferred or alternative routes will cross Indian owned lands and what specific procedures will be followed to acquire r ights-of-ways. Specify whether state or federal agencies are to be contacted concerning acquisition of rights-of-ways across Indian lands. 9 F.3-16B
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 4 301.37 Section 5.1.2 Thermal Plume Characteristics Use the attached table (Table 2) to provide the fo llowi ng information on the thermal plume. RESPONSE: Table 4-2, ER Appendix C.l A contains the information requested. 1 301.38. References to ER
- a. Refer to ER, Page 5.1-4, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. Provide references for the statement related to capability of fish reacting to horizontal vs. vertical currents.
- b. Page 5.1-2, 3rd paragraph. Explain in more detail the logic behind the statement relative to the predicted calculation of reducing entrapment to 1%
of standard intake. How was 1% arrived at?
- c. The discussion and bottom line conclusion reached on entrapment and the modified velocity cap is based on the west coast San onofre data, etc.
Impingement is site specific dependent on fish species (behavioral aspects), fish size, water temperature, etc. Provide more convincing evidence and quantitative data in support of a velocity cap design. Include such information as swir.i speed data and behavioral aspects (thigotrophic and feeding behavior) on the dominate fish in the area.
- d. Fefer to Marine Research, Inc., main volume, Page
- 51. No. 3 sta tes that in BIS and Ninigret Pond zooplankton numbers and species were evenly distributed in the water column and day and night samples had similar densities. Present statistical evidence of this.
RESPONSE: a. Information related to the capability of fish reacting to horizontal vs. vertical currents is provided in: Downs, D.I. and K.R. Meddock. 1974. Engineering application of fish behavior studies in the design of intake systems for coastal generating stations. Presented at ASCE National Water Resources Conference, January 21-25, 1974, Los Angeles, California 30 pp. Schuler, V. J. 1975. Experimental studies in the reduction of fish F.5-1
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER ' entrainment at offshore cooling water intake structures. Ichthyological Assoc., Bulletin . 12, 42 pp.
- b. The statement that Applicant's proposed intake structures will reduce the rate of finfish entrapment to approximately 1% of that obtained by a standard intake was based on the information presented in References 4, 5, and 6, ER Section 5-1, from which the following calculations were derived:
O O F.5-1A
Revision 5 Environmental Report NEP 1 & 2 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5
'2 site on approximately the same schedule followed by two additional units poses serious questions of feasibility.
As to the idea of building NEP 1 at Montague and NEP 2 at Yankee Rowe, NEP 1 & 2 are proposed as replicates of Seabrook 1 and 2. Substantial capital cost savings are anticipated in engineering and constrtuction. Building NEP 1 at one site and NEP 2 at a second site would substantially increase engineering and construction costs and virtually eliminate the advantages of replication as well as the cost advantages associated with constructing two essentially identical units at a single site, the second unit following the first by 18 to 24 months. The common practice of building two units at one site 18 to 24 months apart is recognized as a very efficient technique for levelling labor and optimizing construction management thereby reducing the capital costs of both units. Separation of NEP 1 & NEP 2 would result in a significant increase in the capital costs of each unit and is therefore very undesirable. Beyond this, there are savings in operation and maintenance costs to be achieved with two identical units at a single site. Moreover, there are obvious legal and contracted problems associated with the site changes proposed in this question. An agreement would have to be negotiated with the owners of these sites. In view of the problems that would be created by the construction of additional units, particularly at Montague, it is very doubtful that any such agreement could ever be achieved. / F.9-3
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 300.9 Selection of Candidate Areas (ER p. 9.2-3)
, Why is it not considered feasible for applicant to obtain state permits to build a plant in a state which it does not se rve?
Please be specific. A casual answer like that given to question 300.4 is not adequate. Four Corners (Arizona Public Service), Tyrone (Northern State, Power), and State Line (Commonwealth Edison) are examples o> plants in states not served by the utilities building them RFSPONSE: Applicant believes it is not feasible for NEP 1 & 2 to be constructed in Maine because Maine law (35 MRSA Section 2311) requires that a majority interest in jointly owned generating facilities be owned by domestic electric companies, whereas less than 5% of NEP 1 & 2 is owned by Maine utilities. Applicant also believes it is not feasible for NEP 1 & 2 to be constructed in Vermont because Vermont law (30 VSA Section 248(c)) requires approval of the general assembly before the required certification of public govu for a nuclear plant could be issued by the racific Service Board (PSB). 30 VSA Section 231(a) requires that a certificate be obtained from the PSB finding that the operation of the proposed business will promote the general good of the state. In addi tion, Section 248(b) requires that the PSB find that construction "is required to neet the need for present and future demand for service" before issuance of a certification of public good. The only Vermont utility owning a share of NEP 1 & 2 is Vermont Electric Cooperative, which presently owns only 0.200%. (Vermont Electric Cooperative is expected to acquire an additional 0.100% share.) Applicant believes it to be unrealistic to expect that legislative approval and a PSB certificate of public good could be obtained for a nuclear plant over 99% of which is owned by non-Vermont utilities. Finally, Applicant believes it is not feasible for NEP 1 & 2 to be constructed in Connecticut because land cannot be acquired for a power plant in Connecticut until the state Power Facility Evaluation Council (PFEC) issues a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-50k). The PFEC cannot issue a certificate unless it finds a "public need". There is a reasonable likelihood that the PFEC would find that the needs of Connecticut residents are the sole deter =inant of the existence of "public need" . This conclusion is supported by the fact that in determining whether to issue the certificate, the PFEC balances environmental impact against public need. Since direct environnental impact is almost exclusively local, it is likely that the public need against which the environmental impact is balanced would be limited to Connecticut. Such a finding by the PFEC would bar establishnent of generating facilities in Connecticut the primary function of which would be to serve out-of-state needs. F.9-4
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.10 Selection of Candidate Areas (ER p. 9.2-3) Why wasn't the New Hampshire Coast ider.tified as a candidate region? Seabrook, Philbrick, Lamprey Pond, and Odiornes Point were considered in the Seabrook proceeding as potential sites. RESPONSE : ER Chapter 9 did not identify the New Hampshire coast as a candidate region; however, during the siting process the Applicant was aware and f amiliar with this relatively small coastal area and the sites which had been identified by the NRC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Our familiarity with the area and its potential sites led us to conclude that there were no sites obviously superior to the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Charlestown, R.I. The basis for concluding that there are no obviously superior sites on the New Hampshire coaat is mainly the high transmission costs associated with placing an additional 2300 MW in the area. We estimate that the total transmission cost for NEP 1 & 2 located at Seabrook as Units 3 and 4 is $213 million (1985 dolla rs ) . The transmission cost for NEP 1 (Seabrook Unit 3) is $53 million and NEP 2 (Seabrook Unit 4) is $160 million. Transmission costs for potential site areas of Lamprey Pond, Philbrick, Gerrish Island, etc. are correspondingly higher because these sites are located f arther f rom the termination points. The transmission costs are based on the following routes: Unit 3 consists of the incremental substation work at the plant plus the following 345 kV lines: 23 miles, Seabrook to Boxford Junction (Mass.); 38 miles, Seabrook to North Andover Junction (Mass.). Unit 4 consists of 43 miles of 345 kV, Seabrook to Golden Hills (Mas s . ) , 32 miles of which is underground cable. A second consideration is the added cost for secondary containment structures which would be required at Seabrook but not at Charles town, R.I. The total added cost for secondary containment structures is $25 million. F.9-5
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O 300.11 Population Distribution (ER p. 9.2-4) For initial screening purposes, population densities greater than 1000 people per square mile were deemed unacceptable. Why? This does not appear to be an adequate reason alone for rejecting sites, as long as they are not ruled out absolutely under the criteria established in 10 CFR Part 100. This point is discussed in some detail in ALAB-471, Section II.B.2 of the majority opinion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. RESPONSE: The " unacceptable" classification was based on documentsl 2 published by NRC regarding population considerations in the siting of nuclear power plants. In view of the subsequent majority opinion of ALAB-471, the classification of areas with population densities greater than 1,000 people per square mile out to a distance of 30 miles as unacceptable for nuclear sites technically is no longer appropriate. It is Applicant's view that nuclear power plants as presently designed and licensed would be safe in high or low population cunsity areas. Based on our past experience with NRC licensing, we believe, howeve r, that it would be a useless exercise to propose to NRC either a nuclear power plant site or an alternative site in a relatively high population area, as long as a number of sites were available 7n lower population areas. (See, for instance, the Newbold Is'_. ' case. ) In the case of siting NEP 1 & 2, there are several potential sites in areas of low to moderate population density. The proposed site at Charlestown, Rhode Island as well as the candidate sites described in ER Chapter 9, represent a nudber of reasonable alternative sites and therefore, in our view, obviate any need to survey high population density areas for sites. Ref e rences:
- 1. AEC News Release, dated 4/9/74, titled AEC Makes Public Staf f Working Paper on Population Density Around Nuclear Power Plant Sites.
- 2. NRC Regulatory Sta:dard Review Plan, dated October 1974,
- titled Section 2.1.3 Population Distribution.
O F.9-6
t%
\
LC e
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.12 Region V - Merrimack River (ER p. 9.2-6). This region was rejected because of relatively high population density (as was the North Shore region). But Jackman Reservoir, Garvins Falls, and Litchfield have been considered in the Seabrook proceedings as potential sites. Are there any sites in Regions V and VI which are obviously superior to Charlestown? Provide the rationale for your answer. RESPONSE: Applicant found no obviously superior sites in Regions V and VI . Two sites within the Merrimack River Region were considered as potential sites. Both of these sites, known as East Pepperell and Salisbury, are described in the response to RAI 300.13. Table 300.12-1, developed with information taken f rom site selection surveys, indicates some of the reasons for the deferral of these two sites in the Merrimack River watershed. The Salisbury site was dropped f rom consideration at a very early stage. The site was very small (300 acres) with little potential for expansion due to nearby residential areas. Other disadvantages of the site included (1) much of the site is salt ma rsh, (2) the great distance to offshore water for once-through cooling, (3) high comparative transmission costs, and (4) a LPZ radius of only approximately one mile is available. Four important items influenced the deferral of the East Pepperell site. First, the required land was owned by eight owners which was likely to make timely acquisition dif ficult. Second, population density is comparatively higher than Cha rles town's . Third, the source of required closed-cycle system make-up water was approximately six miles from the site. Fourth, delivery of heavy and large dimension power plant equipment to this inland area would be extremely dif ficult and costly. Region VI was surveyed for a suitable site. The region is typified by many productive estuaries, wetlands, preserves and summer recreational areas. A site was identified within the region (Gloucester site), but was quickly deferred. Gene rally, the population distribution exceeded that of any site licensed at the time. Cooling water system conduit right-of-way problems were anticipated due to residential property between the site and the offshore water source. Additionally, a significant pumping head penalty would be imposed by the site grade of 100 f eet MSL. No other potential site was identified in this region. F.9-7
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 300.13 Selection of Potential Sites (ER p. 9.2-8) Which potential sites were examined and what were the procedures by which the potential sites were selected for examination? Describe the application of these procedures to the actual selection of the potential sites. (In the Pilgrim proceeding, the following potential sites were considered, among others: site 18 and Cape Cod Bay offshore. In the Montague proceeding, the following potential sites were considered: Maromas, Wately, Northfield, and Turners Falls. In the Seabrook proceeding, the following potential sites were considered: Litchfield, Rollins Farm, Moore Pond, Cerrish Island, Millstone, Montague, Pilgrim, Sears Island, Maine Yankee, Vermont Yankee, Haddam Neck, Yankee Rowe, Seabrook, Fox Point, Dover Point, Odiornes Point, Philbrick Pond, Lamprey Pond, Isles of Shoals, Raynes Neck, Argo Point, Phillips Cove, Elms, Shelburne, Dumme r, Gavins Falls and Jackman Reservoir.) RESNNSE: The potential sites examined in the preparation of ER Chapter 9.2 and 9.3 fall into four general categories: (1) large tracts owned by Applicant as a result of past siting efforts. (2) Land known to be potentially available. (3) Large sites with existing or planned generating facilities. (4) Sites identified f rom reconnaissance level data sources. Sites in the first three categories were selected for examination essentially automatically, by their nature. The following procedure was used to selected potential sites in the fourth category. Candidate Areas were evaluated, screened and selected in accordance with procedures identified in ER Section 9.2.3. The screening process by which the Candidate Areas were selected involved evaluation of the following criteria on a regional basis:
- a. Cooling water availability
- b. Population distribution
- c. Land availability and use
- d. Accessibility
- e. Transmission and electric system balance O
F.9-8
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Individual parcels of land, within the Candidate Areas were identified by reconnaissance level sources such as topographic maps, aerial photographs, discussions with knowledgeable regional individuals within Applicant's system, transportation maps, transmission grid maps, Environmental Reports and both aerial and ground observation. Criteria, similar to that used to evaluate and select the Candidate Areas, were applied to these individual parcels to determine potential sites. The attachment to this response provides a brief description of the potential sites and summarizes the application of the criteria to each potential site. The descriptions may not reflect the most recent available information in every case, as no effort is expended in maintaining current inf o rma tion on deferred sites. a F.9-9
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 ATTACHMENT To Questien 300.13 Region: 1 Name: First Connecticut Lake Location: Town: Pittsburg State: N.H. Water source: First Connecticut Lake USGS Quadrangle (s): Second Lake, Indian Stream Land Availability and Use. This site is located on the southern shore of the First Connecticut Lake which was enlarged by damming the Connecticut River and is used as a storage pond. The land immediately around the lake is heavily forested and the surrounding area is sparsely populated. Dairying appears to be the only significant agricultural activity in the vicinity and there is essentially no manufacturing around the site. The site is about 60 miles northeast of St. Johnsbury, \brmont, 90 miles northwest of Lewiston, Maine, 135 miles north of Concord, New Hampshire, and about 15 miles south of the Canadian border. At the present time, insufficient land is owned by New England Power Company for a nuclear site. However, a tract of land of approximately 10,000 acres currently owned by St. Regis Paper Company has been identified as a potential site. Assuming that this land could be acquired, a suitably large exclusion radius should be available. Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table. Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 470 0-10 1700 0-20 5500* 0-30 8400*
- Excludes Canadian population Cooling Water. First Connecticut Lake is one in a series of lakes located at the headwaters of the Connecticut River. The gross drainage area for the lake is 83 square miles, witt. a yearly average inflow and discharge of approximately 190 c.f.s. Inflow and discharge during the later part of spring and during the summer months is reduced to as low as 5 c.f.s.
Total useable drawdown is 30 f t. or 7.6 x 104 acre-ft. During those periods of low inflow, cooling water make-up would have to be supplied by the available drawdown of the lake. Maximum useable drawdown (30') could support a 7.0 x 10 4 GPM make-up requirements for approximately 225 days. F.9-10
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Since the average yearly runof f for this site is only 13.9 x 104 acre ft, the yearly reservoir discharge will be decreased to approximately half its normal value. A possible site for a cooling pond has been proposed for the Bog Brook area south of First Lake. The maximal surface acreage of such a pond is approximately 2000 acres. The cooling pond requirements for a 2400 MW nuclear unit approximates a total surf ace area of 3600 acres however. Thus, the utilization of such a pond for cooling purposes is not practical without supplementary cooling. Geology and Seismicity. A nuclear station at this site would be mos t af fected by earthquakes which have occurred in the St. Lawrence River Valley. An average New England design ground acceleration value is anticipated for this site. In general, the geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are suitable and adequate foundation materials. However, no boring data is available to determine conditions at the site. T ra nsmis sion. Transmission costs have been estimated at $206 million for Unit 1 and $106 million for Unit 2 for a total of $312 million. These figures are based on the following routings: For Unit 1 - 201 miles on new right-of-way 253 miles on existing right-of-way for Unit 2-84 miles on new right-of-way 118 miles on existing right-of-way Acces s ibili ty. Route 3, a two lane highway, passes by the site on the west side of the lake. The site is in the area to the east of the river. A road would be required f rom Route 3 and a bridge across the river to provide access to the site area. Heavier equipment would have to be brought by rail to a point as close as possible and trucked the remaining distance. One possibility would be to ship by rail to Whitefield, New Hampshire which is about 55 miles to the south. It has been determined that some upgrading of the rail f acilities would be required to accommodate the generator stator. F.9-11
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Region: II . Name: Montague Location: Town: Montague State: Mass. Water Source: Connecticut River USGS Quadrangle (s): Greenfield, Millers Falls Desc rip t ion. The Montague Environmental Report, Docket Nos. 50-496, 50-497, was Applicant's source of information. O O F.9-12 f
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: II Name: Northfield . Location: Town: Northfield State: Mass. Wa tersour ce: Connecticut River USGS Quadrangle (s): Northfield Description. The following is taken from the Montague Station Environmental Report, Docket Nos. 50-496, 50-497. The Northfield site consists of about 1,000 upland acres adjacent to and northeast of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project on the Connecticut River. It meets nuclear plant siting criteria in terms of population density / safety, hydrology, geology, and meteorology. Makeup water for cooling towers would have to be piped either f rom the Connecticut River or from the upper reservoir of the pumped storage proj e ct. However, by the end of 1973, only 10 percent of the site had been purchased (by Northeast Utilities) and many landowners remained reluctant to sell. F.9-13
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 O Region: III Name: Pontook Reservoir Location: Town: Domme r State: N.H. Wa te rsour ce: Androscoggin River USGS Quadrangle (s): Percy, Milan NOTE: The following includes summaries and conclusions from a 1967 intensive 24 month study of Pontook site by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Land Availability and Use. The main reservoir (proposed) would inundate 7,400 acres, including Thirteen Mile Woods, destroying irreplaceable natural beauty and resources. Even the well-conceived plan by Chas. T. Main would not produce recreational and fish and wildlife benefits that exceed the losses. Normal daily operation of the reregulating reservoir would create mud flats turning the now crystal clear Androscoggin into a muddy stream no longer suitable for industrial processing water so vital to the larger industries of the region. The probability exists that permanent swamps might be created in Errol due to higher groundwater levels resulting f rom the creation of the main reservoir. Population Distribution. Less than 500 people per square mile (ER Figure 9.2-4). Cooling Water. Pontook is encumbered by external restrictions not imposed on more economic alternates. Water cannot be used for power generation as needed, but must be released or retained to satisfy other necessary req uireme nt s. No recreational use would be possible on the 6-1/2 miles of the Adroscoggin River inundated to create a reregulating reservoir in Milan. The rapidly fluctuating water level and the tremendous discharge into the reregulating reservoir while power is being produced would pose a constant threat to the safety of humans and wildlife. As a result, all recreational development would have to be restricted to the area of the main reservoir. Although the engineering f easibility of the Pontook Project is clearly established, certain operating problems defy solution. Ice congestion in the reregulating reservoir could curtail power production when it is required most. The entire capacity of the plant could not be depended on in emergencies, except for very short periods of time, without producing serious downstream damage. T ra nsmis sion. The transmission costs would be similar to those of the Errol site. F.9-14
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IV Name: Somerset Reservoir Location: Town: Somerset Territory State: Vt. Wa tersource: Somerset Reservoir, East Branch of the Deerfield Rive r USGS Quadrangle (s): Londonderry and Wilmington Land Availability and Use. The reservoir is located in the center of Somerset Territory. No specific site was identified at this location. All the area around Somerset Reservoir is heavily forested and hilly and is completely undeveloped in the immediate vicinity. The reservoir is visible from Mount Snow Ski area about two miles away. With the exception of the transient population at the Mount Snow and Haystack Mountain Ski areas, no significant population clusters exist nearby. The location is approximately 105 miles northwest of Boston and 20 miles north of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company power plant at Rowe, Massachusetts. It is also about 25 miles northwest of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The nearest large population center is Pittsfield, Massachusetts which is about 40 miles southwest of the site. Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following tab le : . Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 600 0-10 2800 0-20 51,000 0-30 160,000 Cooling Water. Somerset Reservoir located at the head of the East Branch of the Deerfield River, is operated as a water storage reservoir for hydroelectric power generation and recreation. The gross drainage area for che reservoir is 30 sq. miles, with a total surf ace acreage of 1622.7 acres. Available water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, and natural inflow. Total storage capacity for the Somerset Reservoir comprises 1622 surf ace acres, with a total useable water drawdown of 80 feet or 215 x 109 f t3 Maximum useable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 10 4 CPM make-up requirement for approximately 190 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a gross drainage area of 30 sq. miles, the Somerset Reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 50 cf s average annual runof f. This is less than the required make-up. F.9-15
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Geology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the mcst aseismic areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site. The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available. Accessibility. Rail transportation via the Boston and Maine Railroad to the general vicinity appears feasible. Some upgrading of roads from the nearest railhead would be required. Reactor vessels and portions of steam generators may have to be field f abricated since rail and highway facilities are incapable of handling equipment of this size and weight without significant and costly upgrading. T ra nsmis s ion. Transmission costs have been estimated at $119 million for Unit 1 and $48 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $167 million. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 36 miles on new right-of-way 50 miles on existing right-of-way Convert 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2-66 miles on new right-of-way O F.9-16
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IV Name: Harriman Reservoir Loca t ion: Town: Whitingham State: Vt. Wa te rsour ce: Res e rvo ir USGS Quadrangle (s): Wilmington Land Availaht11ty and Use. The land around the reservoir is heavily forested and rather hilly. A few houses are located near the east shore. Most of the land in the vicinity is undeveloped and there is no significant agricultural or commercial activity in the area. No specific site selected; as a result no exclusion radius determined. - The reservoir is about 100 miles northwest of Boston, 6 miles north of the Yankee plant at Rowe and 20 miles west of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The nearest population center is Pittsfield, Massachusetts which is approximately 30 miles southwest of the site. Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following tabic: Distance (mil e s) Total Population 0-5 2500 0-10 6300 0-20 93,000 0-30 231,000 Cooling Unter. Located downrive r f rom Somerset Dam, the Harriman Reservoir represents the second in a series of water storage f acilities situated along the Deerfield River. Like the Somerset Reservoir, Harriman is operated for hydroelectric power generation and recreation. Availabic water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, natural inflow, and controlled release from Somerset Dam. Total storage capacity for Harriman Reservoir comprises 2,184 surface acres, with a total useable water drawdown of 92 ft or 5.0 x 109 ft3 Maximum useable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 10 4 GPM make-up requirement for approximately 380 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a net drainage area of 154 miles, the Harriman Reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 250 cf s average annual runof f. Additional make-up water would be supplied by the controlled release of Some rset storage wa ters. In combination, all three sources of water would supply adequate make-up water for a 2400 MW nuclear unit. Coology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the most aseismic F 9-17
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site. The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial t ill depos its. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available. Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $78 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $130 million. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 55 miles on existing right-of-way Conve rt 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2-66 miles on new right-of-way Accessibility. A transport route f rom the railhead at Zoar, Massachusetts on the secondary road system west of State route 8A to State Route 100 appears to be feasible. Route 100 borders Harriman Reservoir on the east. Some road upgrading would be required. The west side of the reservoir is visually inaccessible due to the steep topography. Reactor vessels and portions of steam generators may have to be field f abricated since a significant and very costly upgrading of rail and roads would be necessary to deliver shop fabricated equipment. O F.9-18
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IV Name: Rowe - Yankee Location: Town: Rowe and Monroe State: Mass. Wa tersour ce : Deerfield River; Sherman Pond USGS Quadrangle (s): Rowe Land Availability and Use. The site consists of a total of about 2000 acres straddling the Deerfield River in the towns of Rowe and Monroe. Yanke e Atomic Electric Company owns 1,862 acres and the remainder is owned by New England Power Company. Most of this land is on the east side of the river. The existing generating f acility is located on the east bank on the land adjacent to Sherman Dam. A 2900 foot exclusion radius could be possible. The site is less than a mile from the Vermont border and about 10 miles east of the city of North Adams, the only community with a population of more than 2500 within 10 miles. The closest city or town with a population of greater than 25,000 is Pittsfield located 21 miles to the south. There is no industry in the Town of Rowe with the exception of the Yankee and Sherman generating stations and the now operational Bear Swamp pumped storage project. A small paper mill is located at Monroe Bridge, a mile downstream from Sherman Dam. A hardwood furniture factory is located in Readsboro, Vermont about 5 miles to the north. About 10 percent of the land area of the surrounding counties in Massachusetts and Vermont is devoted to agriculture. No crops of commercial importance are grown in the area. Maple syrup is produced in the area. Large portions of the area are heavily forested. Nearby state and natf>nal f orests are unavailable for commercial use. At the site of the power t.lant, the elevation is about 1150 feet above sea level. Within a horizontai distance of one mile the hills on both sides of the valley rise to about 2000 feet. The steep-slope character of the river extends from Wilmington, Ve rmo nt , 12 miles north, to Charlemont, Massachusetts, 8 miles south s ou theas t. Extensive rock removal to create a flat area which would be large enough for constructing the station would be required. F.9-19
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Popula tion Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table: Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 1600 0-10 17,700 0-20 100,500 0-30 260,900 Cooling Water. Sherman Pond, located downriver f rom Harriman Reservoir represents the third in a series of water storage facilities situated along the Dec. -Id Rive r. Available water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, natural inflow, and controlled release from Harriman Reservoir. Total storage capacity for Sherman Reservoir cceprises 218 surf ace acres with a total useable water drawdown of 9 feet or 7.4 x 107ft.3 Maximum useable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 104 CPM make-up requirement for approximately 5 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a gross drainage area of 236 miles, the reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 425 c.f.s. average annual runof f. Additional make-up water would be supplied by the controlled release of Harriman storage waters located upriver. By combining all three sources of available waters, adequate make-up can be provided for two additional 1200 MW nuclear units on the Sherman Rese rvoir. Geology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the most aseismic areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site. The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available. T ra nsmis sion. Transmission costs have been estimated at $78 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $130 million. These figures are ba sed on the following routings: for Unit 1-55 miles on existing right-of-way Co nve rt 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2-66 miles on new right-of-way F.9-20
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 A c ces s ibili ty. A transport route from the railhead at Zoar via the existing road system on the east side of the Deerfield River appears to be feasible. Some road upgrading would be required. Accessibility for large equipment would be dif ficult and costly but is feasible for a cost somewhat higher than that of the Bear Swamp site which is estimated to be $70 million. Refer to ER Section 9.2.4.5 for a discussion of the Bear Swamp site. F.9-21
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: IV 9 Name: Dunbar Brook Location: Town: Florida State: Mass. Wa te rsour ce: Deerfield River USGS Quadrangle (s): Rowe Land Availability and Use. The proposed site is situated on a gently sloping terrace bounded on the east by a steep slope to the Deerfield River, which flows south approximately 100 f t. below the site. Dunbar Brook flows east towards the site between two mountains which rise approximately 700 f t. above general site grade. This brook is dammed just west of the site area and s canal runs along the west side of the site. The water level in the canal and behind the dam is El.1025 i which is 25 f t. above the presently proposed site grade of El.1000. Popula tion Distribution. Similar to Rowe-Yankee site. Cooling Water. Water would be withdrawn f rom the Deerfield River. An intake structure could be located north in Sherman Pond, in the Deerfield River or to the south in the hear Swamp lower reservoir. Hydrographic descriptions f or Rowe-Yankee are generally applicable for this site. Geology and Seismicity. The rocks underlying the site are interlayered schists and gneisses of the Cambrian aged Hoosac Formation which is part cf a north-northeast trending belt of intensely folded, sheared, and variably metamorphosed rock units forming the east limb of the Berkshire anticlinorium. An existing water well encountered rock at a depth of 50 f t. in the vicinity of the proposed northernmost reactor. A second well in the area of the east end of the site bottomed in overburden at an approximate depth of 90 f t. No rock was encountered in this well. Most of the site appears to be underlain by a thick sequence of sand and gravel deposits ac glacial till. A recent slump in the bank i dropping of f to the river . ine eastern side of the site has exposed about 100 ft. of these unconsolis oted deposits. The U. S. Geological Survey geologic map of the Rowe quadrangle depicts the unconsolidated materials in the northern half of the proposed site area as stream terrace deposits compesed of silt, sand, and gravel formed from pre-existing valley train or glacisl outwash deposits by downcutting, reworking, and downstream migration of glaciofluvial material (material deposited by glacial meltwater streams). The unconsolidated materials in the southern half of the site are depicted as water laid ice contact deposits. These are generally gravels, sands, and silts with minor amounts of clay which are deposited by glacial ocitwater. The southern half of the site is thus thought to be either a kame terrace or a delta formed during the last glacial epoch. F.9-22
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The site is located in one of the most aseismic areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site. Transmission. A new transmission system similar to that discussed for Rowe-Yankee would be required. Tecessibility. The Dunbar Brook area plant layout indicates an extremely congested site. Extensive site preparation would be necessary should this site be utilized. Uith only minimum space available for materials in the site area, labor and equipment costs for rehauling f rom downstream storage sites are estimated to range up to 10 percent above otherwise normal costa. Due to extreme difficulty in scheduling firm deliveries via truck during winter months, many items would require abnormally early delivery in order to avoid cons truction delays. These conditions would also require increased storage capabilities as well as River Road maintenance (even though a public road) to ensure all-weather hauling conditions to the site. In addition, improvements to River Road downstream of the Bear Swamp Project will be necessary. The road, in general, should be upgraded to a wider all-weather road. The bridge across the Deerfield River should be replaced with a more adequate structure capable of handling normal truck traf fic as well as the majority of personnel vehicles. Perhaps in coordination with operational planning for spent fuel shipments, consideration should be given to extending the B&M Railroad with a spur track from the Hoosac Tunnel on the west side of f or neerfield River up at least as f ar as the contemplated storage yards. F.9-23
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Region: V Name: East Pepperell Location: Town: Pepperell and Dunstable State: Mass. Wa tersource: Merrimack River USGS Quad .ngle(s): Pepperell Land Availability and Use. The site is located in the towns of Pepperell and Dunstable, in Midolesex County, Massachusetts. With the exception of the towns of Pepperell and East Pepperell, the area in the vicinity of the site is primarily rural in nature. The town of East Pepperell lies 1.5 miles west - southwest of the site. The Nashua River runs 0.25 miles west of the proposed site boundary. Lowell Road (Masssachusetts Route 113) borders the site on the south. The Massachusetts - New Hampshire border runs in an east-west direction two miles north of the site. Lowell, Massahchusetts, is situated 11 miles east of the East Pepperell site. Nashua, New Hampshire, is 7 miles to the northeast. A 2000 foot exclusion area may be possible at the site. The land is presently privately owned. Popula tion Distribution. The population distribution for the East Pepperell site was calculated. A 5 mile radius from the site encompasses the town of Pepperell (population 6963). A 10 mile radius includes parts of Nashua (population 55,820) and Lowell (population 94,239). All of Nashua, Lowell and Fitchburg (population 43,343) lie within a 20 mile radius. A 30 mile radius includes all of Lawrence (population 66,915), Manchester (population 87,754), Framingham (population 64,048) and parts of Worcester (population 176,572). The East Pepperell population distribution is less tnan the AEC guideline at distances of less than 8 miles from the site; however, from 8 to 30 miles, the East Pepperell population exceeds the AEC limit. Cooling Water. The East Pepperell site is located 6 miles west of the Merrimack River and 0.5 miles east of the Nashua River. Based on 48 years of historical data the average flow of the Merrimack River at Lowell, Massachusetts, is 7,055 cf s. The minimum daily flow for the same period was 199 cfs. The average flow measured in the Nashua River at East Pepperell (36 years) was 515 cf s. The minimum daily flow for that period was 1.1 cfs. The Nashua River flow in the vicinity of the East Pepperell site is not adequate for plant cooling requirements. However, the flow in the Merrimack River would provide suf ficient make-up water for evaporative closed cycle cooling. Make-up would utilize less than 2.2% of the average Merrimack River flow and less than 79% of the minimum daily flow given above. The F.9-24
N E P 1 & 2 ER ReWaion 5 Merrimack River flow at Lowell is regulated by the Franklin Falls Reservoir, and by Squam, Newfound, Winnipesaukee and other upstream lakes and rese rvoirs. Additional make-up water during periods of minimum river flow would be obtained from those bodies of water. Geology and Seismicity. The reismic history of the East Pepperell Region is characterized by inf requent, low intensity earthquakes. Three instrumentally located epicenters are located nearby. No nearby epicenters exceed intensity IV (MM). The highest intensities expe rienced in this region probably resulted f rom the Cape Ann earthquakes of 1726 and 1755. Reports concerning the ef fects of these earthquakes are scarce. It is estimated that the maximum intensity was V- VI (MM). A site located in E.:st Pepperell should expect an average or slightly below average New England design ground acceleration. East Pepperell, Matsachusetts, is located near the New Hampshire border in an area of Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks, overlain in many places by Pleistocene glacial deposits. T ra ns mis sion. Transmission costs for the East Pepperell site have been estimated at $32 million for Unit 1 and $14 million for Unit 2. These figures are basec on the following routings: for Unit 1-20 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 13 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 - 23 miles of I circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new. Accessibility. Massachusetts Route 113 passes 1000 feet south of the site. Route 113 connects with U.S. Route 3 at a point 5 miles east of East Pepperell. Massachusetts Rcute 2 runs in an east - west direction and passes 10 miles south of the site. Interstate 495 passes within 10 miles southeast of the site. The Boston and Maine Railroad runs tangent to the northwestern corner of the proposed site and of fers a direc t railroad line to Boston. There is a railhead in East Pepperell. Delivery of the major components by rail or over road f rom some coastal point would prove to be a major undertaking and would require a transportation study. However, it is generally known that the railroads and highways leading to the site are completely inadequate for delivery of heavy and wide dimensional componentns. The transportation facilities would require significant and costly upgrading, if it is feasible at all. F.9-25
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER The Merrimack River may of fer water access to as far as Lawrence, O Massachusetts, without encountering dams. Utilization of the Merrimack River for a water approach is contingent upon the spacing and clearance of bridges en route from Newburyport to Lawrence. O O F.9-26
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: V Name: Salisbury Location: Town: Salisbury State: N.H. Wa tersource: Merrimack River USGS Quadrangle (s): Newburyport East Newburyport West Land Availability and Use. The site, owned by Applicant, is located on the north bank of the Merrimack River about 2-1/4 miles inland from Salisbury Beach. It is about 35 miles north-northeast of Boston and 31 miles east-southeast of Manchester, New Hampshire. The nearest large population center is Haverhill, Massachusetts 12 miles to the west. The town of Newburyport is directly across the river less than two miles away. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts maintains a state beach and park with numerous campsites. The immediate vicinity is moderately populated and several houses are located along Ferry Road which borders the site. Much of the site area consists of salt marsh. There is a shellfish and sport fishery in the area. Based on the assumed restrictions on use of the marsh area, it would be fortunate to obtain an exclusion radius of even 1000 feet. Expa nsion of the site to increase this radius appears im eractical because of the houses in the' direction of the required expansion. Population Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table: Distance (miles) T,etal Population 0-5 33,000 0-10 66,200 0-20 470,700 0-30 1,291,000 The population distribution approximates that of the Zion station which has been licensed. Zion, which is influenced by the Chicago area, is the second mos densely populated site which has been licensed to date. Cooling Water. Once-through cooling is nossible at this site. At the site location the Merrimack River experiences tidal reversals and is deep enough to provide adequate water for the intake to a once-through cooling system. Ext ens ive ice flows and ice blockage are known to occur locally in the river which could pose engineering and maintenance problems for an intake structure on the river. Of fshore f atake and discharge structures could be located about 3000 feet off Salisbury Beach thus making the total distance from the site to the offshore intake or discharge about three miles. Swif t tidal currents in excess of 2 knots are reported in the Merrimack River and F.9-27
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O adjacent to the river entrance. These currents would encourage dispersion and dilution of the thermal plume. Storm Exposure and Flooding. The present site grade elevation of about 10 feet MSL would have to be raised to 20 feet MSL to protect safety related s tructures from flooding. Transmis sion. Transmission costs have been estimated at $115 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total of $167 million. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1-51 miles on new right-of-tray 26 miles underground from Salisbury to Salem for Unit 2 - 5 miles on railroad right-of-way Accessibility. There are good rail and road facilities near the site and heavy components could be barged. A barge docking and unloading f acility would be required at the site. O F.9-28
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: VI Name: Gloucester Location: Town: Gloucester State: Mass. Wa tersource: Gloucester Harbor; Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Gloucester Land Availability and Use. This site is located about 2000 feet inland f rom the shoreline of Gloucester Harbor near Norman's Woe. The site includes the Gloucester dump, a sanitary landfill. Precise boundaries were not available and it is understood that the land may be of fered for sale by the town of Gloucester. This site is located at the edge of the Magnolia section of Gloucester, a fashionable and moderately densely populated residential area. The site is about 25 miles northeast of downtown Boston. An exclusion radius has not been determined due to uncertainty of site boundaries. Popula tion Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table: Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 33,000 0-10 101,000 0-20 547,000 0-30 2,733,000 This is a high population density which is about the same as that of Zion out to 10 miles and exceeds it beyond that distance. Cooling Water. Glo" ester Harbor and Massachusetts Bay provide an ample supply of cooling water. Water of adequate depth for of fshore intake and discharge is found about 1500 feet of f Norman's Woe Cove. This area ia crowded with fishermen and lobster traps in the summer. Difficulty in obtaining a right of way for conduits would probably be encountered since residential property is between the site and the water. In addition, the site grade of 100 feet MSL imposes a signficant pumping head penalty. Geology and Seismicity. Specific information is not available. However, there is overburden of questionable character at the dump. Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $238 million for Unit 1 and $168 milliar for Unit 2 for a total of $416 million. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 20 miles underground to Salem F.9-29
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 2 underground cables 14-1/2 miles each. One cable continues 16 O miles on existingon existing right of way. Second cable continues 7 miles on existing right of way. for Unit 2 - 40 miles underground to Seabrook Ac cessibili ty. Road transportation is generally good in the area. Barge delivery of components would be feasible if a right-of-way from the water to the site could be obtained. O k O F.9-30
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revis;on 5 Region: VII Name: Plymouth Location: Town: Plymouth State: Mass. Wa tersource: Cape Cod Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Manome t Land Availability and Use. There are several candidate sites in the Town of Plymouth. These sites are located along a section of shoreline of Cape Cod Bay that extends from Sagamore Beach north to Rocky Point. Site 1 is located on Rocky Point, in the vicinity of the Boston Edison Pilgrim Station. Site 2 is located 0.5 miles inland, near cranberry bogs, on a latitude with Center Hill Point. Site 3 is located 1.5 miles inland, to the northwest of Eastland Heights and Savery Pond. Site 4 is located 0.5 miles inland, south of Mountain Hill, on a latitude with Lookout Point. Each site can provide an exclusion radius of approximately 0.5 miles. Population Distribution. All four candidate Plymouth sites lie within 8 miles of Pilgrim Station, located on Rocky Point. Therefore, the population data for Pilgrim Station may be applied to the Plymouth sites as well. The population distribution for the Plymouth sites exceeds the average, but is less than both the maximum figures for seashore sites and the AEC guideline. Cooling Water. Since all four candidate Plymouth sites are located within 1.5 miles of Cape Cod Bay, once-through cooling may be feasible for those sites. A 30-foot water depth is reached within a 1.5 mile distance of f any of the sites. However, the depth of bedrock may exclude a tunnel conduit. Geology and Seismicity. The Plymouth to Cape Cod region has a history of low seismic activity. There are no instrumentally located epicenters within the region and no epicenters in recent times. The highest intensities experienced in the region were VII (MM) during the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. It should be noted that the high intensities were probably a function of poor soil conditions. A site within this area should anticipate an average New England design acceleration value. This region consists primarily of Cenozoic glacial and alluvial sediments of the Atlantic Caastal Plain, lying on rocks of Paleozoic age. Transmission. Transmission costs for the general area have been estimated to be approximately $124 million for two units. However, transmission reliability and stability from this region are of concern, particularly in comparison to Rhode Island. Refer to the response to RAI 300.7 for further discussion. F.9-31
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Accessibility. Massachusetts Route 3A and Route 3 run roughly parallel 9 and serve the length of coastline of interest. A barge unloading facility would be required to be constructed along the shoreline. 9 O F.9-32
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: VIII Name: Elizabeth Islands Location: Town: Dukes County State: Mass. Wa tersour ce: Buzzards Bay (N and NW); Vineyard Sound (S and SW). USGS Quadrangle (s): Cuttyhunk Size: 145 acre island, Uncatena 1sland; 2000 foot exclusion radius Land Availability and Use. Ti.e Elizabeth Islands are located between Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound, southwest of Woods Hole. It is believed that the islands are owned by a wealthy family. Boaters are allowed to use the beaches but no camping is permitted. The islands themselves have f ew residences. One possible site is Uncatena Island, located two miles southwest of Woods Hole. This island is separated f rom the neighboring islands by the Northwest Cutter and f rom Woods Hole by the Woods Hole passage. Population. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table: Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 1,10 0 0-10 16,200 0-20 204,000 0-30 430,000 These figures represent permanent residents only and do not account for the large transient summer population or the student population at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The permanent population figures are in line with other licensed sites. Cooling Water. Uater depths of 30 feet or greater are located approximately 1000 feet to the northwest. Once-through cooling is the preferred scheme. Geology and Seismicity. No detailed evaluation of seismicity was made. However, it is estimated that an average or below average New England design acceleration value would be applied to this site. It is anticipated that a thick overburden layer (about 1000 feet) would be encountered. Storm Exposure and Flooding. Flood protection would probably be required. Transmission. Costs not estimated. Unde rwater construction would be necessary. F.9-33
Revision 5
.O
<g Accessibility. Barge delivery of equipment could be provided. No roads service the islands. The labor force would have to be ferried.
9 O F.9-34
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IX Name: Slocums Neck Location: Town: Dartmouth State: Mass. Wa te rsource : Rhode Island Sound, Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): New Bedford, South: Westport Land Availability and Use. Sandy beaches bound the site on the south and east. Allens Pond lies to the immediate west of the site. Demarest Lloyd Memorial State Park is situated on Slocums Neck, just northeast of the site > to the east of Barneys Joy Road. With the exception of the park, most of the land in the immediate vicinity of the site is either low lensity housing, salt marsh or beach. Much of the open land in Dartmouth to tae north and northwest of Slocums Neck is used for dairy farming. New Bedford, Massachusetts, is situated seven miles NNE of the Slocums Neck site. Fall River, Massauhusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, lie 15 and 31 miles, respective'v, northwest of the site. Three hu sses are situated within the 3000 foot exclusion area. A large barn is located in the open area in the southern section of the site. The exclusion area consists of open land which slopes up gradually f rom the beach to higher ground (45 foot elevation) on the broad ridgeline which runs along the center of Slocums Neck. The entire exclusion area appears suitable for the location of buildings and equipment associated with power generating f acilities. A " low population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available at this site. Popula tion Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following t ab le : Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 8,133 0-10 78,832 0-20 377,149 0-30 803,735 There are no densely populated urban areas within a 5 mile radius of the site. A 10 mile radius encompasses much of New Bedford (population 101,777) and Fairhaven, Mass. (population 16,332) . The 20 mile radius includes all of Fall River (population 96,898) and Somerset, Mass. (population 18,088), Newport, Rhode Island (population 34,562) and part of Bristol, Rhode Island (population 17,860). Taunton, Mass. (popula tion 43,756) and much of the Greater Providence area lie within a 30 mile radius f rom the site. - At all distances from the site, the population distribution for 31ocums Neck is less than the 1972 maximum cumulative population for seashore F.9-35
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER sites as well as the AEC guideline. 4 Cooling Water. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for the Slocuns Neck site. The tidal current of f South Dartmouth is generally of greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay. A water depth of 30 feet is reached at a distance of approximately one-half mile to the south and southeast of the site. The waters to the east and northeast of the site (between Slocums Neck and Smith Neck) are considerably s hallowe r. The water quality rating for the coastal waters in the vicinity of the Slocums Neck site is " Class SA". Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-VI (MM), resulting from the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value. The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Prer imbrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region. T ra nsmis sion. Transmission costs for the Slocums Neck site have been estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and $45 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 63 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 20 miles of I circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 - 72 miles of I circuit 345 kv line All of the required additional transmission lines are new. Acces s ibili ty. The nearest major highways are U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 which run parallel through a point 9 miles north of the site. U.S. Route 6 links Hartford and Providence with Cape Cod. Interstate 195 connects Providence with New Bedford. The railroad nearest to the Slocums Neck site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 9.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line of fers a line to both Boston and Providence. F.9-36
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 The waters of f the east coast of Slocums Neck are open and of fer a sandy bottom to a distance of 200 to 300 yards of fshore; therefore, it appears feasible to barge the necessary equipment and reactor components to that shore. F.9-37
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: IX Name: Stony Point
, Location: Town: Wareham State: Mass.
Watersource: Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Onset Size: 390 acres; 3000 foot exclusion radius Land Availability and Use. Stony Point is situated on Great Neck, along the northern shore of Buzzards Bay, near the western entrance to the Cape Cod Canal. Buzzards Bay borders the site on the south; the Widows Cove and Cape Cod Canal, on the east; and Onset Bay on the north. New Bedford, Fbssachusetts, lies 17 miles southwest of the site. Plymouth is located 17 miles to the north. Providence, Rhode Island, lies 40 miles west of the Stony Point site; Boston, Mass. , 50 miles NNW. The major portion of this 390 acre site appears to be owned by the Sacred Heart Seminary. Based on a study of other ownership in the area, there are 12 to 15 owners that must be dealt with at the Stony Point site. Private ownership is extensive in the area of interest. Numerous buildings are situated on the individual tracts, and the property value appears to be subs tantial. A " low population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available at this site. The 3000 foot exclusion area consists primarily of gradually sloping terrain which rises toward Tempes Knob, a hilly area in the southwestern corner of the site. About 20 acres of marshland are located along the shoreline in the vicinity of Cedar Point. The proposed Stony Point site is approximately 7 miles to the northwest of the major runway at Otis Air Force Base. In addition, the site will be a maximum of one mile from the centerline of this runway. Popula tion Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table: Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 19,324 0-10 49,069 0-20 269,529 D-30 636,249 A 5 mile radius from the site encompasses the Towns of Wareham (population 13,516) and Bourne, Massachusetts (population 14,628). A 10 mile radius includes no additional urban areas with a population of greater O F.9-38
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 than 10,000. A 20 mile radius includes the City of Plymouth (population 25,546), Middleboro (population 20,000), New Bedford (population 101,777) and Fairhaven, Massachusetts (population 16,332). The 30 mile radius encompasses parts of Brockton (population 89,040) and all of Taunton (population 43,7 56), Somerset (population 18,088) and Fall River, Massachusetts (popula tion 96,898) . Cooling Water. Waters of Buzzards Bay lie to the south of Stony Point site. The Cape Cod Canal borders the site on the northeast. Based on the criterion of water availability, the use of once-through cooling may be f easible for the Stony Point site. The spring tidal currents in the Cape Cod Canal approach 4.0 knots. However, typical currents in the upper reaches of Buzzards Bay in the vicinity of Wareham and Marion are considerably weaker than those occurring of f Dartmouth. The water depths are relatively shallow in the vicinity of the Stony Point site. The Stony Point Dike extends 2.0 miles to the southwest of the site. Water depths to the west of the dike are less than 20 feet. To the east of the dike, the maximum water depth is 25 feet. A 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of 3 miles southwest of the site, in the approximate middle of Buzzards Bay on a latitude with Butler Point. Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wa reham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V- VI (HM), resulting f rom the Cape Ann earthquake cf 1755. A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value. The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region. T ra ns mis s ion. Transmission costs for the Stony Point site have been e s t ima ted at $63 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2. These figures ara based on the following routings: for Unit 1-36 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 30 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 - 37 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new. Accessibility. A series of light-duty and unimproved roads crisscross the proposed site area. Three miles north of the site, these roads join F.9-39
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Massachusetts Route 25 and U.S. Route 6, which of fer direct links to Bos ton and Providence, respectively. The railroad line nearest to the site is a Penn Central multiple track line which passes 2.5 miles north of the site. This line links Boston, Providence, New Bedford and andas on Cape Cod. Buzzards Bay of fers direct water access from Rhode Island Sound to the Stony Point site. The site may also be approached from Cape Cod Bay via the 800 foot wide Cape Cod Canal. The Widows Cove on the east side of the site appears to be an excellent barge landing site which provides protected, sandy beach zones. The south shore of the Stony Point site also of fers a good landing site in the lee of the Stony Point Dike. Other. A potential impact to the Stony Point site is its proximity to the Cape Cod Canal shipping lane. Dry freight and petroleum product tanke rs and barges utilize the canal extensively in traveling between Boston and New York. As of this time (1974), Liquid Natural Gas tankers have not been reported to frequent the canal, however, some LNG barge traf fic was noted in the first three months of 1974. The tonnage for January, February, and March 1974 was 12,000, 9,700, and 6,000 tons, respectively. The only restrictions placed on any ocean going vessel entering the canal are:
- 1. That it must have a draf t not more than 23 feet.
- 2. That the height of the vessel cannot be greater than 135 feet above the waterline.
O F.9-40
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IX Name: Allens Pond Location: Town: Dartnouth State: Mass. Watersource: Rhode Island Sound; Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): We s tpo rt ; New Bedford South Land Availability and Use. Allens Pond, itself, bounds the site area (approximately 1330 acres) on the south. Horseneck Road forms the western site boundary. Horseneck Road and Allens Neck Road correspond to the northern boundary of the site. Jordan Road constitutes the eastern site boundary. New Bedford, Massachusetts, is situated 8 miles northeast of the Allens Pond site. Fall River, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, lie 14 and 30 miles, respectively, northwest of the site. With the exception of a plot of houses located in back of Horseneck Beach, to the southwest of Allens Pond, most of the land in the vicinity of the site is either low density housing, salt marsh or beach. IMch of the open land in Dartmouth to the north of Allens Pond is used for dairy farming. Land ownership investigations indicated that the major portion of the site property is unavailable for private purchase. The topography of the Allens Pond site area is characterized by a gradual slope fron higher hilltop elevations (105 feet) north of Horseneck Beach Road down to low lying saltwater marshland along the northern shore of Allens Pond. Two streams, one of which is intermittent, flow north-south across the site area to Allens Pond. An exclusion radius of 2000 feet can be measured from the outer walls of the two reactor vessels. Population Distribution. Less than 30 houses are located within a 1 mile radius from the center of the Allens Pond site. Most of these residences are situated along the roads on the periphery of the site area. The Allens Pond site lies in juxtaposition to the Slocums Neck site; therefore, there would not be a significant variation in their respective population distributions at radii of 1 to 30 miles from the site, and thus Slocums Neck population data can be applied to the Allens Pond site as well. Cooling Water. Allens Pond, located to the immediate south of the site area, is not considered to be an acceptable potential source of cooling wa ter, although the pond is connected to Rhode Island Sound by means of an inlet through Little Beach. Instead , it will be necessary to intake , cooling water directly f rom Rhode Island Sound. This would be accomplished F.9-41
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER by routing an intake to the site either from the south (of f Little Beach) O or from the east (between Barneys Joy Point and Deepwater Point). The average distance from the southern edge of the site area across Allens Pond to Rhode Island Sound is 2300 feet. The minimum distance from the site area to the east across Slocums Neck to Rhode Island Sound is approximately 1600 feet. The use of once-through cooling appears to be feasible for the Allens Pond site. The tidal current of f South Dartmouth is generally of significantly greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay. To the south of the site, of f Little Beach, a water depth of 30 feet can be reached at a distance of 3200 feet offshore. To the east of the site, in the cove between Slocums Neck and Smith Neck, the water depth is considerably shallower. However, a water depth of 30 feet is reached at a distance of 3200 feet southeast of Barneys Joy Point. Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-VI (MM), resulting f rom the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value. The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region. Transmission. Transmission costs for the Allens Pond site have been These estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and $45 million for Unit 2. figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 63 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 20 miles of I circuit 245 kv line for Unit 2-72 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new. Accessibility. Several light-duty and unimproved dirt roads run in roughly a north-south direction across the site; at the northern boundary of the site, these small roads join a series of medium-duty roads (Barneys Joy Road , Jordan Road , Horseneck Road , e tc .) . The nearest major highways are U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 which run parallel through a point 9 miles north of the site. U.S. Route 6 links Hartford and Providence with Cape F.9-42
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Cod. Interstate 195 connects Providence with New Bedford. The railroad nearest to the Allens Pond site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 9.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line ofsers a link with both Boston and Providence. With the exception of the section of shoreline along Barneys Joy point, the entire coastline from Horseneck Beach east to Deepwater Point offers a sandy, relatively rock-free barge landing area. 1 F.9-43
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: IX Name: Round Hill Point Location: Town: Dartmouth State: lbss. Watersource: Rhode Island Sound; buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): New Bedford South Land Availability and Use. Hetty Creen Street and a smaller, light-duty road border the site on the north. Smith Neck Road corresponds roughly to the western site boundary. New Bedford, Fbssachusetts is situated 4 miles north of the Round Hill Point site. Fall River, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island lie 15 and 30 miles, respectively, northwest of the site. The eastern half of the exclusion area (1600 feet or more) consists of flat, low-lying, open land. The western section consists of marshland and gradually sloping wooded terrain. The major portion of this location (approximately 300 acres) was originally owned by Society of Jesus of New England (known as the Jesuit Order). The Town of Dartmouth has acquired for recreational purposes a substantial tract of this land including a large section of the south beach area. The town land plus marsh and wetlands and exclusive housing bordering the north boundary of the site would likely preclude development of this site for a power plant. Population Distribution. Nearly 200 houses are located within a 1 mile radius of the Round Hill Point site. Most of these residencer are located along Smith Neck Road, to the east and southeast of the site. The Round Hill Point site is located less than than 3.5 miles southwest of the Slocuns Nech site. Due to the proxicity of the two sites, there would not be a significant variation in their respective population distributions at radii of 1 to 30 miles from the sites. Therefore, the discussion of the population distribution for 1 to 30 miles from the Slocums Neck site applies to the Round Hill Point site as well. Cooling Water. Buzzards Bay lies to the east and northeast of the Round Point site; Rhode Island Sound, to the southwest. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for the Round Hill Point site. The tidal current off South Dartmouth is generally of significantly greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay. The water depth off the Round Hill Point site increases fairly rapidly. To the east of the site, a 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of 2000 feet offshore. To the south of the site, the 30 foot water depth is reached in as little as 30 feet offshore. F.9-44
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V 001) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virutally no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-VI (mt), resulting from the Cape Ann earhtquake of 1755. A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value. The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region. Transmission. Transmission costs for the Round Hill Point site have been estimated at $76 million for Unit 1 and $50 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 71 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 25 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 - 77 miles of I circuit 245 kv line All of the required additional transmission lines are new. Accessibility. Hetty Green Street, a medium-duty road, runs the length of the site area. A series of medium-duty roads connects the site with parallel-running U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 at a point 8 miles north of the site. U.S. Route 6 links Hartford and Providence with New Bedford. The railroad nearest to the site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 6.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line offers a link to both Boston and Providence. The rocky coastal waters to the east of the Round Hill Point site would hinder water access to that eastern shore. However, the southern shore of the si te of fers a sandy, rock-free, relatively protected site for landing barges. F.9-45
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Region: IX Name: Warren Point Loca t ion: Town: Little Compton State: R.I. Watersource: Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Sakonnet Point Land Availability and Use. The major disadvantage of the Warren Point site is tTie number of residences located within the 1/2-nile exclusion area. There are 50 houses situated on the relatively small 156 acre site. On that basis, the site must be rated " low priority". In the 1990 Preliminary Land Use Plan, the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program recommends that the site be used for seasonal housing and recreation. Statewide Planning indicates that "the predominantly rural character of the Little Compton community must be considered in determining whether or not industrial development should be allowed". It is further suggested that the relatively re. note location of the site does not favor industrial development. Transmission Transmission costs for the Warren Point site have been estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and $41 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 99 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 72 miles of 345 kv, overhead O F.9-46
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IX Name: Quicksand Pond Location: Town: Little Compton State: R.I. Wa tersour ce: Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Tiverton; Salconnet Land Availability and Use. Rhode Island Sound lies to the south of the s ite. Quicksand Pond borders the site on the east. Maple Avenue constitutes the western boundary of the site. The northern site boundary runs just below Sisson Road. The site is located in the Town of Little Compton, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The Rhode Island - Massachusetts border passes 0.7 miles east of the site, which is situated on Rhode Island Sound. Newport, Rhode Island lies 8 miles west of the proposed site. Fall River, Massachusetts is situated 13 miles to the NNW of the site; New Bedford, Massachusetts, 14 miles to the northeast; and Providence, Rhode Island, 26 miles to the northwest. The size of the Quicksand Pond site is 630 acres. The exclusion radius for the site could be as large as 4,100 feet. Eight houses are located within the proposed exclusion area. The exclusien area consists primarily of gradually sloping terrain which rises from the beaches at the southern end of the site to higher land to the north. Most of the land is used for agriculture. A major consideration for the Quicksand Pond site is the unavailability of the desired acreage. The site is presently owned by multiple private owners. One of the major land owners will not sell his p rope rty. In the Coastal Resources Center's Rhode Island Barrier Beach study, the bulk of the site area is identified as " private, limited development". Tunipus Beach, to the south of Tunipus Pond, is listed as a town beach, while the beaches to the east are privately owned. In order to supply cooling water for the Quicksand Pond site, it is likely that intake and discharge conduits would be routed through or under the barrier beaches on the southern perimeter of the site. The Rhode Island Coastal Resource Center has made recommendations for use of the barrier beaches.The Quicksand Pond Barrier Beach extends eastward f rom Stony Point. At the western end, the beach is sandy but the pebble content increases to the east. A low, well vegetated dune 8ncreases in height to the wes t. It is cut by many washovers. Isolated dunes reaching elevations of 10.5 ft. above MSL rise on either side of an active breachway about half way down the barrier. The pond is fringed by marsh. The land on either side of the barrier is privately owned. Owne rship F.9-47
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER of the barrier is disputed between the town and the owner of the Stony Point e head land. There is a privately managed public beach on this headland. CRC's Study Considerations are as follows:
- 1. Development of this barrier should be prohibited.
- 2. The future of this barrier as a Conservation Area should be assured.
- 3. The existing public right-of-way should be improved to make public access easier. Additional access points may be needed in the future.
- 4. Ef forts should be made to rebuild and stabilize the barrier dune.
All access to the beach across the dunes should be restricted to stabilized walkways.
- 5. Public use should be limited to light recreation.
Cooling Water. The waters of Rhode Island Sound lie to the south of the Quicksand Pon/. site; Tunipus Pond, to the west; and Quicksand Pond, to the east. The s.se of either Tunipus Pond or Quicksand Pond for cooling purposes is not recunmended, due to the possibility of deleterious ef fects on the saltwater pond environment; therefore, Rhode Island Sound would be tha sole source of cooling water for the site. The use of once-through cooling should be feasible for the Quicksand Pond site. The water depth of f the Quicksand Pond site increases fairly rapidly. A depth of 30 feet can be reached within a distance of 2,600 feet of fshore. Transmission. Transmission costs for the Quicksand Pond site have been estimated at $61 million for Unit 1 and $39 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 84 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 67 miles of 345 kv, overhead Storm Exposure and Flooding. All south shore barriers are low and exposed to severe storm damage. O F.9-48
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: 1X Name: Gooseberry Neck Location: Town: Westport State: Mass. Wa te rsource: Rhode Island Sound, Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Westport Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the southern coast of Massachusetts bounded by Buzzards Bay to the east and Rhode Island Sound to the wes t. The neck is approximately 4,000 f t long (N-S), 800 to 1,400 f t wide, at.d contains 85 + acres. The average elevation is 10-12 f t with the high point slightly more than 20 f t. Three small bodies of water are located on the neck. Two U.S. Coast and Geodetic and one Department of Public Works Survey monuments are located on the site. Three abandoned concrete coastal watch towers and the remains of a bunker are located approximately two-thirds of the way down the neck. A road, which was paved at one time, runs to the tower area. No electric, telephone, or domestic water services are available on the site, but electric and telephone se rvices were observed in the nearbj beach community. The Goosebury Neck site is located in Westport, Massachusetts about 12 miles southwest of New Bedford, Massachusetts and about 16 miles southeast of Fall River, Fbssachusetts. Gooseberry Neck is an island in Buzzards Bay connected to the mainland by a causeway approximately 1,000 feet long. The ground surf ace is irregular with rounded knobs, four small marsh ponds, and mostly gentle slopes except for s teep wave-cut slopes at the upper edge of the beach. A boulde r strewn beach surrounds the island; some sandy beach is present on the northeast side. The island is covered by grass and scrub g rowt h; there are no tall trees. The visual impact of a plant on Gooseberry Neck would be noticeable. The containment building would be visible as far away as Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, to the wes t, and the Elizabeth Islands, to the east and southeast. The island is part of Horse Neck Beach State Reservation. Cooling Water. An advantage that the Gooseberry Neck site of fers is the existence of deep water at a relatively short distance offshore. The most likely location of a dif fuser discharge would be to the west side (toward the ocean) of Gooseberry Neck, where a thirty foot water depth is reached in as little as 2550 feet of f shore. ..^ lev , Canseberry Neck appears to be a likely site for an onshore intake structure. Tra nsmis s ion. The transmission for this site would be similar to that of the Allen's Pond site, except, due to aesthetic considerations, it would likely be necessary to use underwater cable to reach the mainland. F.9-49
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER The Gooseberry Neck site is underlain by boundary, O Geology and Seismicity. silty, sandy tili soil which mantles rock of probable Precambrian age at depths estimated to be 10 to 50 feet below the surf ace. Some organic soil may be present beneath four small ponds on this island. Two rock outcrops seen on the west shore consist of pink coarse-grained granite gneiss. In one outcrop the granite gneiss intrudes gray, fine grained diorite. These rocks are probably part of the Dedham Gra nadiori te. A small f ault having an apparent lef t lateral displacement of one-half inch was noted in one outcrop. A possible slickenside surf ace in granite gneiss strikes north and dips about 20 degrees to the east. The glacial till is well exposed on the northwest shore and at the easternnost point of the island. This till appears to be a dense gravelly fine sand to silty sand with numerous cobbles and boulders up to 15 feet in diameter. The fines seem to be non plastic. No major f aults are known to exist in the Gooseberry Neck area. The nearest mapped f aults are located in Newport, R'wde Island and Tiverton, Rhode Island approximately 15 miles from the site. These faults are conside red minor and inactive. Accessibility. The only road access to the site is via a narrow (20 f t) causeway approximately 400 ft long, which is concrete paved and would require upgrading for construction. Some recent minor erosion was observed. The f closest railroad line appears to be near Fall River. The best route to the area is Route 88. Route 88 is a wide double lane road, in good condition f rom the intersection of I-195 to the Horseneck Beach area. John Reed Road also appears to be in good repair f rom Route 88 to East Beach Road. The stretch of East Beach Road to the causeway is narrow and congested with beach houses, taverns, and obvious summer activities. Road access to the site would be hampered by beach traf fic during summer months. Addition of an alternate road is not feasible. The bridge across East Branch would limit the weight- of loads by t ruck . Construction traf fic would be hindered and cause a considerable impact on the Horseneck Beach area during the summer months. Of f site construction storage would have to be developed due to the limited area available on the neck. A barge of f-loading f acility would be required for receiving all heavy loads and possibly other materials to keep truck traffic to a minimum. A large quantity of imported earth fill would be required, and barge delivery should be considered. A barge slip could be constructed on the Buzzards Bay side. Other construction facilities such as parking, change houses, warehousing, shops, and concrete batch plant would be limited f or a one-unit site and ve ry dif ficult for a two-unit site. The major labor market would be Providence, Rhode Island, Fall River, New Bedford, and to some extent the Boston area. O F.9-50
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IX Name: Moonstone Beach Location: Town: South Kingstown State: R.I. Wa tersource: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Kingstown Land Availability and Use. The 248 acre site consists of flat farm land ten to twenty feet above mean sea level. Salt marsh and a pond extend toward the beach. A barrier beach exists along the shore. An exclusion radius of 1250 feet would be available. Snug Harbor and Galilee lie two and one half miles east of the location. It is three fourths of a mile to the nearest summer resort housing. The land is open; this brings in the problem of visual impact. However, the problems inherent in acquiring the valuable site property, owned by at least five parties, may preclude the possibility of locating nuclear generating f acilities on the site. In fact, contact with a major land owner revealed that the site is unavailable. Transmission. The transmission from this site would be similar to that of the Charlestown site. Popula tion Distribution. Population distribution is similar to Charlestown site. Cooling Water. The estimated s traight line distance from the proposed site to the 30 foot contour depth is 7,500 feet. The site is considered suitable for a once-through cooling system. Geology and Seismicity. The bedrock depth is not known. The surface consists of glacial outwash. Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site. Accessibility. Transportation access to the site would be considerably more difficult than that of the Charlestown site because it is separated f rom U.S. Route 1 by a mile of narrow, secondary roads which traverse a developed residential area. F.9-51
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: IX O Name: Weekapaug Location: Town: Westerly State: R.I. Wa tersource: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Watch Hill Land Availability and Use. The 157 acre site is four miles to the Westerly-Pawcatuck area and one-half mile to Weekapaug. Quonochontaug Pond and Quonochontaug Beach lie to the NE and east of the site area. Block Island Sound is south. Site elevation is ten to twenty feet above mean sea level. The 1,250 foot radius is extremely short and likely inadequate for licensing purposes. Due to the proximity of residential housing, the exclusion radius cannot be extended without undue social impact. Population Distribution. The combined population of the Westerly-Pawcatuck a rea is 22,500. Much of Weekapaug itself is summer residences. The population distribution of the Charlestown site is similar due to its proximity. Cooling Water. The distance from the site to the thirty foot depth is 5,400 feet. Once through cooling is feasible. Geology and Seismicity. The site area consists of glacial till and outwash unde rlaid with Narragansett Pier Granite. The depth of thic is unknown. Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site. Transmis sion. The transmission f rom this site would be similar to that of the Westerly site (see RAI 300.17.c) except that the last mile of transmission would pass through a more populated area with correspondingly higher visibility in the coastal area. O F.9-52
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: 1X Name: Dunn Corner Location: Town: Wes te rly State: R.I. Wate rsource : Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Watch Hill Size: 1800 acres (less than 50 acres usable) Exclusion radius: 3000 ft. Land Availability and Use. The area is somewhat removed from the coastline and lies northwest of Dunn Corner. The site is surrounded by swamp land. The terrain between the site and the tocean consists of rugged hills 50-100 feet high composed of glacial-till and boulders toward shore. There is glacial outwash, then a salt pond and a 16ng barrier beach. Wes terly-Pawca tuck area lies west-northwest of the proposed site. The area is bounded as follows: N-Westerly Bradford Road, N-Chapman Pond, E-Old Shore Road and S-Post Road. Population Distribution. The population distribution should be similar to that of the Westerly site for distances beyond 5 miles. Cooling Water. The distance to the thirty foot depth is 16,500 feet. Routing cooling water over this distance may be prohibitively expensive. Transmis sion. Transmission from the site would be similar to that of the Westerly site. Accessibili ty. Dunn Corner is formed by the junction of Post Road, a heavy duty road, and Old Shore Road, a medium duty road (which has shown increased urban growth since 1975 as seen from aerial view) both in Westerly. The Penn Central Railroad runs within a mile of the proposed site. r a I [\
, F.9-53
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: IX O Name: Westerly Industrial Park (State Airport) Location: Town: Westerly State: R.I. Wa tersourer: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (r): Watch Hill Land Availability and Use. The 360 acre site area consists of very hilly terrain with elevations ranging f rom 50-100 feet. The land is bordered on the north by the Westerly Airport Industrial Park; on the west by Winnapaug Road, with the exception of street front homes; on the south by Shore Road; and on the east by Sand Hill Road. Proximity to the Westerly Airport may pose a problem since the plant would be located between the runway glide paths. Water depths of 60 feet are attainable within 10,000 f eet of the proposed plant location, and access to the ocean dres not appear to be impossible even though it entails crossing of Winnapaug cond and some point along Misquamicut State Beach. Popula tion Distribution. The town of Westerly is approximately two miles f run the proposed site. Its population is approximately 17,000. The outskirts of Westerly are thought of as a low-population area, although it appears that some urban development has been occurring in the past few years. Misquamicut area is one mile from the proposed site. Cooling Water. The distance to the thirty foot depth contour from the proposed site is 7,500 feet. Once-through cooling appears feasible. Geology and Seismicity. The site consists of end moraine of very strongly collapsed mound and ridge and kettle topography. The depth of the bedrock is not known. There is some ledge rock on the area. Glacial outwash extends toward shore. Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site. Transmission. Transmission from the site would be similar to that of the Westerly site (see Question 300.17.c). O F.9-54
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: IX Name: Sachuest Point Location: Town : Middle town State: R.I. Watersource: Sakonnet River - Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangla(s): Sakonnet Point Land Availability and Use. The site rests on a broad, low promontory at the southeastern corner of Aquidneck Island. The surface altitude increases from sea level along the coast to a 10 foot elevation within 100 of the c oa s t , to a maximum on-site elevation of 45 feet on a hilltop near the center of the proposed site. A lesser hilltop of 35 foot elevation is situated in the northeastern part of the site. The site is located in the town of Middletown, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The Sakonnet River lies to the immediate west of the site; Rhode Island Sound, to the south. The city of Newport, Rhode Island, lies 6 miles south of the site. Fall River, Massachusetts, is located 12 miles to the northeast; Providence, Rhode Island, 18 miles to the northwest of the site. Sachuest Point could probably support limited permanent or seasonal housing. The site might also be used as conservation area, thus enlarging the existing conservation land (Norman Bird Sanctuary) which lies to the north of the site. The size of the Sachuest Point site is approximately 200 acres. The exclusion area encompasses all the land labelled as "U.S. Naval Rese'va*'an" (on the topographic map), plus a small tract of about 9 acres situated just north of the reservation. There are no residences on the site. Current land use precludes development for a power plant site. Population Distribution. There are less than 100 residents within a 1 nile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site is approximately 1500 people. About 8300 people live within 3 mi' the site. The 2 and 3 mile radii include part of the Middletown, u Island population. At 5 miles from the site, the population is 64,2L ,. The 5 mile radius encompasses most of the densely populated Newport-Middletown area. The population increases to 89,200 at a 10 mile distance f rom the Sachuest Point site. The 10 mile radius includes densely populated areas in Jamestown and Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and Wectport, Fbssachusetts.
,. F.9-55
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Cooling Water. The potential sources of cooling water for the Sachuest O Point site are the Sakonnet River ar.d Rhode Island Sound. Based on the criterion of water availability, the use of once-through cooling appears f easible for the Sachuest Point site. The water depth off the site increases rapidly; the 30 foot contour can be reached within 500 feet to the southeast; the 60 foot contour, within 4000 feet. The water depths to the west of the site (Sachuest Cove) and to the northeast are considerably shallower. For this reason, intake conduits would probabl~; be directed to the south or southeast of the site, into deeper Rhode Island Sound waters. Ac ces s ib ili ty. A paved road runs along the wescern shore of the Sachuest Point site. Via local roads from the site, it is about 2.7 miles to the junction of R.I. Route 138. Route 138 extends north for 11 miles to the intersection of Route 24 in Tiverton, Rhode Island. Five miles farther north, Route 24 intersects Interstate 195, which links with Interstate 95 in Providence, Rhode Island. The Sachuest Point site might also be approached f rom the west by using the 22 foot, two lane, 1.5 mile long Jamestown Bridge and the four lane, 2.25 mile Newport Bridge. The Sachuest Point site of fers direct water access from Rhode Island Sound. The site might also be approached f rom Providence by using the East Passage of Narragansett Bay, then heading east along the south coast of Aquidneck Island to Sachuest Point. Transmission. Transmission costs for the Sachuest Point site have been estimated at $115 million for Unit 1 and $4Q million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1-10 miles of 345 kv, underground and submarine 84 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 67 miles of 345 kv, overhead O F.9-56
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 ~' Region: X Name: Mackerel Cove Location: Town: Jamestown State: R.I. Wa tersource: Narragansect Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the southern end of Conanicut Island. Mackerel Cove and the East Passage of Narragansett Bay bound the site on the east. Hull Cove lies to the south of the site. Austin Hollow and the West Passage of Narragansett Bay lie to the west of the site. The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 4.5 miles east of the site. Providence, Rhode Island is situated 24 miles to the north of the site; Fall River, Massachusetts, 20 miles, northeast. The size of the Mackerel Cove site is 245 acres. Only two houses are situated within the proposed 2200 foot radius exclusion area. Beavertail Road runs in a north-south direction to the immediate west of the site. The site lies on a hilltop which ends abruptly in steep 40 foot clif fs on the east. The surface altitude increases from sea level along *F.a coast to a maximum of 65 feet on the hilltop, then falls away gradually to the west. The land cover on the site consists largely of agricultural fields; there is also some dense, low shrubbery along part of the coast. Except for a 5 acre tract of marshland in the southern part of the exclusion area, the entire site appears to be suitable for the location of buildings or equipment associated with generating f acilities. The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program's Preliminary Land Use Plan for 1990 recommends locating seasonal housing in the vicinity of the Mackerel Cove site, thereby continuing the current trend in the area. The site is not presently zoned for industry. The remoteness of the site and the lack cf public utilities can be coasidered impedements to the developments of the area. Poo ala tit Distribution. There are less than 100 recidences within a 1 mile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site is approximately 1800 people and includes more than one-half the Jamestown popula tion. About 4600 people live within three miles of the site. The three mile radius encompasses part o '. the densely populated section of Newport, Rhode Island. At five miles from the site, the population is 44,400; this figure includes all of Newport and the densely populated Narragansett Pier area. Tb population increases to 135,700 at a 10 mile distance from the Mackerel Cove site. The prevailing southwest wind is of particular importance for the Mackerel Cove site since it places dotinwind densely populated areas on nearby Aquidneck Island. A sector formed by a SW wind, plus or minus 10 degrees, F.9-57
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER blowing of f the Mackerel Cove site contains 7400 people within a 5-mile downwind span. About 18,900 people live within a 10-mile downwind sector. A 15-mile downwind sector contains 27,200 residents and encompasses parts of Newport, Middletown, Tiverton and most of the population of Portsmouth. Cooling Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the immediate east of the Mackerel Cove site and constitutes the cooling water source for the proposed site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible f rom an engineering standpoint. The depth of the East Passage waters adjacent to the site increases rapidly to 60 feet in as little as 600 feet offshore. A 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of only 400 feet offshore. Due to this relatively fast increase in water depth, any dredging required for installation of intake and/or outfall f acilities would be minimized. The clif fs along the shore of the Mackerel Cove site are 40 to 50 f eet high. Therefore, operation of a power plant on the site would necessitate pumping cooling water up to the site level. T ra nsmis s ion. Transmission costs for the Mackerel Cove site have been estimated at $71 million for Unit 1 and $41 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: for Unit 1 - 4 miles of 345 kv, underground and submarine 82 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 81 miles of 345 kv, overhead Ac ces s ibili ty. Beavertail Road, running north-south, passes through the perimeter of the Mackerel Cove site. Three small roads branch of f Beavertail Road and run across the site to the coast of Jamestown. One and one-half miles north of the site, Beavertail R,9d joins North Main Road -- a hard-surf aced, two lane road which runs ...e length of Conanicut Island. Conanicut Island is connected to the Saunderstown area across the West Passage of Narragansett Bay by the 22 foot, two lane, 1.5 mile long Jamestown Bridge, and to the Newport area across the East Passage by the four lane, 2.25 mile long Newport Bridge. The road distance from the Mackerel Cove site to the Jamestown Bridge is 5.6 miles. R.I. Route 138 connects the Jamestown Bridge with north-south running U.S. Route 1 at a point 2.6 miles from the western terminus of the Jamea town Bridge. U.S. Route 1 leads to South County Trail, which in turn, joins Interstate 95 -- the major link between Boston and New York. The read distance from the junction of R.I. Route 138 and U.S. Route 1 to Interstate 95 is approximately 9.5 miles. F.9-58
N EP 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 / No railroads reach Conanicut Island. The nearest rail link is the little used track which parallels the coast of Aquidneck Island. On the mainland to the west are the more important Penn Central tracks. Vessels may approach the Mackerel Cove site from Rhode Island Sound by traveling up either the West Passage or East Passage of Narragansett Bay. A vessel using the East Passage may anchor in Mackerel Cove, whereas a vessel using the West Passage might anchor in Dutch Harbor or Shef field Cove. F.9-59
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: X O Name: Jamestown Island Location: Town: James town State: R.I. Watersource: Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier Land Availability and Use. Carr Lane, running east-west, lies to the south of the site. Conanicut Park is situated to the north. North Main Road borders the site on the west, and the East Passage of Narragansett Bay bounds the site on the east. The site is currently used for seasonal residential developmant and agriculture. However, the entire site lies within an 808 acre tract of land zoned for industry. The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 5 miles southeast of the site. Providence, Rhode Island is situated 20 miles north-northwest of the site; Fall River, Massachusetts, 16 miles northeast. Although the Jamestown Island site is zoned for industry, the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program reports that the remoteness of the site, the lack of public utilities, and the general character of Conanicut Island (Jamestown) can be considered as impedements to the development of the area. The beach area at Cranston Cove in the southern part of the site is of recreational value, as is part of the site lying west of East Shore Road which is open to upland game hunting. Recreational uses of the Jamestown Island site include the , incorporation of the site in a proposed Islands National Park which would encompass areas on Prudence, Dyer, Hope, Dutch and Gould Island as well as several minor islands in Narragansett Bay. The size of the Jamestown Island site is 333 acres. The proposed exclusion radius is one-half mile. Nineteen houses are situated within the exclusion area. East Shore Road runs in a north-south direction through the site. The topography of the site area is characterized by a uniform, gradual slope in the er. stern part of the site, and by relatively flat terrain in the western part of the site. The surface altitude increases from sea level along the coast to a maximum on-site elevation of 55 feet at distances of 600 to 1500 feet inla nd. Land cover consists primarily of agricultural fields plus some hardwood and dense shrub cover. All of the site area appears suitable for the location of buildings or equipment associated with power generating facilities. Popula tion Distribution. Approximately 100 residents live within a 1 mile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site is 300 people. About 2800 people live within 3 miles of the site; this 3 mile radius includes part of the populous Newport-Middletown area. At 5 miles F.9-60
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 f rom the site, the population is 39,200; the 5 mile radius inc ludes much of the Newport-Middletown area as well as Wickford, Rhode Island. The population increases to 117,000 at a 10-mile distance from the site. The Jamestown Island site is less than 4 miles from Rome Point. Therefore, the far-field population data for the proposed Rome Point site would not be expected to vary significantly from the Jamestown Island site data. Cooling Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the east of the Jamestown Island site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for the Jamestown Island site from an engineering standpoint. The East Passage of fers the deepest waters in Narragansett Bay. Due to the relatively rapid increase in water depth on the eastern side of the site (30 feet of water in a 400-1000 foot distance of fshore; 60 feet of water in as little as 800 feet of fshore) any dredging required for installation of intake and/or outfall f acilities would be minimized. Geology and Seismicity. Bedrock at the site is classified as Pennsylvanian rock of the Narragansett Basin. TF '.s formation which is approximately 300 million years old underlies the Sole Bay area and extends northeastward into Massachusetts. This sed.mentat, rock consists primarily of conglomerate, sandstone, . ale lithic graywacke, graywacke arJ small amounts of meta-anthracite. T' r e sediments range in thickness up to 11,000 feet. They are folded and ' - . ed and were subjected to metamorphism in the Late Paleozoic period abo. .50 million years ago. Transmission. Transmission of power from the Jamestown Island site might involve laying underwater 345 kv cable across the 1.9 mile distance from Jamestown to Rome Point. Though the cost of the required underwater transmission would be relatively high, such a transmission route of fers the cdvantage of utilizing the Rome Point transmission right-of-way. Accessibility. East Shore road, running north-south the length of Jamestown, passes through the Jamestown Island site. Conanicut Island (Jamestown) is connected to the Saunderstown area across the West Passage of Narragansett Bay by the 22 foot, two lane,1.5 mile Jamestown Bridge, and to the Newport area across the East Passage by the four-lane, 2.25 mile Newport Bridge. The road distance from the Jamestown Island site is 3.6 miles. R.I. Route 138 connects the Jamestown Bridge with north-south running U.S. Route 1, 2.6 miles from the wes :rn terminus of the Jamestown Bridge. Four miles to the north, U.S. Route 1 intersects South County Trail. This road in turn intersects Interstate 95 -- the major link between Boston and New York -- at a point 5.5 miles further north. The road distance from the Jamestown Island site to east-west running Interstate 195 -- using the Newport Bridge -- is about 25 miles. Inters tate 195 links with Interstate 95 in Providence. No railroads reach the island. The nearest rail link is the little F.9-61
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O used track which parallels the coast of Aquidneck Island. On the mainland to the west are the more important Penn Central tracks. The heavier power plant components cannot be transported over either the Newport of Jamestown Bridges. Therefore, it is expected that heavy power plant components would be barged directly into the site or to accessible sections of the island such as Mackerel Cove or Dutch island Harber, and then transported overland to the site. Vessels may approach the Jamestown Island site by traveling up the East Passage of Narragansett Bay from Rhode Island Sound. The site is 7 miles north of Brenton Point, the lower end of the East Passage. O O F.9-62
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: X Name: Melville - Carr Point Location: Town: Portsmouth State: R.I. Watersource: East Passage of Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Prudence Island Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the west side of Aquidneck Island and lies SSE of Prudence Island and Dyer Island. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay bounds the site on the west. Weaver Cove lies just north of the site along the Portsmouth coast. Lawton Valley Reservoir is situated 700 feet southeast of the site. West Main Road passes within 500 f eet of the eastern periphery of the site. A large residential housing area is located to the immediate south of the site. The site is located in the Town of Portsmouth, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 6 miles south-southwest of the site. Fall River, Massachusetts is located 12 miles to the northeast and Providence, Rhode Island,18 miles northwest. The size of the Melville - Carr Point site is 233 acres. Of this total acreage,173 acres along the coast fall within the U.S. Naval Reservation boundaries. Seven houses are situated within the one-half mile radius exclusion area. Two roads and the New York - New Haven - Boston line of the Penn Central Railroad pass through the site. The site topography is characterized by a low-lying coastal strip having a gradual slope, and by a sorawhat more steeply sloping inland section which rises to a 100 foot elevation in the southeastern part of the site. Twenty-cight acres in the eastern part of the site (Lawton Valley) are either water area or are too steep for the location of buildings or equipment associated with power generating f acilities. The remainder of the site appears te be suitable for plant facilities. A " low-population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available at this site. Industrial development is the land use with the greatest potential for the Melville - Carr Point site. A 435.6 acre tract of land located north of the Melville - Carr Point site is zoned for industrial use. The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program reports that, on the basis of existing development in the area, soil conditions and topography appear suitable for the construction of large industrial plants. Population Distribution. Approximately 900 people reside within a one mile radius of the site. The population within a two mile radius of the site is 5000; this figure includes much of the Portsmouth population. At five miles from the site, the population is 59,800. The 5 mile radius encompasses much of the densely populated Newport area. The population within a 10 F.9-63
Revision 6 N E P 1 & 2 ER O mile radius increases to 161,800 and includes part of the very densely populated Fall River, Massachusetts area plus areas in Swansea and Westport, Massachusetts. At 15 miles from the site, the population is 391,100 and includes populous areas in Warwick and North Kingston, Rhode Island, and Somerset. Massachusetts. or the Melville - Carr Point site, the prevailing southwes t wind is of particular importance, due to the proximity of densely populated areas in Portsmouth and North Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Fall River, Massachusetts. Cooling Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the immediate west of the Melville - Carr Point site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasib;3 for this site from an engineering standpoint. Dyer Island lies 3200 feec northwest of Carr Point. The proximity of that island and the shallow water which surrounds it, pose a problem involving installation of intake and/or outf all f acilities. To minimize the amount of dredging required, cooling water intake and discharge conduits could be directed to the west, ofs the southern end of the Melville - Carr Point site, where the water de ti increases to 30 feet at a distance of 600 f eet of f shore. Ac cess ibili ty. A paved road cuns along the Portsmouth coast and passes through the site. Two other amaller roads enter the site from Rhode Island Route 114 (West Maine Road), which runs tangent to the eastern periphery of the site. R.I. Route 119 extends north for 2.3 miles to R.I. Route 24, an expressway which joins Interstate 195 in Fall River, Massachusetts. The road distance from the junction of Routes 114 and 24 to Interstate 195 is 9.2 miles. Interstate 195 joins Interstate 95 in Provide .ce, Rhode Island. The site may also be approached f rom the southwest by using the Jamestown Bridge and Newport Bridge. The road distance via these bridges f rom U.S. Route 1, the primary coastal route in southern Rhode Island, to the Melville-Carr Point site is reproximately 14 miles. The New York - New Haven - Hartford line of the Penn Central Railroad passes through the site. Vessels may approach t .e Melville-Carr Point site by traveling up
?
the East Passage of Narraganc. tt Bay from Rhode Island Sound. Ext ens ive docking f acilities are maintained by the U.S. Navy at Melville,1.25 miles north of Carr Point. The heavier power plant components cannot be transported over the Jamestown, Newport or Mount Hope bridges. The ref o re, it is expected that these components would be barged directly to the Melville - Carr Point site. 9 F.9-64
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Region: X Name: Fort Varnum Location: Town: Narragansett State: R.l. Watersource: Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier La nt /ailability and Use. Several buildings exist on the 225 acro site; however, only one represents any appreciable value. A cemetery located on the west side of another lot would not require relocation since it falls outside the 1500 ft. exclusion area. (The area is presently used as a training center for the Rhode Island National Guard). The coastline is p otected by ledge and undoubtedly these strata extend further inland. Site elevations range from 20 to 40 f t. above mean sea level. One of the site advantages is its availability to deep water (50 f t. depths at 3000 f t. of fsho re). Furthermore, Whale Rock, which is now an abandoned lighthouse site could support intake strr-tures at the source of deep cold water. Ono possible obstacle for transmission access is the Pettaquamscutt River. Otherwise, our West Kingston substation is only 10 miles to the west. An alternate transmission line possibility would be to the north, and connecting to the existing Rone Point right-of-way. This distance is approximately 8 miles. Bonnet Shores lies one and one-half miles north; Narragansett Pier is two miles south of the proposed site. These two relatively high population areas lie within the area designated as low population zone. Cooling Sys tem. The distances to the thirty foot depth is 2,400 feet; to the fif ty foot depth is 3,600 feet. Once-through cooling appears feasible from an engineering viewpoint. Geology and Seismicity. There are rock outcroppings on the site sloping toward the shoreline. The shoreline shows bedrock which probably drops of f toward the middle of the West Passage of the Bay. It is covered by gravel, sand, and sediment for about 100 feet at mid-channel. The presence of Whale Rock may indicate a shallow bedrock ridge toward Bonnet Point. Seismically, the site should be similar to the Rome Point site. Ac ces s ibili ty. Ocean Road, a heavy duty highway (U.S. Route 1) runs north to scuth and essentially parallel to the site area. Light duty roads extend out to the site. F.9-65
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Region: XI O Name: Block Island Location: Town: Block Island State: R.I. Wa tersour ce: Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Block Island Land Availability and Use. Block Island is located about 8 miles from the Rhode Island coast to the south of Point Judith, Rhode Island. The island is a popular summer visiting place and tourism represents the major economic a ct ivi ty. No specific site was evaluated. Cooling Water. Deep water is available adjacent to the shoreline making it possible to use short lengths of intake and discharge piping for a once-through cooling system. An intake could be constructed either onshore or offshore. If an onshore intake were used, a canal would be dredged or excavated to the site from the shoreline. An of fshore discharg, with a diffuser would be at least 1000 feet from the shore in a depth u_ 10 to 60 feet. t eology and Seismicity. No detailed evaluation of seismicity was made. However, it is estimated that a below average New England design acceleration value would be applied to this site. It is anticipated that a thick overburden layer (about 1000 feet) would be encountered. Transmission. Transcission cos. : ave been estimated at $204 million for Unit 1 and $37 million for Unit 2 for a total of $241 million. Accessibility. Barge delivery would be required for all access. Construction forces would be dif ficult to attract because of the lack of a bridge. If ferrying were selected as an alternative, many non-productive wages would be paid. O F.9-66
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Name: Shef field Vicinity Hawletts Road Location: Town: Sheffield State: Mass. Uatersource: Housatonic River USGS Quadrangle (s): Ashley Falls Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the east side of the Housatonic River, 2.9 miles north of the Massachusetts-Connecticut border. Cooling Water. The site of a proposed impoundment lies on a natural plateau at elevation 795 feet; land rises f :om the plateau on all sides. The proposed impoundment is located 2'00 feet frem the river, which is at elevation 645 feet. On the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the following conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once-through cooling on the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Shef field sites cannot support wet tower requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impoundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There does not appear to be an existing upstream imroundment of sufficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up .ing low flow periods.
- 4. Several locations have been identified which could serve as possible plant sites for wet cooling towers with an impoundment.
- 5. The Housatonic River flow may be adequate to support wet / dry towers year round.
If it is assur 4 the site is excavated 15 to 25 feet in or/.er to increase the capacity of the impoundment, the water availabili ty ' rom two alternate impoundment schemes can be summarized as follows: Water Depth Flood Level Above Grade Excavated (minus) Total Water Supply Vblume Excavated 820 f t. 25 20 45 50 days 4.06 million contour yd3 810 ft. 15 15 30 30 days 2.7 million contour yd3 The excavation cost, alone, of the first scheme equals $23 million. F.9-67
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER The excavation cost of the second scheme equals $16 million. These figures 9 are based on an excavation cost of $6.00 per cubic yard (ALH) and assumes the excavated material is earth, not ledge. Population Distribution. The cuculative population distribution is tabulated below Radius (miles from site) 1 2 3 5 10 20 30 Cumulative population 1256 5024 11,304 31,400 125,600 502,400 1,130,000 Ac ces sibility. The site is bordered by a medium-duty road to the west and a light-duty road to the east. U. S. Route 7, running north-south, passes 1.5 miles west of the site. The Penn Central Railroad parallels the Housatonic and passes 1.6 miles west of the site. O O F.9-68
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Name: Smith Hollow Location: Town: Sheffield State: Mass. Wa tersour ce: Housatonic River USGS Quadrangle (s): Ashley Falls Land Availability and Use. The site lies east of the Housatonic River and four miles north of the Massachusetts-Connecticut border. Population Distribution. The population distribution is similar to that of the Shef field, Hawletts Road site. Cooling Water. The location of the site impoundment is a large, north-south running draw named Smith Hollow. Soda Creek is channeled into the draw, which is naturally swampy. The proposed impoundment is at elevation 705 feet, and lies a distance of 3200 feet from the Housatonic, which is at elevation 645 feet. It is proposed that Smith Hollow be flooded to the 750 foot contour. No excavation is proposed for site impoundment, other than that required to excavate enough earth to use in constructing the dam. Water availability and dam sizes for two alternate impoundment schemes are tabulated below: Flood Level Water Depth Water Supply Dam Length 750 45 58 days 2400 feet 730 25 25 days 2000 feet On the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the following conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once-through cooling on the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Shef field sites cannot support wet tower requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impsundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There does not appear to be an existing upstream impoundment of sufficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up during low flow periods.
- 4. The Housatonic River flow is adequate to support wet / dry towers year round.
Ac ces s ibili ty. U.S. Route 7 runs 1.1 miles west of the site. Medium-duty and light-duty roads provide direct access to the site. Penn Central Railroad passes 1.2 miles to the west. F.9-69
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Name: Three Mile Pond O Location: Town: Sheffield State: Mass. Wa tersour ce: Housatonic River USGS Quadrangle (s): Great Barrington Land / .ilability and Use. The site is found in a broad valley five and one-hr .f miles southwest of Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Population Distribution. The population distribution is similar to that of the Shef field, Hawletts Road site. Cooling Water. An existing impoundme nt occupies approximately 17 percent of the area which would ultimately be flooded. The proposed impoundment area is at elevation 904 feet, and lies 11,500 feet from the Housatonic River, which is at elevation 655 feet. No excavation is required to increase the capcity of the flood area up to the 950 foot contour. The Three Mile Pond impoundment would only be used during periods of low flow. During most of the year, it is expected that 100 percent of the cooling water will be drawn directly from the Housatonic River. Therefore, in order to reduce annual pumping costs, it is proposed to locate generating f acilities on the river, rather than at the impoundment. Water availability from the Three Mile Pond impoundment is summarized below: Flood Level Water Depth Water Supply Dam Length 950 feet 46 feet 227 days 2300 feet on the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the following conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once-through cooling on the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Shef field sites cannot support wet towe r requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impoundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There coes not appear to be an existing upstream impoundment of suf ficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up during low flow periods.
- 4. The Housatonic River flow is adequate to support wet / dry Lowers year round.
Ac ces s ibili ty. A three-lane highway and the Penn Central Railroad run 2.75 f F.9-70
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 O miles west of the impoundment and 1.0 etiles from the plant site. Both the plant site and the impoundment area are served only by light-duty roads. F.9-71
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Name: Gerrish Island O Loca t ion: Town: State: Maine Wa te rsource : Atlantic Ocean Description. The Seabrook Environmental Report, Appendix M, Docht Nos. 50-443, 50-444, was applicant's source of information. O F.9-72
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.14 Selection of candidate site-plant alternatives (ER p. 9.2-8) The ER lists the criteria used in selecting candidate site-plant alternatives. Describe the actual application of these criteria to the selection of candidate site-plant alternatives. In other words, show why each potential site was rejected or accepted. RESPONSE: The response to RAI 300.13 describes the methods by which some 42 potential sites were identified. Table 300.13-1 lists those sites which were considered as Potential Sites (i.e., sites within the candidate areas that have been identified for preliminary assessment...USNRC, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2). Attached to that response are brief site descriptions for those sites not included in the list of candidate sites (ER Section 9.2). The deferral process for potential sites, was a judgement based on all available information for each site considered. Some sites were deferred very quickly, while others were given more study prior to a decision. Table 300.14-1 provides, for each deferred site, the major problems identified with each deferred potential site. In each case, one or more cf the major problems were considered serious enough for site deferral. These items may be compared to ER Table 9.3-1 for comparison with the attributes of the Candidate Sites. F.9-73
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 300.15 Gill /Erving Sites (EK p. 9.2-12) S
- a. Is there prime or unique agricultural land onsite?
- b. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be impacted by construction and operation of the plant at Gill or Erving or by associated transmission lines?
- c. Would floodplain development be involved? What would be the likely consequences of such development?
- d. Would the transmission lines impact any place of historic, cultural, or recreational importance? Would they involve loss of a unique place or opportunity? Give details where appropriate.
- e. Would cooling towers create a safety hazard f rom fogging or icing?
- f. What would be the likely aesthetic impact of the plant, at Gill or Erving, and associated transmission lines, compared to the aesthetic impact of the plant and lines for the proposed site?
- g. Would the project be consistent with zoning and planning commission guidelines?
RESPONS E: a. Agricultural Land A soil survey for Franklin County, Massachusetts was issued in February 1967 by the Soil Conservation Service and the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. Based on this survey, it appears that prime f armland does occur on the proposed site in the towns of Gill and Erving, and in some cases, is being managed as such. Of the 360 acres located in Erving, about 40% of the soils can be considered as prime farmland types, and of the 350 acres located in Gill, about 30% can be considered prime farmland. Despite this, only a portion could be used as such for some has matured into a late field or woodland habitat. Prime larmlands based on soil type and their corresponding acreage are listed below. O F.9-74
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Soil Name and Desc ription Estimated Acreage Acavam fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 30
!.gawam fine sandy loam, 3-8% slope 22 Buxton silt loam, 0-3% slope 6 Hadley very fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 100 Hadley very fine sandy loam, overflow, 0-3% slope 45 Ninigret fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 3 Sudbury fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 7 Sudbury fine sandy loam, 3-8% slope 25 Walpole and Wareham fine sandy loams, 0-3% slope 5 Winooski very fine sand loam 10 The disruption of prime farmlands as a result of plant siting would not be substantial in either town when considering those areas of high agricultural use to the south and west.
Unique Farmlands No lands which fall under this category are located onsite based on the 1967 soil survey and initial site evaluation. Areas classified as unique farmlands in Massachusetts are cranberry bogs, orchards and blueberries.
- b. Threatened or Endangered Species Initial analysis of the Gill /Erving site and the transmission corridors indicate that no threatened or endango. red terrestrial flora or fauna would be impacted. Analysis of the Connecticut River from which the cooling tower makeup water would be drawn indicate that the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) does habituate the water below the site in the Holyoke Pool.
At present, a fish ladder is being constructed at the Turner's Falls dam which will allow a number of species into that portion of the Connecticut River used by the Gill /Erving site. It is not felt that the ladder will allow the shortnose sturgeon to gain access to these waters due to its lethargic nature and potential inability to climb the ladder.
- c. Floodplain Development The normal river elevation at the site is approximately 180 feet (normal range of 184-176 ft.). The normal floodplain is approxinately 20 feet above the normal river elevation and the maximum (estimated) flood was recorded at 49.2 feet in 1936.
A Probable Maximum flood analysis at Vernon Vermont Hydroelectric f acility,12 miles upstream indicates that this dam is inundated under the PMF flow. The river control feature which establishes the backwater curve that inundates the Vernon Dam is located F.9-75
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the site just above the confluence of the Millers River at French King Rock. This backwater curve results in a Pond elevation at Vernon of 251.8 MSL (controlled River). Therefore, as a result of the backwater curve from the French King Rock narrows the PMF elevation will be a few feet less than 751.8 MSL. Because most of the land with suitable slope on the Gill site is Flood prone and because of poor foundation conditions, it is unlikely that the Gill site would be suitable for the construction of a nuclear f acility. At the Erving Site, on the east side of the river, there would be no floodplain development. The slope of the bank is steep and PMF elevation is achieved within 300 feet of the river at the southwest corner and within 1500 feet at the northwest Corner. Relative to associated transmission lines, no floodplain development is anticipated. If any construction is necessary in wetlands, use of swamp mats, e.g. , would mitigate any impact. As such, there would not be unit loss of wetlands, except for the actual areas of the poles.
- d. Transmis sion The associated transmission lines for the proposed Gill /Erving site (Figure 300.15-1) would consist of three 345 kV circuits, generally to be constructed on wood pole H-frame structures averaging 85 feet in height except as noted below, and are planned as follows:
(a) From the Gill /Erving bus structure, Erving/Northfield, Massachusetts, two circuits of approximately 1 mile each in length would be constructed easterly on a new right-of-way approximately 350 feet wide, with a median strip between the two circuits, to Northeast Utilities Northfield Mountain Station, Northfield, Massachusetts. (b) One circuit of approximately 29 miles in length from the Northfield Mountain Station would be constructed on an existing right-of-way, in general 300 feet wide, to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow (also a Northeast Utilities Substation, both having 345 kV f acilities) as follows: (1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly the proposed circuit would parallel two existing Northeast Utilities 345 kV circuits of similar construction (Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation, Hinsdale and Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow), as well as the proposed circuit in c. below, on an existing F.9-76
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 550 feet wide right-of-way to a point approximately 1250 feet northeast of the summit of Poplar Mountain, at which point the two existing 345 kV circuits separate. (2) For the remaining approximately 28 miles southerly, the proposed circuit would parallel the existing Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation 345 kV circuit, on an existing right-of-way 300 feet wide, to Ludlow Substation. (c) One circuit of approximately 40 miles in length from the Northfield Mountain Substation on aa existing right-of-way, in general 150 feet wide, to Agawam Substation, Agawam (also a Northeast Utilities Substation which is to be upgraded to 345 kV capacity regardless of this project) as follows: (1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly the proposed circuit would parallel two existing Northeast Utilities 345 kV circuits of similar construction (Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation, Hinsdale and Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow), as well as the proposed circuit in b. above, on an existing 550 feet wide right-of-way to a point approximately 1250 feet northeast of the summit of Poplar Mountain, at which point the two existing 345 kV circuits sepa ra te. (2) For approximately 2.6 miles further southerly the proposed circuit would parallel the Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation 345 kV circuit on an existing right-of-way 300 feet wide to a point approximately 1000 feet northeast of where the Central Vermont Railroad crosses Federal Street (Route 63) in Montague, at which point the existing 345 kV circuit turns wes terly toward the Montague Plain. (3) For approximately 1.3 miles further southerly the proposed circuit would be constructed on an existing unocc'apied right-of-way 150 feet wide to a point approximately 1250 feet north of Dry Hill Road in Montague, where Northeast Utilities Montague to Amherst, to Granby 115 kV circuits and Montague to Amherst (2) 69 kV circuits, on double-circuit steel lattice towers, 150 feet wide right-of-way, meet the unoccupied right-of-way. (4) For the remaining approximately 35 miles southerly through Sunderland, Leverett, Amherst, Granby, South Hadley, Chicopee, West Springfield and Agawam to Agawam Substation, the proposed circuit would be constructed F.9-77
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O upon rights-of-way, in general varying between 100 and 150 feet in width, upon which are existing circuits of lesser voltages. According to location, steel poles would be required. Some existing structures may be relocated or removed. Some right-of-way widening may be required which, for the highly urban development of the Chicopee, West Springfield segments, would create severe impacts.
- 1. Historic Impact (a) For the proposed circuits from Gill /Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National Register of Historic Places.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would not be any impact on sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National Register of Historic Places, to the best of our kn owled ge. (c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would be a visual impact on two sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as follows:
"Chicopee, City Hall, Market Square (7-30-74)"
"Chicopee, Dwight Manufacturing Company Housing District, Front Depot, Dwight, Exchange, Chestnut Streets (6-3-77)".
From the 147 feet high campanile tower on the City Hall, in looking northerly over the Dwight Manufacturing Company Housing District to the nearest point of visual impact, where the proposed circuit would cross Massachusetts Route 116, a distance of approximately 4000 feet, it is probable that the upper parts of the proposed structures would be visible. The stairs in the tower currently are unsafe and access to the tower is not pe rmi t ted . There would not be any visual impact on the of fice building portion of the City Hall. From the Dwight Manufacturing Ccmpany Housing District, a large mill complex of buildings of typical 19th century New England architecture, there is a probable visual impact in looking northerly a distance of approximately 3000 feet to that segment of the proposed circuit between Massachusetts Route 116 and Interstate Route 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike). There are aany companies located within the mill complex and access to the upper floor was not obtained at this time. Currently there are structures for circuits of lesser voltages on the right-of-way. No other sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National F.9-78
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Register of Historic Places would be impacted by the associated transmission lines from Northfield Mountain Substation to Agawam Substation.
- 2. Cultural Impact (a) For the proposed circuits from Gill / Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on cultural sites.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would not be any impact on cultural sites. (c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would not be any impact on cultural sitca.
- 3. Recreational Impact (a) For the proposed circuits from Gill / Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on recreational sites.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would be the following impacts on recreational sites: (1) There are two segments of a state forest in Montague that would be traversed by the proposed circuit. Due to the hilly terrain, dense woods and lack of development in the area, impact would be minimal. (2) An open area used by a sportsman's club might be visually impacted. (c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would be the following impacts on recreational sites: (1) It would abut the recreational fields of three schools. (2) There would be a slight visual impact upon one school's recreational fields. (3) It would abut one municipal pleyground. (4) It would traverse one private " Pool and Tennis Club". (5) It would have a visual impact upon two municipal swimming pools. F.9-79
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER (6) It would traverse one state park. Due to the hilly O terrain, dense woods and in general, the lack of development, the impact would be minimal. (7) It would cross the Connecticut River vary near a public boat ramp adjacent to Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike). (8) There might be an impact upon a municipal conservation area depending upon final right-of-way locations. It is unknown at this time whether there would be any visual impact to one municipal playground, nne sportman's club or five schools recreation areas, in addition to those enumerated above. The existing structures for the circuits of lesser voltages currently on the right-of-way were not visible from these locations. This may be due to their height as compared with the proposed circuit's structures or it may be due to the deciduous trees screening the structures.
- 4. No " unique place or opportunity" would be lost due to the project's associated cransmission lines. However, as discussed further under 300.15(f) aesthetic impact, any -
attempt to construct the proposed 345 kV circuit to Agawam would, in some areas, possibly result in the taking of residential property.
- e. Cooling Towers Fogging and icing hazards from evaporative cooling towers could occur in two ways. The first is usually localized icing ef fects as a result of " drift", mechanically entrained water droplets which are generated inside the tower and carried along with the air to be exhausted to the atmosphere. The second way is for the ccoling tower plume to be formed at or near ground level, or descend to the surf ace, causing ground-level fog and possibly icing.
From published reports it appears that potential fogging and icing ef fects depend not only on local meteorology and terrain, but also to a great extent on the type of cooling tower being cons ide red. Carson (1976) reported that observations at operat'n3 power stations with natural draf t cooling towers rarely indicated ground-level fogging or icing. He also cited reports from England which indicated that only two or three times a year did a few detached f ragments of visible plume touch the ground f rom relatively short (375 feet) natural draf t cooling towers. F.9-80
(a N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5
< s Another report from England, he further reported, noted no drizzle or driit observed f rom natural draf t cooling towers.
These observations are supported by other studies (Spurr 1974; Kramer et al. 1976). Carson (1976) also investigated mechanical draf t cooling towers. He concluded that the fogging potential of these shorter.(50 . to 80 f t) towers is much greater than that of larger natural draft cooling towers (350 to 500 f t). He reported that there are indications of frequent plume down-wash, but that plumes of ten quickly evaporated or lif ted again due to their buoyancy. Potential ef fects for circular mechanical-draf t coolind towers probably lie somewhere between the more typical lineat mechanical-
~
draf t towers and natural draf t cooling towers, according to Carson (1976). Thus, f rom the above discussion it $an be. concluded that natural draf t cooling towers would cause little, if any, safety hazard. . Either type of mechanical draf t tower (s) could potenticily have some localized, periodic ef fects on local roads, U.S. Route 2, the railroad tracks passing through the site and other nearby features. It should cien te noted that' there is no commercist shipping traf fic in the Connecticut River.
- f. Aes the tics A quantitative or semi-quantitativo comparative evaluation of the aesthetic impact of site facilities was not performed dur'ng initial site selection surveys but, as noted in the response ,,
to RAI 300.18, Applicant did consider aesthetic impacts in the sita selection screening process. These considerations were primarily concerned with potential cooling tower visual impacts and the length of new trarmeission lines required. 4rovided below (Tables 300.15-1 and 300.15-2) is a comparison of the visual impact which the project would have at the Gill /Erving site and the Charlestuvn site. 'The assessment assumed the facility would be located at the Erving site with two 550+ ft natural draft cooling towers. At the Charlestown site, the proposed f acility would exist with the highest structure reaching approximately 200 f t. (MSL). Visual receptors were identified f rom existing data to a distance of 7 to 10 miles from the sites. Site area visits, the Montague Station Environmental Report and topographic maps were the prime-data sources for the Erving site and the ER and site area visits were used for the Charlestown site. The visual receptors were selected as; representative nf potentially visually sensitive areas such as prtserves, h ighways , towns and historic sites. F.9-81
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O The analysis shows that the Erving site is obscured by terrain and the dense forests to the east. To the south, west and north, however, there are several vantage points. The Charlestown site analysis shows that the relatively low profile of the proposed buildings is only visible from some nearby areas and out into Block Island Sound. The most potentially sensitive receptors would be the seasonal beach use rs. The description of the Charlestown transmission system and associated impacts is in ER Section 3.9. Relative to the associated transmission lines for the Gill /Erving site: (a) For the two proposed circuits from Gill /Erving to Northfield Mountain Station (300.15.d(a) above), 0.8 miles in length on a new right-of-way, each would cross relatively open land and one road (Route 63), separated by a median strip. Due to the proposed circuits from the Gill /Erving site being parallel to each other, they were treated as 1.6 circuit miles in Table 300.15-3. (b) From the Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation (300.15.d(b) above), approximately 29 miles in length, the proposed circuit would have the following aesthetic impacts: (1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly, wherein the proposed circuit would parallel two existing and another proposed 345 kV circuit on an existing 550 feet wide right-of-way, there would be only woods and an electric transmission right-of-way traversed. There are no open fields, wetlands, roads, railroads or rivers to be crossed or abutted. Due to the high crown, high density woods, the hilly terrain and lack of development, impact would be minimal other than for the clearing required. (2) For tha remaining approximately 28 miles southerly to Ludlow Substation, paralleling an existing 345 kV circuit on a 300 foot right-of-way, there would be approximately 26.0 miles of woods to be traversed 1.0 mile of open fielda and 0.5 miles of wetlands to be crossed or skirted. Twenty five roads would be crossed including Interstate 202. With the exception of Routes 2 and 9, the roads have a limited, rural use. Two rivers and two railroads would be crossed. As in the prior segment visual impact would be minimal. It is an area of very low population density. The existing clearing would be widened approximately 130 feet. (c) From the Northfield Mountain Substation to Agawam Substation, F.9-82
' N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 S
(300.15.d(c) above) approximately 40 miles in length, the proposed circuit would have the following aesthetic impacts: (1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly, wherein the circuit would parallel two existing circuits, as well as another proposed circuit on an existing 550 feet wide right-of-way, there would be only woods and an electric transmission right-of-way traversed. There are no open fields, wetlands, roads, railroads or rivers to be crossed or abutted. Due to the high crown, high dens ity woods, the hilly terrain and lack of development, impact would be minimal other than for the clearing required. (2) For the next 2.6 miles southerly, paralleling an existing 345 kV circuit on a 300 feet wide right-of-way, approximately 2.1 miles of woods and 0.5 miles of open fields would be traversed. Two roads, one railroad and one river would be crossed. This segment also is densely wooded; visual impact would be minimal. The existing clearing would be widened approximately 130 feet. (3) For the next 1.3 miles southerly, the proposed circuit would be constructed on an unoccupied right-of-way 150 feet wide, traversing approximately 1.1 miles of woods and 0.2 miles of open land. No roads, railroads or rivers would be crossed. The open fields at the southerly end of this segment would provide a view of the proposed circuit to travelers on Route 63. However, this same area is traversed by four existing 69 kV and 115 kV circuits on double-circuit steel lattice towers crossing Route 63 whereas the proposed circuit's H-frame structures would have a wooded hill for a background. Clearing would be necessary for mos t of this segment. (4) For the remaining 35 miles to Agawam Substation the aesthetic impacts of the various segments are as follows: (aa) From this point of intersection with the two double circuit towers right-of-way to the Leverett/Amherst town line on a right-of-way 150 feet wide, a distance of approximately 8.1 miles, the proposed circuit would traverse approximately 6.4 miles of woods, 1.1 miles of open land and 0.6 miles of wetlands would be crossed or skirted. There are seven raad crossings and one river crossing. The circuit would parallel a railroad, in use for freight, for most of this segment. There would be an increased visual impact on traf fic on Route
- 63. Clearing would be required if additional widening F.9-83
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O of the right-of-way is needed in this segment; it might also require the taking of a house. Possibly some replacement of existing s ' uctures would be necessary. (bb) From the Leverett/Amherst town line to Bachelor Road, Granby, on the existing 150 feet wide right-of-way with its two double circuit cowers, a distance of approximately 10.1 miles, the proposed circuit would traverse approximately 5.0 miles of woods, 4.0 miles of open land, generally meadows, 0.1 miles of wetlands, and 1.0 miles of low density residential development at Cus' nan and at Amherst Center. Fifteen roads would be crossed as would one ratiroad and one river. Widening of the right-of-way at some street crossings would be difficult; taking of some homes may be necessary. At a point approximately 0.7 miles north of Bachelor Road, a right-of-way for Northeast Utilities Amherst-East Hampton (2) 69 kV circuits turns westerly to cross the Holyoke Range. The above segment to Bachelor Road has a higher visual impact than those to the north especially with the open land and development of the Amherst arca. To the best of our kn owled ge , there would not be any impact upon the University of Massachusetts, Amherst College or Hampshire College although it is possible that the proposed circuit could be seen from the 38 story library building at the University of Massachusetts. As above, possibly some replacement of existing structures would be necessary. (cc) From Bachelor Road, Granby to the South Hadley/Chicopee city boundary, on ti e existing right-of-way, either 100 feet or 150 feet wide, a distance of approximately 6.0 miles, the circuit would traverse approximately 1.7 miles of woodc which in some locations have residential development near the right-of-way, 3.5 miles of open land, as above generally meadow land, 0.5 miles of wetlands, 0.3 miles of heavy urban development and a 500 foot span across Lake Aldrich in Granby. "ifteen roads would be crossed including Inters tate 202. No railroads or rivers would be trave rs ed . This segment has an increased visual impact over the prior section, especially with the urban development near Chicopee. Most of the segnent, however, is rural, of low density population. Wider.ing of the right-of-way would be dif ficult. As above, probably replacement of existing structures would be necessary; currently there are steel towers with a wide steel crossarm to carry the two circuits. (dd) From the South Hadley/Chicopee city boundary to the F.9-84
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Chicopee/ West Springfield city boundary (middle of Connecticut River), a distance of approximately 5.4 miles on rights-of-way of vc rying widths, approximately 2.5 miles of wooded terrain, 2.8 miles of heavy urban develcpment and 0.1 miles of river crossing would be trave rsed . Twenty five streets would be crossed including Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) as well as one ra il road . There would be high visual impact throughout this segment even in the wooded portions due to the heavy urban development abutting these areas with attendant views of the proposed circuit's structures above the overstory. From Fairmount Substation south there would probably be required a replacement or removal of existing structures of circuits of lesser voltages. Widening of the right-of-way could not be carried out without taking of residential property in several locations. As much of this area was laid out in the 19th century, i.e. , small lots, narrow roads, an attempt to construct the proposed circuit underground would also be difficult. All five major streets crossing this part of Chicopee in a southerly direction are heavily travelled. At several locations residential yards and gardens are in the right-of-way. No site's associated transmission lines have impacts of the magnitude of this segment of the circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam. (ee) From the Chicopee/ West Springfield city boundary (middle of Connecticut River) to Agawam Subs tation, a distance of approximately 5.3 miles on a right-of-way either 100 feet or 150 feet wide, the proposed circuit would traverse 0.8 miles of woods, 0.2 miles of open land, 0.8 miles of heavily developed urban land, 3.2 miles of residential land and 0.3 miles of river crossings including the remaining half of the Connecticut River not in 300.15.f(dd) above and the Westfield River. Twenty two roads would be crossed including Interstate 5, 20 and 91. No wetlands are crossed but the main line of the former Boston and Albany Railroad is cressed. There would be a high visual impact throughout this segment especially in the prevailing residential areas. The existing 115 kV circuits would probably have to be retained which would create various problems in the approximately four miles of urban and residential land to be traversed. To summarize, approximately 70.8 circuit miles would be required for the Gill /Erving Site, of which there are 48.5 miles of woods, 12.1 miles of open land,1.7 miles of wetlands, 4.2 miles of limited residential development, 3.9 miles of heavy urban F.9-85
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER development and 0.4 miles of river crossings totalling 7 river crossings and the crossing of Lake Aldrich. There are approximately 113 street crossings inclu31ng six interstate and 11 state highway crossings. There would be 6 railroad crossings. New rights-of-way would total 29.4 circuit miles and existing rights-of-way of 41.4 miles, including the 1.3 miles of unoccupied right-of-way in Montague. The impact of parallel circuits is minimal for the Gill /Erving site due to the short distance, 2.0 or 1.6 miles respectively, of double circuit construction, as compared with Rome Point, Westerly or Charlestown. However, none of the other sites' associated transmission lines have impacts of the magnitude of the proposed circuit to Agawam. As a basis for comparison of the associated transmission lines for the Charlestown site with that of the alternate site, Table 300.15-3 is provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of terrain traversed as well as impacts have been doubled. The data were compiled from a consultant's study, analysis of USGS topographic maps and field analysis. Types of terrain crossed are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed rights-of-way. Comparison of the Charlestown and Gill /Erving transmission shows similar right-of-way mileage, 70.6 and 70.0 miles respectively, with Gill /Erving being almost entirely on existing right-of-ways. However, the Charlestown transmission would be preferable when compared to the impact of Gill /Erving on approximately eight miles of residential and urban development. F. Zoning It is anticipated that power plant structures would be located in the Town or Erving, Massachusetts. Therefore, Erving's zong by-laws apply. The entire Town of Erving is zoned as a Village and Rural District. Industrial use is allowed subject to certain conditions such as public water and/or sewerage service, direct access to either Route 2, Route 2A or Route 63, etc. It is Applicant's understanding that the Erving zoning by-laws could allow a power plant as a permitted use at the Erving site. Ref e rences fo r 300.15.a. , b. , d. , f.
- 1. Soil Survey - Franklin County, Massachusetts, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service February 1967
- 2. Soil Conservation Service, Maesachusetts. (personal conversation of 8-4-78)
Subject:
Classification of prime and unique farmlands of Massachusetts.
- 3. Soil mapping units used in Massachusetts that are prime F.9-86
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 farmlands by Soil Conservation Service, 29 Cottage St., Amhe rs t, MA 01002.
- 4. Important farmlands in Rhode Island, (definitions) of prime
& unique. by R. I. Community Development Committee. June 28, 1977.
- 5. Massachusetts Division Fish & Wildlife (personal conversation of 8/2/78). Listing of threatened and endangered wildlife (Inventory of Mass. Invertebrates).
- 6. Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2, Final Environmental Statement, February 1977 U.S. Nuclear Reg.
Comm. Doc Nos. 50-496, 50-497
- 7. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Title 50 CFR Part 17 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; February 7,1978, Species according to range distributions, and updated through August 21, 1978.
- 8. Federal Register June 16, 1976 Endangered and Threatened Species (pla nt s) .
- 9. Federal Register, Part V, July 14, 1977 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife & Plants (Republication of list of s pe cies) .
- 10. Rare & Endangered Plant and Animal Species of Massachusetts.
Mass. Division of Fisheries and Game; February 1973.
- 11. Special Status Species of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife May 17, 1978.
- 12. Threatened Species of Massachusetts,1975. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
- 13. Fish and Wildlife in Limited Numbers in Massachusetts; by Paul !!ugford, Mass. Division Fish & Wildlife.
- 14. An Inventory of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (Vertebrate)
Resources. by: Paul S. Mugford, Mass. Division of Fish & Wildlife; 1975.
- 15. Federal Register, February 7,1978. National Register of Historic Places, and updated through August, 1978.
References for 300.15.e.
- 1. Carson, J.E. 1976. Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative F.9-87
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Cooling Systems. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. (ANL/ES-53).
- 2. Kramer, M.L. , M.E. Sniith, M.I. Buf fer, D.E. Seymour and T. T. Frankenberg, .1976. Cooling Towers ar.d the Environment. J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 26(6): 582-584.
- 3. Spurr, G.1974. Meteorology and Cooling Tower Operation.
Atmos. Env. 8: 321-324. O 9 F.9-88
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.16 Rome Point (ER p. 9.2-19)
- a. Is there prime or unique agricultural land onsite?
- b. Would the project (including associated transmission lines) involve floodplain development or loss of wetlands?
- c. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be impacted by the project (including associated transmission lines)?
- d. Would the project (including associated transmission lines) impact any place of historic, cultural, or recreational impo rtance ? Would it involve loss of a unique place or oppo rtunity ? Give details where appropriate.
- e. Would cooling towers create a safety hazard from fogging or icing?
- f. Would the plant be threatened by external missiles, hazardous materials or flammable gas?
- g. What would be the aesthetic impact of the project?
- h. What would be the impact on comuunity services?
- 1. Would the project be consistent with zoning and p1'anning commission guidelines?
R ESPONS E: a. Agricultural Land An Interim Soil Survey Report for North Kingstown, R.I. was issued by the Soil Conservation Service in 1973. Based on this survey, it appears that some lands designat. ' as prime farmlands are found on the Rome Point site. Of the 240 acre site area, about five percent are of this type. Prime farmland soil types and the corresponding acreage is listed below: Name and Description Acreage Sudbury sandy loam 10 Deerfield loamy fine sand 10 Unique Farmland Through combined analysis of the North Kingstown soil survey and land use characteristics, it is believed that no unique farmland exists on the Rome Point site. 9 F.9-89
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER
- b. Floodplain Development S
Rome Point is situated on the west bank of Narragansett Bay and is subject to flooding from sea water. The type of storm that af fects this area most severely is the hurricane. The 1938 hurricane is termed the most severe in the New England area during the period of tidal gage records. The Newport, Rhode Island tidal gaging station experienced a flood level to a maximum elevation of 10.8 feet above mean sea level (MSL)(normal tidal range is 3.5 f t). The Army Corps of Engineers reported a value of 11.8 f t above national geodetic vertical datum (NGtD) along the eastern bank of East Passage which is part of Narragansett Bay. Maximum elevation at the Rome Point Site is roughly 120 feet (MSL) in the southwest corner and it slopes downward to sea level over a horizontal distance of approximately 4200 feet. A detailed site layout has not been prepar Det the site c_cattine is subject to storm flooding. ' .he plant were situated in the coastal floodplain, flood protection would be required. . Wetlands can be classified by looking at either the vegetation, soil type or a combination of both. The Rome Point site has about 60 acres of its 240 acre total as either very poorly or poorly drained soils. These soils, according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service are typical wetland soils and are all located in the northern section of the site. The soils of this type on site are Pawcatuck Peat (tidal marsh) soil, Walpole sandy loam and Scarboro sandy loam, each having characteristic high water tables. Relative to associated transmission lines, no floodplain development is anticipated. If any construction is necessary in wetlands, use of swamp mats, e.g. , would mitigate any impact. As such, there would not be unit loss of wetlands, except for the actual areas of the poles.
- c. Thteatened Species Information gathered on the terrestrial and aquatic environments associated with the Rome Point site to date indicates that no threatened or endangered terrestrial flora or f auna would be impacted by the construction of a power plant. Although it is believed that some species of mammals and birds may cross by the site, none frequents the areas of the site.
At or near the proposed right-of-way at the Taf tville, Connecticut crossing of the Shetucket River, for the proposed circuit from the Rhode Island / Connecticut State Line to Card F.9-90
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Street Station, there may be a location for Prunus allegheneiensis. Prior to construction of the associated transmission lines, knowledgeable personnel would walk the proposed rights-of-way to be sure there are no threatened or endangered species present. If located, construction would be perfo rmed in a manner to prevent any impact.
- d. Historic Place Impact The Rome Point site is owned by Applicant thus there would not be any loss of historic, cultural or recreational importance.
Within approximately one-mile of the site center, the following historic, outdoor recreational, conservation and open space has been inventoried.1,2 Loca tion and Distance Desc rip tion Plum Point Beach (south) Private facility (2 ac.) Plum Beach Club (south) Private facility (0.8 ac.) Silas Casey Farm (south)* Private (360 ac.) Hatailton School (northwest) Local school (7.1 ac.) Bissel's Cove Launch (north) Private Bissel Cove Natural area
- National Register of Historic Place The only historic site listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National Register of Historic Places which might be impacted by either the station or transmission lines would be the North Kingston, Wickford Historic District, roughly bounded by Tower Hill and Post Roads as far North as Mill Cove and South to Lindley Ave. (12-31-74). From an elevation of 10 feet, i.e., on the second floor of some structures, the top 25 feet of the projected 175 f t containment structures and substantially more of the natural draf t cooling towers, if required, would be visible from a distance of approximately 13,000 ft. Neither the George Douglas House in Allentown, Rhode Island nor the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace on the Silas Casey Fa rm, both in Saunderstown, Rhode Island would be impacted despite their relative proximity to the associated transmission lines and site.
The projected transmission system for the Rome Point site is described below. No sites of significant cultural importance would be impacted by either the Rome Point to Kent County, Rome Point to Big River Junction or Rome Point to Ca.id Street Station proposed 345 kV circuits, to the best of our knowladge. For the proposed Rome Point to Kent County 345 kV circuit, one F.9-91
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER school's recreation ficids would be traversed by the line. 9 By mutual consent the recreation field has been developed on our right-of-way pending f uture needs of the utility. To the best of our knowledge, no impact is anticipated on recreational sites for the Rome Point to Big River Junction proposed 345 kV circuit. For the proposed Rome Point - Card Street 345 kV circuit, land as 'ciated with a Boy Scout camp would be trave rsed. No truly " unique place or opportunity" would be lost due to the project, to the best of our knowledge. Transmission System The associated transminston lines for the proposed Rome Point site (Figure 300.15-1), North Kingston, Rhode Island, four 345 kV circuits, generally to be constructed on wood pole, li-frame structures averaging 85 feet in height, are planned as follows:
- 1. One circuit of approximately 12.5 miles in length to Kent County Substation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island (300.16.d(a)-
(b) below).
- 2. One circuit of approximately 11.4 miles in length te point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known at Mg River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet the Sherman Road - Kent County 345 kV circuit. (300.16.d (a)(c)(d) below.)
- 3. One circuit of approximately 53.7 mile 1 in length to Northeast Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, Connect icu t (300.16.d(e, -(h) below. ) .
- 4. One circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length from West Farnum Substation, North Smithficid, Rhode Island to M111 bury Substation, M111 bury, Massachusetts (300.16.d(i) below.).
Detailed description of the proposed segment of the above circuits is as follows: (a) From the proposed Rome Point site, North Kingston, Rhode Island, two circuits of approximately 2.9 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on an existing unoccupied right-of-way 300 feet wide to be widened to 350 feet, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a junction point va the existing Wes ; Kingston-Kent County right-of-way approximately 7 50 feet southwest of Secret Lake. (b) From the above junction point near Secre;; Lake, one 1 .9-92
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 circuit of approximately 9.6 miles in length would be constructed northerly on the existing West Kingston - Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to Kent County Substation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island. (c) From the above junction point near Secret Lake, one circuit of approximately 0.8 miles in length would be constructed southwesterly on the existing West Kingston - Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to a junction point just south of Kettle Hole Pond, North Kingston.
'd) From the above junction point near Kettle Hole Pond, one circuit of approximately 7.7 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to a junction point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter kncan as Big River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet the existing Sherman Road - Ket t County 345 kV circuit.
(e) From the proposco Rome Point site, one circuit of approximately 3.4 miles in length would be constructed westerly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to a junction point on the West Kingston - Kent County right-of-way approximately 0.6 miles northwest of Congdon Hill, North Kings ton. (f) From the above junction point near Congdon Hill, one circuit of approximately 1.6 miles in length would be constructed southwesterly on the existing West K1 gston - Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to a junction point just west of where Slocum Road crosses the right-of-way in North Kings to n. (g) From the above junction point near Slocum Road, one circuit of approximately 17.7 miles in length would be cons tructed wes terly on a new right-of-way,150 feet wide, to the Rhode Island / Connecticut state line at a point opposite Hopkinton, Rhode Island and 0.6 miles northeast of Shingle Mill Pond, Connecticut. This point is also common to the Charlestown tc Card Street Station Line on the Westerly to Card Street Station Line. (h) From this junction point near Shingle Mill Pond, one circuit of approximatel' 31.0 miles in length would be const.ructed northwesterly, approximately 11.2 miles paralleling existing rights-of-way and 19.8 miles of new rights-of-way, generally 170 feet wide, to the F.9-93
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 existing Northeast Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, Connecticut (See ER Section 3.9.18.2 " Direct Route".) (i) From West Farnum Substation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island, one circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on the existing right-of-way, averaging 250 feet wide, paralleling two 115 kV circuits and replacing a 69 kV double circuit line, to Millbury Substation, Millbury, Massachusetts. As this circuit is also required for the Charlestown Project, no further analysis is made of it in this discussion of alternatives to Charlestown.
- e. Cooling Towers Applicant's response to RAI 300.15.e discussed the relative differences of different types of cooling towers on the Gill /Erving site. This discussion is also applicable to the Rome Point site. The only general difference would be that cooling towers for the Rome Point site would be somewhat larger due to the required use of salt-water for make-up.
Those site specific featurea which could potentially be af fected by fogging or icing are: (1) State Route 1A; (2) the Jamestown Bridge; (3) local residential areas to the north and south; (4) and, local shipping traf fic through the West Passage of Narragansett Bay. Additional information about salt water cooling towers is in the response to RAI 300.19.
- f. Hazards Applicant conducted a recent survey of potential hazards near the Rome Point site. The data collected are summarized below.
Highways. No usef ul data are maintained on possible hazardous over-the-road shipments near the rite.
Reference:
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Department. Pers. Comm. 1978. State of Rhode Island, Department of Public Utilities, Transportation and Planning. Pers. Comm. 1978. Waterweys. Vessels entering and leaving (approximate) Narragansett Bay between 6/30/77 to 7/1/78. 350 tankers (petro, oil, etc.) F.9-94
e N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 200 barges (gasoline, oil, etc.) 3-5 barges (caustic soda) 600 non-tankers (general cargo) 14 mineral carriers 6-8 LPG (all foreign ships, 400-600 ft long) Reference. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard Marine Saf ety Of fice, Providence, R.I. Pers. Comm.1978. Gas Lines High pressure 8 in line 2 miles NW High pressure 12 in. line 2.5 miles W High pressure 16 in. line 5 miles NW Regulator Station 5 miles NW LNG storage facility 5 miles NW Four regulator ,tations 5-10 miles of site Reference Operations Department, Providence Gas Company. Ders. Comm. 1976. Airways. T. F. Green State Airport is located approximatet, 13 miles to the north of the site. The total number of ope rations in 1977 was 241,075. Total operations for the first six months of 1978 was 139,890. Ouonset State Airport is located approximately 2 miles north of the site. In 1977, the airport listed 39,562 aircraf t movements. These were categorized as 29,747 civil transient (pr iva te , corporate, etc.), 78 for fixed-base operators, 0,579 military novements and 158 other. Monthly values for the first six months of 1978 are similar with the exception that fixed-base ope rators were ave raging approximately 1,000 movements. Ref e rence. State of Rhode Island, Department of Transportation, Division of Airports, Harwick, R.I. , Sep tember,197R. Applicant believes that with adequate safeguards, for example, a secondary containment as accounted for in Table 9.3-1 (Rev. 5), Rome Point is a viable alternate candidate site.
- g. Aesthetics Applicant conducted a historical study in 1972 for the then proposed Rome Doint Station. The study included an analysis of aesthetic impact based on a 240 f t. high containment structure. As can be seen from this analysis (attached) by projecting 550 + foot natural draf t cooling towers into the visual analysis, the only noticeabl- change would be from the Sarah Browning House, Old School, Hamilton Mill and Wickford Historic District. These are in addition to the obvious F.9-95
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER G visibility of these structures out into Narragansett Bay. Rela tive to the associated transmission lines: (a) From Rome Point to Kent County Substation (300.16.d(a)-(b) above), the initial 2.9 miles would be on an existing unoccupied right-of-way and the remaining 9.6 miles, totalling 12.5 miles would be on an existing right-of-way. It would traverse 5.8 mil s of woods, 2.9 niles of wetlands, 2.5 miles of open land, 0.7 miles of woods on one side /open land on the other side and 0.6 miles abutting a residential area. The circuit would cross an arm of Spirit Lake, the Maskerchugg River and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately seventeen roads would be crossed including Interstate 1, lA and o5. As the proposed circuit would parallel Route 4 for approximately five miles in East Greenwich, which has extensive traf fic on it, there would be visual impact in this segment. (b) From Rome Point to Big Rive r Junction (300.16.d(a), (c), (d) above), the initial 2.9 miles would be on an existing right-of-way, the next 0.8 miles are also on an existing righ t-of-way and the final 7.7 niles, totalling 11.4 miles would be on a new righ t-of-way. It would traverse approximately 8.4 miles of woods, 1.5 miles of wetlands and 1.5 miles of open land. The circuit would not cross any rivers but would cross the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately thirteen roads would be crosted including Interstate 1 and lA. Af ter traversing two sizeable agricultural open areas south of Huckleberry Hill, North Kingston, the circuit would traverse extensive woods in an undeveloped area until reaching Big River Junction. (c) From Rome Point to Rhode Island / Connecticut state line (300.16.d(e)-(h) above) the initial 3.4 miles would be on a new right-of-way, the next 1.6 miles would be on an existing right-of-way, and the remaining 17.7 miles, totalling approximately 22.7 miles would be on a new right-of-way. It would traverse approximately 19.5 miles of woods, 1.1 miles of wetlands and 2.1 miles of open land. The proposed 345 kV would cross the Mattatuxet River, the Chipuxet River, the Wood River and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approxinately 22 roads would be crossed including Interstate 95,1 and 1A. (d) From the Rhode Island / Connecticut state line to Card Street Substation, (300.16.d(g) above) the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on existing Northeast Utilities rights-of-way for f F.9-96
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 approximately 11.2 miles and approximately 19.8 miles of new rights-of-way would be necessary, totalling 31.0 miles. From an analysis made in 1975 by a consultant, approximately 18.2 miles of woods would be crossed, 6.R miles of wetlands, 5.7 mi} es of open land and 0.3 miles of residential land. There would be a high visual impact in crossing the Connecticut Turnpike and near Route 97 (See Charlestown ER Sect ion 3.9.18.2) . Twenty-six road crossings are req uired. Tc summarize, exclusive of the West Farnum to Millbury Substation proposed 345 kV circuit, approximately 77.6 circuit miles would be required, 40.9 miles on new rights-of-way and 36.7 on existing righ ts-of-way. Approximately 51.9 miles of wooded terrain would be trave rsed,12.3 miles or wetlands, 11.8 miles of open land, 0.7 miles of wooded land en one side /open land on the other side and 0.4 miles of residential land would be impacted. There are six river crossings by single circuits. There are three railroad crossings by single circuits. Seventy-eight street crossings are required including two single circuit crossings of Interstate 95, one single circuit crossing of Interstate 1 and Interstate 1A, and a double circuit crossing of Interstate 1 and of Inters tate 1A. Recognition should be made of the one parallel segment of these circuits, namely from Rome Doint to a junction point south of Secret Lake (2.9 miles) . As a basis for comparison of r.he associated transmission lines for the Charlestown site with the alternate site, Table 300.16-1 has been provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of terrain traverced have been doubled. The data were compiled f rom a consultant's study, analysis of USGS topographic maps and field analysis. The proposed West Farnum Substation to Millbury Substation 345 kV circuit has not been included in the attached data. Types of terrain crossed are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed righ ts-o f-way . Comparison of Charlestown to Rome Point shows that Rome Point would require more right-of-way mileage, 70.6 vs. 74.7 miles, and would have a higher visual impact than Charles town's circuits. F.9-97
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O
- h. Community Services The impact on community services would be generally similar to that of any other new nuclear f acility in a rural reside *ial area and comparable to the Charlestown site in some respect.
As discussed in ER Section 8.2.2.1, mos t of the labor force will come from the State of Rhode Island, especially Providence. the closer proximity of Rome Point to Providence will f acilitate commuter traf fic. Alternate major sources of skilled labor are Bridgeport (Conn.), Worces ter (Mass. ) and Bos ton (Mass) . The Massachusetts labor force would be somewhat closer to Rome Point. Thus, impacts during construction might be somewhat less than at Charlestown site. Other areas requiring consideration include local growth, tax base demand for housing, impact on utilities, law enforcement, traf fic, fire protection and schools. Applicant believes that with proper planning, any significantly adverse impacts could be mitigated.
- 1. 7.oninn Approximately 89 acres of the total site area is zoned industrial district which includes power plants as a permitted use subject to a number of minimum requirements (i.e. , setback from property lines or zoning lines, open space, maximum lot coverage by structures, etc.) and performance standards regulating noise, vibration, smoke, waste, etc. The remaining site acreage is zoned rural residential which does not include power plants as a permitted use.
Studies have not been performed to determine if the 89 acres zoned industrial are sufficient area for locating the NEP L&2 units nor has the construction and operation of a nuclear plant been analyzed for compatibility with the zoning by-law performance standards. Ref erences for 300.16.a and c. Same as ref erences 2 through 10 for questions 100.17a. and b. and:
- 1. Interim Soil Survey Report for North Kingstown, Rhode Island U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; 1973
- 2. Soil Conservation Service, R.I. (personal communication of 8-11-78).
Subject:
Rome Point soil survey and prime and unique f armlands. F.9-98
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Pef e rences for 300.16.d
- 1. Seavey, G.L.1975. Rhode Island's Coastal Natural Areas:
Priorities for Protection and Management. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhcde Island, Marine Technical Report No. 4 3.
- 2. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1076. Plan for Recreation, Conservation and Open Space. Project: BOR 44-00110, Report No. 28.
- 3. Federal Register, February 7,1978, National Register of Historic Places, and updated through August, 1978.
F.9-99
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 ATTACIIMENT to RAI 300.16.g 1972 ROME POINT HISTORICAL STUDY This attachment has been retyped and the figures have been redrawn from original material for the purpose of clarity. Subject to a request made by the Atomic Energy Commission (dated 7/14/72) for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a study was made to determine the possible visual impact of the proposed Rome Point f acility upon the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace. Along with this study, the Company further investigated 14 additional sites recommended by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission to the Department of Community Affairs in a "Special Report on Rome Point". All 15 houses and buildings are considered to be of " distinguished quality" and historical significance as reported in the paper, "An Opinion on the Rome Point Project" by Uinslow Ames, a faculty member of the University of Rhode Island and a resident of Saunderstown where most of the historical sites are located. Ames lives approximately two miles f rom the proposed project site. Although some of these recommended historic structures have been modified architecturally or are now being used commercially, we considered all of them. Since some of these sites are in close proximity to one another, five groupings or basic observation areas will cover all fif teen sites: The Gilbert Stuart Area -- Gilbert Stuart Birthplace; (Looking N.E.) McLeod's House: Snuf f Mill; 17th Century Pouse on Gilbert Stuart Road The Saunde rstown Area -- House of Jamison (2), South Ferry (Looking N) Church, Church Pos t Road Robinson Site & Peabody Sterns House Browning Area -- Abutting Project, Sarah Browning (Looking N) House Hamilton Area -- Old School, Mill Building (2) Wickford Area -- Wickford Historic District (Looking S) (Looking E) A brief description of the proposed project area is provided for background information. This 273-acre site is bounded on the west by Route 1A; the north by private land and Bissel Cove; the south by a private field, and east by flarragansett Bay. The most activity in the area seems to come f rom Quonset Point Naval Air Station three miles to the north followed by F.9-100
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 residential housing development in the general vicinity at a rate above the State's ave rage. A two-lane expansion of the Jamestown Bridge just south of the project is proposed for 1974. The site has common ocean side climatic vegetation stunted by extreme wind conditions on a relatively flat area. The sandy and stony so'1 is quick draining promoting drought tole rant species that are generally salt resistant. The site area averages 15 feet above MSL and the height of the containment is estimated to be 240 feet high. As a result, the estimated top height of the structure is 255 feet above sea level. With this in mind, we have attempted to make an appraisal of each of the five historic observation zones looking in the direction of the site. The profiles on the attachments were done to scale, taking the most prominent high points on a line of site basis. The Gilbert Stuart Area -- 1-1/2 miles from the project The project L ructures will not be seen from the Gilbert Stuart House (a national historic landmark) because of the deciduous tree line (even without leaves) and hills. This also follows for the Snuf f Mill and McLeod's House. Howeve r, because of the open field at the intersection of 1A and Gilert Stuart Road, the 17th Century house, located on a 150-foot hill, could be a vantage point to observe the project. However, this appears to be highly unlikely, since trees will screen visual contact. (Attachment No. 1). The Saunderstown Area This observation area averages over 2-1/3 miles from the project. This summer colony includes the Peabody-Sterns House, 2 houses of Jamison, the South Ferry Church, the Church on Post Road and the Robinson House. The observation zone f rom mos t of these are blocked by Barber Heights. (Attachment No. 2) . The two Jamison houses could render a view of the project from their upper level windows. The Browning Area This structure is 1/2 mile south of the site and is at 120 MSL. This observation area will lend visual notice to the upper half of the s t ruct ure. However, because of some contemporary remodeling and very recent efforts with respect to historical classification, this site will have to be more closely looked at. (Attachment No. 3). The Han.ilton-Belleville Area This area includes an Old School used presently for commercial upholstering and two mill buildings, one in Hamilton and one in Belleville all west of the site. Fron Belleville, the two-mile line of sight to the F.9-101
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O proje ct is blocked by a ridge 400 feet away. From Hamilton, however, because of the low flat te rra in, the upper half of the containment will be seen f rom the Old School and mill building. (Attachment No. 3). The Wickford Historic District Area This area is approximately 2-1/2 miles northwest of the proposed site. Because of the close spacing of buildings in this historic district, only views from the shores of Wickford Cove or upper floors of buildings ' will give notice to the upper half of the containment structure. In conclusion, of the 15 sites involved, the Gilbert Stuart Historic Landmark will not have a visual point of view and only five of the ot ier S 14 proposed sites will lend some degree of visual notice to the project. O O F.9-102
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 AN OPINION ON THE ROME POINT PROJECT By Winslow Ames Houses and buildings cf distinguished quality near the Rome Point site:
- 1. Old School, c.1865, of f Weaver's Road in Wickford (formerly the Wickford Weavers' Shop).
- 2. House for Owen Wister,1905, of f Rt. lA.
- 3. House by Peabody & Stearns on Waterway.
- 4. McLeod's House on Gilbert Stuart Road.
- 5. Gilbert Stuart Birthplace (1755), Gilbert Stuart Road A National Historic Landmark.
- 6. Snuf f Mill (17 57), Snuff Mill Road.
- 7. South Ferry Church on South Ferry Road, Saunderstown.
- 8. House by Jamison, Crowfield Road of f Rt. lA, Saunders town.
- 9. House by Jamison, Crowfield Road of f Rt. lA, Saunders town.
- 10. Baptist Church,1840, Hamilton.
- 11. Chur ch, 1810, Pos t Road.
- 12. Late 17th century house, Gilbert Stuart Road.
- 13. Hannah Robinson House, 1710, Saunders town.
- 14. A group of fine mill buildings in Hamilton and Belleville.
- 15. Sarah Browning House, Saunderstown.
These buildings are located by number on the accompanying map of North Kingstown. F.9-103
5. T. 8 on SPECIFICS ON MAJOR SITES Obse rvation Distance & Direction Visual Obstruction Area Location Elevation to Rome Point Distance Gilbert Stuart Gilbert Stuart House 20' 9,000' NE 100' McLeod's House 40' 8,500' NE 200' Snuff Mill 90' 8,000' NE 1,000' 17th Century House 140' 12,000' NE 700' Saunderstown Two Houses of Jamison 120' 12,000' N 4,000' South Ferry Church 50' 12,000' N 500' Post Road Church 80' 12,000' N 1,000' 2 f Robinson House 70' 14,000' N 1,000'
- e Peabody & Sterns 30' 12,000' N 1,000' I ,
o Browning Sarah Browning House 125' 3,000* N 3,000' W
- y Hamilton and m
- D Belleville Old School 20' 4,000' SE 600' Mill Buildings Hamilton 10' 5,000' SE 1,000' Belleville 50' 11,000' 9E 800' Wickford Historic District 10' 13,000' SE 3,000' 9 9 9
N E P* 1 & 2 ER Revision 5
. A us y nw' %
g
.I g' #8 ,
. c _. i
*- ,WICKFORD HISTORIC DISTRICT g is a p ,
- - a poeta.
- ; a . y ~~.
** *t .L,n w,
~" g ,Q7,m.4 ,
$y.".% N ')
f
'o2 fa 4 Al
-f /
^ ,E# s'd- p-k ' *( ln,"
/g/.,. . ,,g, -.whse=> ;j"b q 4 s,
*.c'*.?%,
' iEp;y
/
*7
, *
- p' qs. . \', A /
... .it
> *. f* '. hf: y f
s l ho . sso,
#l
.,', say*f.
- g'u ta",,,,
f n
)
n ! *
- I I- '{v , eg!
- s,E
~f IJ SCALE IN MILES J ,
( 9 kg., ,,, ,j,,
&~
' .*E, ' '% '
T.}*, f. .m . .. s.E \
- s,
. .. _ . _ . ., . v. . . ':/, .
.,e .
. e.~..-
t_ :
~' D. # '
4 p., , .'j. .- h"**p~~. ve,
.$','..e e g .,,4
,4 ( Q 'p/ ge,q /
k; ;e.vh V
, ., ,3
, -[.va.y'k, HAMILTON AREA .llI. '
t .
*T, S.
.N., ;
. ,,ff, ,7;.N(w og ,
; e .
~.. ! f " W, .- " '
~
),:. i$.'Q:i '%'14]}
194: * . .,, - . ;9, .
.] .J W }f,j:5f. hNs };ft ROME POINT ~ ' 12
_._L___ ._h, s A 6k__ .. . .
- u. .. '
o2 ,. ~
; q s
')
6 T O' W; - N S?)3( A4,g=. s< iPoe tas 'rf a <
/ .
.y - ,
s%, . ..
* *.3 4;#* , .. 3*'g.
-* g' :. 2 bi: - '; \r
'l j
r
\ {*.-
g]-
- IEI l', BROWNING R E A (* ,*,'[*
3
* ${$;e'f') "'" Q "
/V f y*.'
) ') ,.. ,
, i .
. s
\ .
.;r. i;7 y. . f,,,,,#
8 g' anni $y.G'I
.* K 9 ~ l' GILBERT STUART +s 1
's ('s c
/'/ , AR,EA v
.* a f, o);p.,".L,,
. $v1 s,. .;
c.::s' 'a . r .. .
'" .. :n .: j's!!
.: ' ',y ,
- ,, ,,C : = s ~y . . ?;* g *.
.~.
u siterat stuAnt 8
.o
**ypy;' ,, .#e 4 a* - !
.,g,'rl
.s 5[ g; y*
. , - - 4*',, sintu et4q s .
<r-i ,b s'.'iv,,
* 'd g* ,t L .'. 3 h '* ;
,. (
*
- I*. * 's e ('. '%t ,
,. .. z; 4,~, , j .
- 3. . ; f, .
,~, .
},
8 9
. \,*r*
, }
/( . r, scamco
,=,
- e. .
/
}
,.I%}',m, s e i
.... /7'
(~ .-
, NA
,, [f,'),
y/r/ (m %...-...-y, . . g.n .y SAUNDERSTOWN AREA
,.,h"
'w'f;.ugp6
. n~
.s .. u , /[,/
r 1 gf l- . . a { ,
- dh:( J y V.J.
.y .* r g,p p "~" "
q*.,. # {: i .- a u ...c..
,- ,n: e :;,. ,. i l/.5-
?f
,'
- y, ,
( _ _ _ _ _ _. - ,,annac Amu t t
- 19. !
F.9-105
k 3-5' 3 m THE GILBERT STUART AREA GILBERT STUART BIRTHPLACE l OBSERVATION ELEVATION 20 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 50 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 100 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 9,000 FEET MCLEOD'S HOUSE OBSERVATION ELEVATION 40 FEET: HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 75 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 200 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 8,500 FEET g N -- m e T l a H : SNUFF MILL l go o r
- OBSERVATION ELEVATION 90 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 150 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE N VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 1,000 FEET: DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 8,000 FEET m
- 17TH CENTURY HOUSE l OBSERVATION ELEVATION 140 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 170 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 700 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 12,000 FEET 7
0 1 2 THE HEIGHT OF THE ROME POINT CONTAINMENT IS 255 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. ! ! ! SCALE: 1" = 1,000' O O O
THE SAUNDERSTOWN AREA TWO HOUSES OF JAMISON
=
OBSERVATION ELEVATION 120 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 170 FFET VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 4,000 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME PGINT 12,000 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE SOUTH FERRY CHURCH; POST RD. CHURCH: ROBINSON HOUSE: PEABODY STERNS Z m = m T B C >a R8 h OBSERVATION ELEVATION 80 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 120 FEET N VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 1,000 F EET: DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 12,000 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE THE HEIGHT OF THE ROME POINT CONTAINMENT IS 255 FcET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. O 1 2 i 9 R SCALE: 1" = 1,000* 5. E 8 v.
?
s.
=.
8 u, THE BROWNING, HAMILTON AND WICKFORD AREAS SARAH BROWNING HOUSE
-i OBSERVATION ELEVATION 120 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 120 FEET TOP 135 FEET SEEN.
VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 1,500 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 3,000 FEET 7 i OLD SCHCOL
'ODSERVATION ELEVATION 20 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 40 FEET TOP 102 F EET SEEN, VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 600 F EET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 4,000 FEET HAMILTON MILL Z m . -
m o OBSERVATION ELEVATION 10 SEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 40 FEET TOP 85 FEET SEEN. qp i VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 1,000 FEET; DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 5,000 FEET o Y W CD E4 ITI
. BELLEVILLE MILL l
- D OBSERVATION ELEVATION 30 FEET; HEIGHT OF 7BSTRUCTION 80 FEET PLANT NOT VISIBLE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 800 FEET:DISi ANCE TO ROME POINT 11,000 FEET WICKFORD HISTORIC DISTRICT _
-I OBSERVATION ELEVATION 10 FEET; HEIGHT OF OBSTRUCTION 40 FEET TOP 105 FEET SEEN.
VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE 3,000 FEET: DISTANCE TO ROME POINT 13,000 FEET 0 1 2 I I I THE HEIGHT OF THE ROME PQlf'T CONTAINMENT IS 255 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. = ' ' SCALE: 1" = 1,000' O O O
NEP1&2Edl' Revision 5
\ _.
300.17 Westerly Site (ER p. 9.2-20A)
- a. Is there prime or unique agricultural land onsite?
- b. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be impacts.d by the project?
- c. Would the project impact any place of historic, cultural, N or recreational importance? Would it involve loss of a unique place or oppottunity?
- d. Would there be a threat from external missiles, hazardous materials, or flammable gas?
- e. What would be the aesthetic impact of the project?
- f. Would the project be consistent with zoning and planning commission guidelines?
RESPONSE: a. Agricultural Land An Interin Soil Survey conducted for Westerly, R.I. in 1975 < indicates that the site is composed of soils ranging from poorly drained peat and muck with 12-51 inches of organic matter over a mineral material to very sandy and stony soils, these being excessively drained and lying over a mixed outwash and coarse glacial till. Of these soils, a little more than one percent of the 400 acres or 5.5 acres could be considered as prime f a rmla nds . These are located on the ncrthern edge of the site and due to this, pose no problem to the siting of a plant here.- A list of the two types of prime f armland soils found and their corresponding acreage are listed below: s Soil Name and Description Estimated Acreage Enfield, well drained silty soils over 5 stratified sand and gravel Belgrade, moderately well drained .5 deep silty soils over stratified sands and gravel. ,s
/
Unique Farmlands Unique f armlands are characterized by soils which fill the requirements of prime f armlands as well as supporting a high value crop for food, feed, fiber and forage. No unique farmlands F.9-109
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER have been located on the Westerly, R.I. site. S
- b. Threatened or Endangered Species Through an initial site transmission right of way evaluation and terrestrial survey, no three.tened or endangered species of flora or f auna are believed to' be impacted by the project.
Should further analysis be required, then a detailed site evaluation would be conducted to ensure that no impact on such species would occur. Species determined to be threatened or endangered were derived f rom those found on the Federal Register and compared to site evaluations as vell as to those species described in ER Section 2.2. At or near the proposed right-of-way at the Taf tville, Connecticut crossing of the Shett:ket River, for the proposed circuit from the Rhode Island / Connecticut State Line to Card Street Station, there may be a location for Prunus allegheneiensis. Prior to construction of the associated transmission lines, knowledgeable personne4 wou J walk the, proposed right-of-way to be sure there arr. no threate..ad or endangered species present. If located, :onstruction would be performed in a manner to prevent any inpact.
- c. Impact on Historicel Places Because of the provimity of the Westerly site to the Charlestown site, the ER more than adequately addres ses this subject for the Westerly site. See the following ER ref erences for appropriate information.
Site Area Iand use Page 9.2-20A (Rev. 41 Site location (map) Figure 9.2-6&20 Site Area map-5 mile radius Figure 1 Parks and Recreational Areas Figure 2.1-17 Uithin 10 Miles of the Site Existing Land Use Map 0-5 Mile Figure 2.1-15 Radius Regional Historic, Scenic, Page .i.6-1 (Rev. 4) Cultural and Natural Landmarks Historical and Archaeological Figure 2.6-1 Sites within a 5 Mile Radius Relative to the associated transmission lines for the proposed Uesterly site (Figure 300.15-1), four 345 kV circuits, generally to be constructed on wood pole H-frame structures averaging 85 feet in height, are planned as follows:
- 1. One circuit of approximately 43.5 miles in length to Northeast Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, F.9-110
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Connect icut (300.17.c.(a)-(e) below).
- 2. One circuit of approximately 19.3 miles in length to a point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known as Big River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet the Sherman Road - Kent County 345 kV circutt. (300.17.c.(f)-
(h) below).
- 3. One circuit of approximately 29.9 miles in length paralleling the proposed circuit in 2 above to Big River Junction for 19.3 miles and then continuing approximately 10.6 miles to Kent County Substation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island (300.17.c(f)-(i) below).
- 4. One circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length from West Farnum Substation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island to Millbury Substation, Millbury, Massachusetts. (300.17c(j ) below) .
Detailed description of the various segments of the above circuits is as follows: (a) From the proposed Westerly site, one circuit of approximately 1.8 miles in length would be constructed in Westerly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to an existing unoccupied right-of-way at Old Shore Road (Dunn's Corner, Westerly). (b) From Old Shore Road, one circuit of approximately 4.2 miles in length would be constructed northerly on an existing unoccupied right-of-way 125 feet wide to a junction point at the Connecticut Tie Line right-of-way east of Peter Hill, Rhode Island. (c) From the above junction point, one circuit of approximately 1.1 miles in length would be constructed easterly, parallel to the Connecticut Tie Line right-of-way, widening it from 125 feet to 225 feet, to a point just east of Ashaway Bradford Road, near South Hopkinton. (d) From the above point near South Hopkinton, one circuit of approximately 5.4 miles in length would be constructed northerly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to the Rhode island / Connecticut State line at a point east of Shingle Mill Pond, opposite Hopkinton. This point is also common to the Charlestown to Card Street Station Line and the Rome Point to Card Street Station Line. (e) From the above point on the state line, one circuit of approximately 31.0 miles in length would be cons tructed north-westerly, approximately 11.2 miles paralleling existing rights-of-way and approximately 19.8 miles on F.9-111
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER new rights-of-way generally 170 feet wide to Northeast 9 Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, Connecticut. This is the " Direct Route", per the Phase 11 studies for the Charlestown Project (See ER 3.9.18.2). (f) From the proposed Nesterly site, two circuits of approximately 8.2 miles in length would be constructed northeasterly on a new right-of-way 350 feet wide, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a point 0.3 miles northeast of crossing the Penn Central Railroad and the Pawcatuck River in Charlestown. (g) From the above point in Charlestown, two circuits of approximately 7.3 miles in length, consisting of approximately 4.1 miles of Link C2,1.0 miles of Link C3 and 2.2 miles of C4 as proposed for the Charlestown Project (see ER 3.9.9.2 - Link Descriptions) would be cons tructed northerly on a new right-of-way 350 feet wide, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a point 0.1 miles west of Gardner Road and 2.2 miles south of Ten Rod Road in Richmo nd. (h) From the above point in Richmond, two circuits of approximately 3.8 miles in length would he constructed northerly on a new right-of-way 350 feet wide, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known as Big River Junction, where the proposed circuits would meet the existing Sherman Road to Kent County Substation 345 kV Line. (i) From the Big River Junction above, one circuit of approximately 10.6 miles of Link E-5 as proposed for the Charlestown Project (see ER 3.9.9.2-Link Deecriptions.) would be constructed northeasterly on the existing Sherman Road to Kent County Substation right-of-way 250 feet wide to Kent County Subs tation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, parallel to the existing 345 kV circuit. (j) From Wes t Farnum Subs tation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island, one circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on the existing right-of-way, averaging 250 feet wide, paralleling two 115 kV circuits and replacing a 69 kV double circuit line to Millbury Subs tation, Millbury, Massachusetts. As this circuit is also required for the Charlestown Project, no further analysis is made of it in this discussion of alternatives to Charlestown.
- 1. Historic Impact To the best of our knowledge, the only historic site listed, F.9-112 1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 nominated or pending nomination to date in the National Register of Ilistoric Places to be impacted would be the "Charlestown, flistoric Village of the Narragansetts in Charlestown. Bound by RI Route 2/112 on the east, US Route 1 on the south, Kings Factory Road on the west, and RI Route 91 on the north (5 73)". As this is a densely wooded, hilly or wetland, undeveloped area, impact nor the associated transmission lines (300.17.c(f) above) would be minimal. Neither the Joseph Jef frey House, Carolina, Rhode Island vicinity, the Hopkinton Historic District, liopkinton, Rhode Island or the Governor Jonathan Trumbull House in Lebanon, Connecticut would be impacted despite their relative proxinity to the proposed transmission lines.
- 2. Cultural Impact No sites of significant cultural importance would be impacted by the Westerly to Card Street, Uesterly to Big River Junction or Westerly to Kent County proposed circuits, to the best of our knowledge.
- 3. Recreational Impact For the proposed Westerly to Card Street 345 kV circuit, land associated with a Boy Scout camp would be trave rsed. For the two proposed Uesterly to Big River Junction 345 kV circuits, there would be some impact wherein the right-of-way crosses two Rhode Island "Planagement Areas", however, impact would be minimal due to the topography, the presence of woods, and lack of development. Actually, by the removal of the overstory as required for the right-of-way, the impact could be favorable.
For the one proposed 345 kV circuit, continuing from the Big Rive r Junction vicinity to Kent County Subs tation, there would be the crossing of a watershed area, parallel to the existing 345 kV circuit, of the proposeed Big River Reservoir.
- 4. No truly " unique place or opportunity" would be lost due to the project.
- d. Hazards Applicant recently updated and verified potentially hazardous activities near the Charlestown and Westerly sites. ER Section 2.1.4.3, Existing Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Site, should be consulted for this information. Also see NEP 1 & 2 PS AR Sect ion 2.2.
- e. Aesthetic Inpact The station on the Westerly site would be relatively well screened from the surrounding area. Ross Hill Road, to the east and north, Route 1 to t5c south, and Woody Hill Road to F.9-113
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O the west are all screened by the sloping noraine and 20-30 foot trees which borde r the roads. The most likely viewing location would be from vessels in Block Island Sound. The tops of the containment structures may be visible from selected beach locations. The site structures would also likely be visible from the population center of the Town of Westerly to the west of the site. Rela tive to the associated transmission lines: (a) From Westerly to the Rhode Island / Connecticut State line (300.17c (a)-(d) above), approximately 7.2 miles would be on new rights-of-way and 5.3 miles, totalling 12.5 miles, would be on existing rights-of-way. For appro.:imately miles two through six, this circuit would have high visual impact and uould involve extensive wetlands construction. It would traverse approximately 7.0 miles of woods, 3.5 niles of wetlands, 2.0 miles of open land and about 250 feet of open water (at Dam Pond). The proposed 345 kV circuit would cross the Pawcatuck River and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately thirteen roads would be crossed including Interstate Route 95. (b) From the Rhode Island Connecticut state line to Card Street Substation (300.17 c.(e) above) the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on existing Northeast Utilities rights-of-way for approximately 11.2 miles and approximately 19.8 miles of new rights-of-way would be necessary totalling 31.0 miles. From an analysis made in 1975 by a consultant, approxinately 18.2 miles of woods would be crossed, 6.8 miles of wetlands, 5.7 miles of open land and 0.3 miles of residential land. There would be a high visual impact in crossing the Connecticut Turnpike. Approximately 26 roads would be crossed as well as two rivers. (See ER Section 3.9.18.2). (c) From Westerly to the Big River Junction (Sherman Road - Kent County line vicinity), (300.17c.(f)-(h) above) for two proposed circuits, approximately 19.3 miles of new rights-of-way would be utilized. It would consist of approximately 17.2 miles of woods, 1.9 niles of wetlands and 0.2 miles of open land. The proposed 345 kV circuits would cross the Pawcatuck, Beaver and Congdon Rivers, Indian Cedar Swamp and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately seventeen roads would be crossed. Note that in Table 300.17-1, all impacts have been doubled to reflect the two circuits' impacts. The new right-of-way is 19.3 miles times 2 circuits or 38.6 for this link of the total 65.6 miles of new righ t-of-way. F.9-114
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 (d) From Big River Junction vicinity to Kent County Substation, (300.17.c(i) above), the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on an existing right-of-way for its entire length, approxima tely 10.6 miles. Approximately 9.0 miles of woods, 0.5 miles of wetlands, 0.9 miles of open land and 0.2 miles of open water (Carr Pond) would be traversed. The proposed 345 kV circuit cross the Maskerchugg River. It would cross nine roads including Interstate Route 95. To summarize, exclusive of the West Farnum to Millbury proposed 345 kV circuit, approximately 92.7 circuit miles would be required, 65.6 miles on new rights-of-way, 26.5 on existing rights-of-way. Approximately 68.6 miles of wooded terrain would be crossed,14.6 miles of wetlands, 9.C miles of open land, 0.3 of residential land and 0.2 miles of open water would be impacted. One river is crossed by three circuits, two are crossed by two circuits and three by one circuit. Eighty two road crossings including two crossings of Interstate 95 by single circuits would be required. As in 300.17.e(c) above, recognition should be made of the impact of two parallel circuits to Big Rive r Junction (19.3 miles) . As a basis for comparison of the associated transmission lines for the projected site with the alternate site, Table 300.17-1 has been provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of terrain traversed have been doubled. The data were compiled f ram a consultant's study , analysis of USGS topographic maps and field analysis. The proposed Uest Farnum Substation to Millbury Substation 345 kV circuit has not been included in the attached data. Types of terrain crossed are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed righ ts-of-way . When comparing Charlestown to Uesterly rights-of-way, it is evident that Westerly would require more right-of-way, more construction in wetlands and a longer double circuit righ t-of-way.
- f. Zoning The site area in Westerly is located in an A-1 Agricultural District. The Westerly zoning by-law prohibits uses employing atomic processes in an A-1 district and therefore n amendment would be required prior to proceeding.
F.9-115
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER References for 300.17.a, b, e and e O
- 1. Interin Soils Report Soil Survey Wester _,, R.I. by Daniel G. Spange r, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, Wes t Warwick, R.I. ; March 1,1975.
- 2. Rhode Island Important Farmland Soils (3 pp.) by Soil Conservation Service, 222 Quaker Lane, West Warwick, R.I.
02893.
- 3. Important Farmlands in Rhode Island, (definitions) of Prime and Unique by R.I. Community Development Committee, June 28, 1977.
- 4. Soil Conserva tion Service, R.I . (personal communication of 8-4-78) Subject - Classification of Prime & Unique Farmlands.
- 5. Soil Conservation Service; R.I. (personal communication of 8-28-78) Subject - S.C.S. List of Threatened & Endangered Species.
- 6. Threatened Uildlife of the United States, 3/74, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Unit.
- 7. State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of Continental U.S. , House Document No. 94-51, Washington, D.C.; 1075.
- 8. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Part 17 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; February 14, 1978.
- 9. Federal Register June 16, 1976, Endangered and Threatened Species (pla nt s) .
- 10. Federal Register, Part V, July 14, 1977 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife & Plants (Republication of List of Species).
- 11. Federal Register, February 7,1978, National Register of Ilistoric Places, and updated through August, 1978.
9 F.9-116
N E 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.6 Section 9.3-1 2 In Table 9.3-1, a plant at Charlestown with closed-cycle cooling is not considered as a candidate site-plant alternative. If EPA does not permit the use of once-through cooling at Charlestown, will the Charlestown NALF remain the proposed site? Provide the reasons for your answer. RES PONS E: If closed-cycle cooling were required by the EP, at the Charlestown site, NEPCO would haue to reassess the the feasibility of the entire project, based on data and expericace available at that time on the performance characteristics and environmental effecto c; elosed-cycle, salt water cooling systems. Currently, t ach data is meager and experience is virtually non-existe t, particularly in the size range contemplated for the Charlestown units. We firmly believe that with a capital investment of this magnitude it is imperative to provide a reliable cooling system of proven technology. F.9-117
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 300.18 Information used in site selection (ER Section 9.3) S What sources of data and information were used in the site-selection process? How was this information used to predict site-specific costs and impacts associated with site acquisition, site preparation, and plant construction? Why weren't socio-economic (including aesthetic) impacts considered in at least the last stage of the selection process? RESPONSE : A bibliography of major reference sources is provided in Table 300.18-1. This list does not include additional personal references used by engineers and scientists wh' participated in the various site surveys nor, does it inclut!e all the information available f rom the long association of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and New England Electric System personnel with New England electric generating stations and regional resources. ER Section 9.3 shows site specific estimated differential costs for three major categories: (1) circulating water system, (2) heavy equipment transportation, and (3) transmission. The circulating water system costs are based on standard architect / engineer preliminary design concepts. Various site data were supplied to Applicant's consultants from documents in the reference list. Consultants were commissioned to conduct transportation and access studies to various site areas (see reference lists). Additional information on access was supplied f rom experience at other projects, such as New England Power's Bear Swamp P roj e c t . Responses to RAI 300.13 and 300.14 describe the process by which data were evaluated. Inherent within the site selection process used, socio-economic information was considered. Using the example list on page 8-1 of USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, it can be seen that socio-economics was considered. Tax Revenues. Certain sites with proposed or operating new generating stations (or within the same town) were considered (Montague, Yankee Rowe, Pilgrim at Plymouth). Local communities already receive (or would anticipate receiving) substantial tax benefits from these stations. Thus by deferring these sites, tax revenues will be created for other localities. Temporary and Permanent New Jobs Created. The study recognized labor availability problems in many regions. Where there was poor labor availability, for example Region III, new jobs would be created both for the few resident workers and those imported f rom other areas. The site surveys also recognized the potential F.9-118
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revisior 5 for competitien between projects, for example, the Montague Station and any other potential site in Regions II and IV (see response to RAI 300.5). Enhancement of Recreational Values. New England Power has many generating projects where public recreation has been enhanced. For example, at Brayton Point Station, a boat launching ramp is available to the public. At the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage P roj e c t , a visitor's center, picnic areas and hiking trails are available. Much of the property at the Yankee Rowe power plant, partially owned by New England Power, is available for public hiking, camping and hunting. Table 300.18-2 is a ,,g, Recreation Inventory of facilities sponsored by Applicant. It was evident during the site screening that some sites, Sachuest Point and Quicksand Pond for example, could be used for conservation purposes (see site description re Attachment of response of RAI 300.13). The proposed NEP 1 & 2 also would include a multiple land use plan for the site. Thus, Applicant constantly endeavors to nake positive public use of its projects. Creation of Improved Local Roads. Uaterways or Other Transportation Facilities. As can be seen in responses to RAI 300.5 and 300.14, and in ER Table 9.3-1, transportation access was an important consideration in the siting survey. It was recognized that some alternate sites would require extensive upgrading of local roads or rail facilities. While these upgradings would enhance local transportation, they would also increase the cost of the f acility; a cost ultimately passed on to the consumer. As Applicant strives to provide the least expe ns ive reliable power possible to its consumers, the need for extensive local road upgrading was considered a drawback to siting in a particular area. Residential Displacement. Residential displacenent was considered very important in the site survey for two reasons. Having to move many families creates a very undesirable social impact and makes the purchase of property for a site more difficult. It was partially for these reasons that among the potential sites considered (see response to RAI 300.13) were property owned by Applicant. Additionally, it can be seen in the Reasons for Deferral (response to RAI 300.14) that sites which had a large number of property owners, signifying higher residential displacement, were generally deferred from cons ide ra tion. Aesthetics. Aesthetics have been a consideration in two main areas, cooling towers and transmission lines. It is not clearly called out in criteria and guidelines because these areas are F.9-119
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER considered in more quantitative terms with respect to other S cons ide ra tions. For instance, long transmission lines carry a'high construction cost and involve greater electrical losses than do short ones; there are reliability considerations, and there are aesthetic considerations. All of these considerations tend generally in the direction of keeping transmission lines as short as possible, although the generalization cannot be carried too far. As can be seen by reference to ER Section 3.9, aesthetics is a consideration in planning routes. The objective measure usually used is the construction cost of new facilities. Although it does not specifically reflect all considerations involved, it is a reasonabic gross indicator and was used in comparisons. Similarly, cooling towers represent an added cost for construction and an added operating cost. Again, there are impacts on reliability and there is the aesthetic consideration of structures which dwarf the containment buildings or have visible plumes, or both. As can be seen by reference to ER Section 10.1.5, and 10.1.6, aesthetics is a definite consideration in Applicant's view. The objective measure used, capitalized operating penalties plus added construction costs, does not include aesthetics in a quantitative manner, but it does penalize the aesthetically intrusive towers. Since the objective measures in use operated in the direction of minimization. af aesthetic intrusions, no additional specific quantitative measure was adopted to account for aesthetics. O F.9-120
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 300.19 Selection of Charlestown Nuclear Plant-Site (ER p. 9.3-1) According to Table 9.3-1, a station at Rome Point would cost
$7 million less than at Charlestown. The only disadvantages listed for Rome Point are higher population density and possible (not necessarily probable) salt drift. The discussion on p.
9.3-1 doesn't make it clear why the balance of these f actors tipped in favor of Charlestown. Please clarify. RESPONSE : The Rome Point site was very thoroughly considered for nuclear power development during the early 1970's, prior to the proposed f acility at the Charlestown site. Preliminary feasibility studies were conducted. Two 913 MWe units were proposed with once-through cooling using the West Passage of Narragansett Bay as the water source. The Environmental ?rotection Agency conducted a preliminary review of the potential narine ecological impacts of the project and indicated that they would not sanction a once-through cooling system at that location i
. Thus, if Applicant were to continue the Rome Point f acility, the rejection of a permit for once-throv-5 cooling and the potential use of salt water cooling towers was a distinct pos s ibility.
A report evaluating alternate cooling water systems for the Rome Point site had been prepared bv an engineering consultant 2, Salt water spray canals, natural o aft towers and mechanical draft towers were qualitatively evaluated for environmental impacts. Potential " measurable" or "significant" ef fects were indicated for (1) salt drift impact on-site and off-site, (2) potential fog and noise impacts, and (3) the aesthetics of the system. Thus, the environmental acceptability of a saltwater closed cycle cooling system was also identified as a potential licensing obstacle. An additional problem which existed was that there was little operating experience with saltwater closed-cycle cooling water systems. In fact, a recent survey indicates that there is only one operating seawater (salinity greater than 26 ppt) closed-
-ycle system in existence, which happens to be 96 MWe with a low capacity factor3. The largest brackish water closed-cycle cooling system is reported to be 850 MWe3 Thus, there was, and is, a high degree of operational risk involved with building a pcwer f acility the size of NEP 1 & 2 using seawater (average salinity about 30 ppt) for closed-cycle cooling system makeup.
Also considered somewhat disadvantageous in the limited size of the property owned (240 acres; 1400 foot exclusion radius) and the probable need for a double containment at an estimated cost of $25 million. For the above reasons, the Rome Point site was and is considered to be less satisfactory than the proposed Charlestown, R.I. site. F.9-121
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 References
- 1. Letter f rom C. Corkin II and P. Bedrosian of the Environmental Protection Agency's Committee for Power Plant Siting and Operation to E. A. Plumley, Vice President, New England power Service Company, dated March 12, 1973.
- 2. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1972. Evaluation of Alternate Cooling Water Systems at Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station .
Units 1 and 2. Submitted to Narragansett Electric Company.
- 3. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1978. Ocean-Sited Plant.
- Survey of Operating Experience with Saltwater Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems. Prepared for the Utility Water Act Group, Edison Electric Institute.
9 O F.9-122
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 301.42-1 Electric Power Research Institute Program Funding, 1976 Estimated 1976 Funding Program Area (Dolla rs) A. Fossil Fuel Research
- 1. Gasification S 10,200,000
- 2. Liquefaction 9,200,000
- 3. Direct Utilization 3,500,000 4 Environmental Control and Combustion 10,400,000
- 5. Supporting Research 1,500,000 Subtotal 34,800,000 B. Advanced Systems Research
- 1. Electrochemical Energy Ccnversion and Storage 7,900,000
- 2. Thermal-Mechanical Energy Conversion & Storage 7,700,300
- 3. Fusion 3,500,fv0 4 Solar Energy 2,900,000
- 5. Geothermal Energy 1,800,000 Subtotal 23,800,000 C. Nuclear Power Division
- 1. Water Reactor System Technology 11,300,000
- 2. Reliability, Availability and Economics 8,700,000
- 3. Fuels, Waste and Environment 8,000,000
- 4. Developing Applications and Technology 6,300,000 Subtotal 34,300,000 D. Transmission and Distribution Division
- 1. AC overhead Transmission 7,000,000
- 2. Underground Transmission 6,400,000
- 3. DC Transmission 6,800,000
- 4. System Planning, Security, and Control 900,000
- 5. Distribution 3,000,000
- 6. Rotatin.g Electrical Machinery 800,000 Subtotal 24,900,000 E. Energy Systems, Er*'ironment & Conservation Division
- 1. Environmental Assessment 6,300,000
- 2. Energy Demand and Conservation 1,600,000
- 3. Energy Supply 2,200,000
- 4. Energy Systems Modeling 1,100,000 Subtotal 11,200,000 Total Funding $129,000,000 F.9-123 is
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 301.42-2 New England Electric System, 1975 R & D Programs (Sheet 1 of 2) 1976 Proiects Expenditure
- 1. Distribution System Communication Methods 5 290,000 (Arthur D. Little, Inc.)
A two-way communication method utilizing the distribution system circuits is being developed. The goal is to develop a communication system which can be an ef f ective load management tool and also provide time-of-day metering capability.
- 2. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program 273,000 (Breeder Reactor Corporation)
The investor-owned utilities have pledged $250 million over a ten-year period in support of this LMFBR demonstration plant to te built at Clinch River on the TVA System.
- 3. Gas Cooled Fast Breeder (General Atomic) 120,000 This possible alternative to the LMFBR is being supported by over 100 utilities.
- 4. Electric Power Research Institute 1,433,000 EPRI is the central research organization for the electric utility industry (See Table 1)
- 5. Fossil- Fules Research (University of N. H. , 103,000 York Research Corp. , Bird Machine Co.,
Arthur D. Little, Inc. , Standford Research Institute, Stone 6 Webster) These projects involve the study of sub-micron oxide particle formation; development of methods f or water / coal ash separation; study of processes for liquifaction and gasification of solid fuels; study for pilot demonstration of coal /cil slurry combustion at Salem Harbor.
- 6. Load Management (Ohio State University, 67,000 Mitre Corp, MIT)
These projects involve research for energy conser-vation in residential homes, industrial customer load modeling and a joint load management study with Boston Edison Company. O 5 F.9-124
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 301.42-2 New England Electric System, 1975 R & D Programs (Sheet 2 of 2)
- 7. Nuclear Power (General Atomic Compas.y, Yankee 178,000 Atomic Electric Company, MIT Energy Lab)
These projects involve nuclear plant research and development; nuclear safety and waste heat management studies. SC and NO Reduction System 47,000 8. (University bf Nass., Tuf ts University) Perform research relative to the simultaneous reduction of SO 2 and NO in stack gases using carbon monoxide as d reductant.
- 9. Solar Energy (Twenty dif ferent companies are 308,000 involved as suppliers)
These projects involve the evaluation of the technical and economic merits of solar climate control; development of a solar power Rankine cycle turbine for air-conditionir.g of medium-sized residences; demonstration of how much energy can be saved by using solar collectors for domestic hot water at a hospital plus the start of a program to instali 100 solar / electric water heaters in customer's homes.
- 10. Waste Material Utilization (C. T. Main, Inc. ) 13,0v0 This project involves studying the feasibility of burning waste materials as a supplementary fuel in fossil-fired generating plants.
- 11. Fuel Cell (United Technologies) 59,000 This project involves the development of a 26 MW fuel cell generator.
- 12. Diesel Bottoming Cycle (Thermo Electron Corp.) 8,000 A proposed installation of an organic rankine bottoming cycle at the Lynn Diesel Generating Plant is being investigated. The process will uso diesel engine exhaust as a heat source for an organic fluid which will drive a turbine generator, thereby producing more power from the same heat input.
- 13. Other Research and Development 756,000 Total Expenditures Incurred 1976 53,663,000 F.9-125 l5
2) E w 5-3 w Table 300.12-1. Summary of Salisbury, E. Pepperell and Charlestown Sites Candidate Site Evaluation Criteria Salisbury East Pepperell Charlestown Ownership Owned by New England Power Private ownership (8 owners) Controlled by General Services Administration Site Size and 300 acres. 1000 ft exclusion 2000 ft, exclusion radius. 600 acres. 2150 ft. exclusion Exclusion radius. Expansion limited. Adequate for two units. radius. Adequate for two units. Land Radius Maximum LPZ radius of approx-
-Availability imately one mile available.
and Present Land Much of site is salt marsh. Wooded / partially cleared. Abandoned Naval Auxiliary Landing Use Use Residential areas border Field. Shrub / marsh. US Dept. Interior, State of Rhode IE Future Land Potential f or residential N1 Use development. Island, Town of Charlestown recuest property for various uses. 90 , ~ "* u) Population Marginal, 500 people per Exceeds 500 people per Less than 500 people per square EP
' Distribution square mile square mile guidelines mile guideline.
PJ I$ beyond 17 mile radius from ER Ch site. Geology and Below average New England Below average New England Average new England site. Seismicity site; similar to Seabrook. site. Cooling Once-through.Merrimack River Closed cycle. Water must be Once-through. Block Island Sound. estuary or 3 miles to of f- pumped 6 miles from Merrimack shore locations. River. Storm Exposure Flood protection required. Only minor potential for Flood protection required, and Flooding Involves extensive filling Nashua River flooding, of salt marshes. Tr ansmission Cost ($ 1985) $167 Million $46 Million $102 Million Accessibility Good rail and road facili- Upgrading of local roads re- Barge access to site vicinity, ties nearby. Barge facility quired. Railroad adjacent required. to site. Transport of heavy, l wide-dimensioned equipment a pajor problem due to rail-road and highway clearance limitations. O e - 9
1 N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 300.13-1. Potential Sites Region 1. Upper Connecticut River Firs t Connecticut Lake Comerford Pond Moore Reservoir Region II. Lower Connecticut River Gill /Erving Montague and Northfield Region III. Androscoggin River Errol Pontook Reservoir Region IV. Deerfield River Somerset Reservoir (VT)* Harriman Reservoir (VT)* Yankee Rowe Bear Swamp Dunbar Brook Region V. Merrimack River East Pepperell Salisbury Region W . North Shore Gloucester Region VII. South Shore Plyrouth Sites Region VIII. Elizabeth Islands Region IX. Southeastern Massachusetts - Rhode Island Coast Slocums Neck Stony Point F.9-127
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Table 300.13-1. (Continued) Allens Pond Round Hill Point Charles town Warrec Point Quicksand Pond Gooseberry Neck ' Moonstone Beach Weekapaug Dunn Corner Westerly Airport Industrial Park Westerly Sachuest Point Region X. Narragansett Bay Rome Point Mackerel Ceve Jamestown Island Melville-Carr Point Fort Va rnum Region XI. Block Island XII. Other Sites
- Sheffield (MA)
Smith Hollow (Shef field) Three Mile Pond (Shef field) Gerrish Island (ME)
*N e t in Candidate Areas O
F.9-128
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 300.14-1. List of Deferred Potential Sites and Reasons for Deferral Region Site Reasons for Deferral I. First Connecticut Lake (NH) High transmission costs of $312 million Railroad and local roads need significant upgrading Slow construction due to severe winters Labor availability problem due to remoteness Difficult access for large plant equipment II. Montague-Northfield Conflict with proposed Montague Stat ion (See Response to RAI 300.5) III. Pontook Reservoir (NH) High trans.nission cost approximately of (Dummer Site, Seabrook) S300 million Mountainous terrain No rail or water access Labor availability problem due to remoteness Local roads need significant upgrading Slow construction due to severe winters IV. Somerset Reservoir (VT) No specific site identified Site not in region of interest (See RAI 300.9) Probably laadequate water available for evaporative cooling of two units IV. Harriman Reservoir (VT) No specific site identified Site not in region of interest (See RAI 300.9) IV. Dunbar Brook Poor construction access F.9-129
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 300.14-1 (Continued) Region Site Reasons for Deferral Insufficient area for constructing two 1200 MW Units Flood protection required More suitable site (Bear Swampf in the Candidate Area IV . Rowe-Ya nke e Extensive excavation required for construction of two 1200 MW Units More suitable site (Bear Swamp) in the Candidate Area. V. East Peppe rell (MA) Private ospership - at least 8 individual (Bosten Edison - Site 1) owne rs Potential for residential development Population exceeds 500 people per square mile beyond 17 mile radius from site Closed cycle make-up water must be pumped six miles Local roads in relatively poor condition Approximately 315 acre site somewhat rectricted Natural draf t cooling towers could be viewed f rom surrounding flat terrain Accessibility problems for large plant equipment V. Salisbury (MA) Relatively small 300 acre site LPZ radius limited to approximately one mile High population densities Long intake and discharge conduits to offshore region F.9-130
N Z P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.14-1 (Continued) tegion Site Reasons for Def erral Nearby estuary High transmission costs of $167 million Extensive encroachment of sait marshes necessary for raising plant grade for flood protection Nearby recreational and preserve areas VI. Gloucester (MA) High population density Higi. circulating water system pumping penalty due to 100 f t MSL elevation High transmission costs of $400 million due to extensive underground cable VII. Plymouth Sites (MA) Problems with regional transmission system balance (See response to RAI 300.7) VIII. Elizabeth Islands (MA) Land availability questionable Possibly 1000 f t of overburden (poor foundation conditions) Labor force would have to be ferried to site Problem of evacuation planning High transmission costs Problems with regional transmission system balance (See response to RAI 300.7) IX. Slocums Neck Restricted 260 acre site due to nearby perpetual casement property with Massachusetts Audubon Land unavailable Proximity to Slocums Rive r es tuary IX. Stony Point (MA) Restricted 390 e;re site (Boston Edison Site 19) F.9-131
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 300.14-1 (Continued) seginn Site Reasone for Deferral Difficult transmission routing through highly populated area Transmission balance problems (See response to RAI 300.7 ) Otis Air Force Base approximately 7 miles from site Cape Cod Canal traf fic with hazardous cargo passessite IX. Allens Pond (MA) Several land owners. Availability doubtful (Near Boston Edison Site 23) Potential of residential development Flood and storm protection required filling of wetlands required Local roads require upgrading IX. Round Hill Point (MA) Restricted 303 acre site nearby residential (.iear Boston Edison Site 22) areas Wetlands impacted Town beaches within exclusion area Site flood protection required Potentially difficult transmission rout ing IX. '.ittle Compton (RI) Exclusion radius of 2000 feet encompasses (Warren Point) approximately 56 houses Possibly extensive underwater transmission required Site area predicted to be deficient in freshwater in the 1980's IX. Quicksand Pond (RI) Site unavailable Site conflicts with current and f uture land F.9-132
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.14-1 (Continued) degion Site Reasons for Deferral use patterns IX. Gooseberry Neck (MA) Owned by Commonwealth of Massachusetts as part of State Beach reservation Site size marginal for one unit. Exte nsive dredging and fill required for second unit Major recreational rese rvation Site vulnerable to flooding and storm damage Local roads in re l atively poor condition IX. Moonstone Beach (RI) Land privately owned. Small exclusion radius (1250 ft) Site unavailable Flood and storm protection required Area has potential of residential development Part of land donated as preserve IX. Weekapaug (RI) Limited to approximately 1250 f t exclusion radius Near high population densities in the Westerly-Pawcatuck area Site area relatively small IX. Dunn Corner (RI) Near (1.5 miles) high population densities in the Westerly-Pawcatuck area (population 22,500) Insufficient land (less than 50 acres usable) IX. Westerly Airport Exclusion radius limited to approximately Industrial Park 1200 ft. Near high population densities in Westerly / Pawcatuck area (population 22,500) Adjacent to active airport F.9-133
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table 300.14-1 (Continued) Rey, t on Site Reasons for Def erral X. ttackerel Cove Population exceeds 500 pecple per square mile 5 to 10 miles from site Special emergency evacuation plans may be required f or island Of fshore structures would have to be laid in deep (90 f t) water with strong currents Estuarine water source X. James town Island High displacement - 19 houses in 2600 ft exclusion radius Undesirable underwater transmission required in relatively heavily traveled navigation routes Island f reshwater deficiency predicted in 1980's Relatively high population distribution Estuarine water source X. Milville-Carr Point Very high population distribution. Most of Portsmouth and part of Newport R.I. lie within 3 miles of the site. Densities exceed Indian Point's at 5 miles. Estuarine water source X. Fort Varnum Exclusion radius limited to 1500 feet. Site area 225 acres Large number of property owners (36) would result in large displacement and problems of acquisition Estuarine water source X. Sachuest Point Site unavailable XI. Block Island' No specific site identified F.9-134
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.14-1 (Continued) Site Reasons for Deferral }e$: Lon High transmission costs Possibly 1000 f t of overburden Labor force would have to be ferried to site Area of large summer tourism trade Problem of evacuation planning Gerrish Island Not in region of interest. See response (ME) to RAI 300.9. High transmission cost. See response to RAl 300.10 Shef field (HA) Insufficient water without an impoundment Three Mile Pond Smith Hollow Not in candidate area F . 9 - 1.' 5
Res sion 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 9 Table 300.15-1. Potential Visual In: pacts of the Erving Site East Location and Distance View Northfield Pump Storage Intervening terrain and tall Proj ect (1 mi) trees partially obscure view. Erving State Forest (1.5 mi) Very extensive terrain, limited access and dense trees greatly obscure view. Wendell State Forest (4 mi) Terrain (1000-1200 ft mountains) and dense trees greatly obs :re view. Town of Erving (4.5 mi) Dense trees and interuning terrain (800-1000 ft) greatly obscure site. Northfield State Forest (5 mi) Terrain (1200-1400 ft), limited access and dense tr es greatly obscure view. Orange State Forest (7 mi) Intervening terrain (800-1100 ft) Warwick State Forest (7 mi) and dense trees greatly obscure Town of Orange (8 mi) view. Mt. Grace State Park (8 mi) State Highways Rt 2 (east-west) Site obscured by terrain and trees. Rt 63 (north-south) Highway passes site. Site visibic in many locations. 9 F.9-136
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 i Table 300.15-1 (cont. ) South Town of Hillers Falls (1.5 ni) Site visible passing over Conn. River. French King Bridge (Historic)(0.5 mi) Site visibic from several locations. Wendell State Forest (3,3 mi) Intervening terrain (800-1000 ft) and tall trees greatly obscure site. Montague State Forest (4.5 mi) Intervening terrain (600-800 f t) cnd tall trees partially obscure site. Town of Montague (5.5 mi) Site visible from some locations. , Others obscured by trees and other objects. Mt. Toby State Forest (7.5 mi) Interstate I-91 (North-South)(8.5 mi) Intervening terrain (400-600 f t) and New Salem State Forest (9 mi) tall trees partially obscure site. Agricultural lands (9 mi) Site visible from some locations. State Highway 63 (North-South) Site visible from some locations. State Highway 47 (North-South) Site visible from some locations. F.9-137
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Table 300.15-1 (cont.) West Montague State Forest Site visible from some locations. (0.5 mi) Intervening tall trees and terrain (Stacy Mountain) Turners Falls Airport Site visible from most of (2 mi) airport. Barton Cove (Nature Trail) Dense trees obscure some of site. (2.5 mi) Site visible from some locations. Town of Turners Falls (3 mi) Site vieible from several Indian Buttlefields (Historic) locations. (3.5 mi) Town of Greenfield (5 mi) Site visible from some locations. Bank Row (Historic)(5 mi) Poet's Seat Corner (historic)(5 mi) Rocky Mountain Mountain Fark (5 mi) Site partially obscured by tall trees. Old Deerfield Village (Historic) Site partially obscured by tall (7 mi) trees and intervening terrain. Town of Deerfield (7.5 mi) Site partially obscured by intervening terrain. Interstate Route 91 (North-South) Site visible from some locations. (5 mi) Intervening terrain and tall State Rt. 2 (East-West) trees. U.S. Route 5 (North-South)(4.5 mi) Site visible from some locations. State Route 10 (North-South) Intervening terrain and tall (4.5 mi) trees. O F.9-138
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.15-1 (cont.) North Montague State Forest Site partially obscured by (0.5 mi) dense trees and terrain. Grassy Hill State Park Site partially obscured by dense (2.5 mi) trees and terrain. Mount Hermon School Site very visible to the south. (4. 5) Town of Northfield (6 mi) Site visible from.some locations. Home of Rev. D. L. Moody (Historic) Site visible from some locations. (7 mi) Northfield Green (Historic) (7.5 mi) Site visible from some locations. Northfield State Forest Site mostly obscured by tall (7.5 mi) trees and intervening terrain. State Rt. 10 (North-South)(5 mi) Site visible from some locations. State Rt. 63 (North-South) Site visible frem some locations. State Rt. 142 (North-South) F.9-139
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Table 300.15-2. Potential Visual Impact of the Charlestown Site East Location and Distance View Charlestown Town Beach (1.5 mi) Site visible. Green Hill Beach (2.5 mi) Intervening trees and dunes. Site visible from some locations. Flat Meadow Cove (2 mi) Site visible. Perry Pond Road (1.5 mi) Site visible from some locations. State Highway Rt. 1 (East-West) Site ol,scured to within 1/4 mile of So. Kingston-Charlestown town line. Pt. Judith - (9 mi) Site visible from some locations Residential areas near Sandy on days with good visibility. Hill Cove , Other areas east of Green Hill Site obscured by terrain and (3+ mi) trees. O F.9-140
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.15-2 (cont.) South Ninigret Pond (0.5 mi) Site visible Ninigret Natienal Wildlife Refuge Site visible (1 mi) East Beach (1 to 1.5 mi) Site visible f rom north side. Dune g es y gd g o gdes southside screening Charlestown Breachway (1.5 mi) Site visible. Block Island Sound (1 mi) Site visible. ) F.9-141
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER 0 Table 300.15-2 (cont.) West State Highway Rt. 1 Site visible from some locations. Ninigret Pond (0.5 mi) Site visible. Residences on west shore of Ninigret Site visible from most locations. Pond (2 mi) Quonochontaug Pond and west Site mostly or completely obscured. (2.5+ mi) Woody Hill Management Area (4 mi) All areas obscured by terrain Town of Westerly (7.5 mi) and/or tall trees Kimball Bird Sanctuary (1 mi) Westerly State Airport O O F.9-142
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.15-2 (cont. ) North Fort Ninigret (1 mi) Site partially obscured by trees. Town of Charlestown Site mostly obscured by trees and terrain. Residential area (Narrows Lane) Site visible from some locations. (2 mi) U.S. Highway Rt. 1 Site visible as highway passes site. Royal Indian Burial Ground Site obscured by trees and terrain. (2.5 mi) Burlingame State Park (1.5 mi) Indian Cedar Swamp Management Area (2.5 mi) F.9-143
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Table 300.15-3. Cl arlestown and Erving/ Gill Sites Transmtssion Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles. Category Charlestown Erving Terrain - Woods 65.0 48.5 Wetlands 13.9 1.7 Open Land 9.2 12.1 Other - 0.4* Res idential 0.4 4.2 Url-an - 3.9 Total Circuit t!iles: 88.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-New 77.3 1.6 Right-of-Way Existing 11.2 69.2 Total, as above: 88.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 0.8/each Right-of-Way Single Circuit 52.7 69.2 h Total Right-of-Way Mileage: 70.6 70.0 Impacts: Historic Sites 3 2 Cultural Sites - Recreational Sites Definite 4 12 Possible - 9 Unique Place or Opportunity - Several
- River Crossing F.9-144
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Table 300.16-1 Charlestown and Rome Point Sites Transmission Righ t-of-Way Characteristics in Miles Ca tego ry Charlestown Rome Point Terrain - Uoods 65.0 51.9 We tla nds 13.9 12.3 Open Land 9.2 11.8 Other -
- 0. 7
- Residential 0.4 0.9 Urban - -
Total Circuit Miles: 88.5 77.6 P.igh t-of-Way-New 77.3 48.6 P.igh t-of-Way - Exis ting 11.2 29.0 Total, as above: 88.5 77.6 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.0/each 2.9/each Right-of-Way-Single Circuit 52.7 71.8 Total Right-of-Uay Mileage: 70.6 74.7 Impacts: Historic Sites 3 - Cultural Sites - - Recreational Sites Definite 4 2 Possible - - Unique Place or Opportunity - -
- Woods and open land F.9-145
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 O Table 300.17-1 Charlestown and Westerly Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles Category Charlestown Westerly (300.17) Terrain - Woods 65.0 68.6 Wetlands 13.9 14.6 Open Lcnd 9.2 9.0 Other - 0.2 Res ident ial 0.4 0.3 Urban - - Total Circuit Miles: 88.5 92.7 Righ t-o f-Way-New 77.3 65.6 Right-of-Way-Existing 11.2 27.1 Total, as above: 88.5 92.7 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 19.3/each Right-of-Way-Single Circuit 52.7 54.1 Total Right-of-Uay Miles: 70.6 73.4 Impacts: Historic Sites 3 2 Cultural Sites - Recreational Sites Definite 4 5 Possible - Unique Place or Opporcunity - 1
*0 pen Water O
F.9-146
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 TABLE 300.18-1 References Aquatec Inc.1974. Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Ve rnon, Ve rmo nt . Annual Reports Prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power C o rpo ra t ion . Bigelow, H.B. and W. C. Schroede r.1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 2nd Edition, Fishery Bull. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Service 53(74). Bos ton Edison Company, 1973. Pilgrin Station Unit 2 Environmental Report. Brown, C.A., et al. 1974. Power Plant Site Considerations at Charlestown, Rhode Island. University of 1:hode Island Marine Technical Report Series Number 2 3. Boston Edison Company, Marine Ecology Studies Related to the Operation of Pilgrim Station, Semi annual reports. Carson, J. E. 1976. Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling Systems. Argonne Nation &l Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. (ANL-ES-53). Clark, J. And W. Brownell., 1973. Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental Issues. American Littoral Society Special Publication Mo. 7. American Littoral Society, Highlands, New Jersey. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Community Af fairs. Pers. Comm. L. A. Simio, 1974. Letter Relative to Seasonal vs. Year Round Population Data for Cape Cod. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources, Map of State, Federal and MDC Properties. Commonwealch of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works. Highway Maps of Towns by County. Gahagan Construction Corporation.1954. Rome Point Seismic Survey for the Narragansett Electric Company. Higgins Erectors and Haulers Inc.1971. Heavy Hauling Route Survey for New England Power Company, Bear Swamp Proj?ct. Hi tach i, L td . 19 71. New England Power Company, Bear Swamp Pump Storage Project Transportation Plan of Runner, Valves and Shaf t. Krame r, M.L. , M. E. Smith, M, J. Ruf fe r, D. E. Seymour and T. T. Frankar. berg, 1976. Cooling Towers and the Environment J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 26(o) 582-594. C. T. Main Inc. 1970. Preliminary Report Study of Rail and Road Transportation for Bear Swamp Project. F.9-147
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Marine Research Inc. , G. C. Matthiessen. 1974. Letter to Yankee Atomic Electric Company Relative to the Marine Ecology of the Slocums Neck Site. Marine Research, Inc.1974. Rome Point Investigations. Prepared for New England Power Company. Marshal, N.B.1966. The Life of Fishes. World Pub. Co. , New York, 402 P-Millstone Point Company.1973. Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 Environmental Repo rt. Docke t No. 50-423. Mobile (011 Corporation) Travel Map. 1972. Cor.recticut, Massachusert: caA Rhode Island. National Academy of Sciences. 1972. Water Quality Criteria with National Academy of Engineeri ng, Washington, D.C. Narragansett Electric Company.1973. Rhode Island Plant Siting Survey, Memo ra nda . New England Powe r Company, 1966. Ccme rford Reservoir Data Sheets. New England Power Company, 1966. She rman Pond Data Sheets. New England P;wer Company, 1968. Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project (a nd Proposed Recreational Plan). New England Power Company. 1974. Harrinan Reservoir Data Sheets. New England Power Service Company.1974. Somerset Reservoir Data Sheet. New England Power Service Company,1969. First Connecticut Lake Data Sheets. New England Power Service Company, 1972. Rone Point His torical S tu 'y. New England Powe r Company. No da te. Moore Station Information sheet. Northeast Utilities, no date. Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage liydroelectric Station, Statistical Data. Northeas t Utilities Company.197 5. Montague Nuclear Power Station Units 1 a nd 2. Environmental Report. Docket No. 50-496 and 50-497. Nichols , D.E. and K.H. Yang. 19 72. Design Features of Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project. ASCE Reprint 1637. Nucleonics Week. 5/10/73. sEC Plant Site Requirements to Set Allowab? Population Densities. F.9-148
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Piper, H.B. and F.A. Heddleson. 1973. Siting Practice and Its Relation to Population. Nuclear Safety 14(6): 576-585. Public Service Company of New Hampshira.1973. Seabrook Station Environmental Report Docket No. 50-443 and 50-444. Raytheon Environmental Research Laboratory. 1971. Rome Point Dye Survey Data Analysis and Math :!odeling. Spa ngle r, M.B . 19 74. Environmental and Social issues of site choice for nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, March,1974. Spur r, G . , 1974. Meteorology and Cooling Tower Operation Atmos. Environ. 8:321-324. State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Public Works and Highways.1972. Proposed Layout of Interstate Route 93, Littleton, N.H. to Waterford, Vt. (Map). State of New Hampshire, Public Utilities Commission, Pers. Comm. W.E. Mr' vin. 1974. Schematic of Boston and Maine Corporation Rail System. State of New Hampshire, Of fice of Tourist Information. Map of State and Fede ral Parks and Forests. State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways. (no date) Railroad Lines - lbp. State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1972. Rhode Island Census Tracts (Map). State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 1974. Public Rights of Way Map. State of Rhode Island, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.1974. Water Quality Standards. State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1970. Preliminary Land Use Pirin. State of Rhode Island, Map of State and Federal Parks and Forests. State of Vermont, Of fice of Ve rmont Tourist Inf ormation. Map of State and Federal Parks and Forests. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1972. Evaluation of Alternate Cooling Water Systems at Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1974. Alternate Site Studies Construction Labor and Traneportation Infocmation (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp, Comerford Sites) . F.9-149
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER O Stone and Webste Co rpo ration. 1974. Alternate Site Study, Moore Site. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1974. Alternate Site Study, Prelininary Geotechr.ical Report (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp and Comerford Sites). Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1974. Hydrological and Meteorolog' cal Studies, Atlernate Site Studies New England Electric System (Dunbar Brook , Bear Swamp and Comerford Sites). Stone and Webater Engineering Corporation. 1974. NEES/ Yankee Alternate Site Study, Roue, Massachusetts. Stone and Webs ter Engineering Corp , ration. 1974. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Moore Site. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1974. Remote Site Location Transportation Feasibility Study (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp, Moore Reservoir and Come rf ord Sites). Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1974. Preliminary Cons truction/ Transportation Report, Gooseberry Neck Site, Westport, Massachusetts. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1975. Alternate Site Studies, Transportation Study - Shef field, Adams and Fall Mountain. University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service. 1970. Environmental Prot ection Checklist and Guides for Site Selection. Unive rsity of Rhode Is la nd . 1972. Rhode Island Marine Bibliography. Marine Technical Report No. 3. University of Rhode Island. 1973. Coastal and of fshore Environmental Inventory - Cape llatteras to Natucket Shoals. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center. 1973. Rhode Island Barrier Beach Study. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. 1975. Site Study Report, New England Powe r Company, 2-Unit Nuclear Plant, Gooseberry Neck, Massachusetts (and Addendums). United Engineers and Cons tructors , Inc. Engineering Studies on Dunbar Brook and Bear Swamp Sites. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Ve rmont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-271. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (NRC).1973. General Environmental Siting
/.9-150 s
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 Guides for Nuclear Power Plants Topics and Bases (Draf t). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Division of Water Pollution Control. 2/71. Summary of Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters of Maasachusetts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.12/71. Summary of Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters of New Hampshire. United States Department of Commerce.1970. Census 01 Population. U.S. Department of Comme rce , NOAA. Tidal Currents Tables 1973 - Atlantic Coast of North America. U.S. Department of Comme rce, NOAA. Tide Tables 1973 - East Coast of North and South America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps. U.S. Department of the Interior.1971. Water Resources Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. U.S. Department of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks.1972. U.S. Naval Air Station, Auxiliary Landing Field, Charlestown, R.I. Existing Conditfons Map. Weston Geophysical Research, Iac. 1971. Deerfield River Nuclear Power Plant Site Evaluation for Yankee Atomic Electric Company. Wes ton Geophysical Research, Inc. 1973. Geological and Seismological Evaluation of Fourteen Sites, New England Area. Weston Geophysical Research, Inc.1974. Geologic and Seismological Evaluation of Three Regions, tbssachusetts Area. Wright and Pierce, Topsham, ME.1973. Property Map of Littleton, New Hanpshire. Yankee Atomic Electric Company.1971. Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station Preliminary Site Evaluation. Yankee Atomic Electric Company.1974. Biolo ical and Thermal Conditions of the Deerfield River. Yankee Atomic Electric Company.1974. Memorandum, Preliminary (Engineering) Layouts for Moore Reservoir Site. Site Aerial Photographs. F.9-151
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER TABLE 300.18-2 NEW f4 GLAND P0WER C0MPANY RECREATION INVENTORY JANUARY 1. I977 2 G
= e eeaa e N$gc$geaeEhees: $ 35 m, s "
E O N U x E w 5 E E ? a w HYDRO -CONNECTICUT RIVER CONNECTICUT LAKES
$f !! !h !! !! !! lh $h ! ! $h !! !k
- 1. Second Lake Das Picnic Area 3 1 1 1 lu
- 2. Gravel Pit Picnic and Boat Launching Area (2nd) 3 1 1 1 20 20
- 3. Island Picnic Areas (1st) 4 2 2 4 First Lake Dan Boat Launching Area 3 1 1 20 20 MOORE
- 5. East Concord-Gilman Boat Launching Area 1 10 10
- 6. North Littleton Picnic Area 1 1 1 1 F; 20
- 7. Dodge Hill Picnic and Boat Launching Area 10 4 4 2 1 1 2e 10
- 8. Pattenv111e Picr ic and boat Launching Area 8 3 2 a 1 20 10
- 9. Island Picnic Area 1 1 1
- 10. Visitors' House 3 3 2 50 1
- 11. Waterford Picnic and boat Launching Area 9 2 6 2 1 1 25 15 COMERFORD
- 12. Waterford Bridge and Boat Launching Area 1 1 1 5 5
- 13. Fine Crove Picnic and boat Law:ching Area 8 2 4 2 1 100 100 1
- 14. Line Cate Picnic Area 1 1 PklN30ES
- 15. Mcladoes Das Picnic Area 1 1 2 8 1 WILDER
- 16. Wilder Picnic and Boat LaunchinA Area 18 4 18 2 1 4 50 50 1
- 17. Olcott Falls Boat Launching Area 1 1
- 18. Fisherman Parking--Access 40
- 19. Visitors' House 2 100
- 20. C11 man Canoe L at Area 1 1 1 1
- 21. Lekanon Picnic Area 7 2 5 1 30 1
- 22. Hartland Falls Picnic Area 3 1 3 1 30 1 BELLOUi FALLS
- 23. ' Charlestown Picnic and Boat Launching Area 6 4 2 ~ 1 1 >0 50
- 24. Herrick's Cove Picnic and Boat Launching Area 26 5 17 1 1 100 50
- 25. Charlestown Canoe Rest Area 1 1 1 1
- 26. Pine Street Boat Launching Area 1 10 10 1 VERNON
- 27. Governor Hunt Picnic and Boat Launching Area 9 8 2 1 18 6 1
- 28. Vernon Glen Picnic Area 9 11 2 1 20
- 29. Hinsdale Canoe Rest Area 1 1 1 1
- 30. Stebbins Island Canoe Rest Area 2 1 1 1 1 HYDRO--DEERFIELD RIVER SOME RSET
- 31. Streeter Island Picnic Area 1 1
- 32. West Island Picnic Area 2
- 33. Somerset Das Picnic Area and Trail 36 30 6 4 1 7 150 30
- 14. Plood Das Picnic Area and Trait 1 1 2 5 HARRi%1N
- 35. Mt. Mille-Wert Picnic Area 7 2 2 10 36 . Molly stark Picnic and boat Launching Area 2 1 10 5
- 37. Mt. Mills-gast Picnic and Boat Launching Area 37 9 3 4 2 1 3 200 75
- 38. Castle Hill Picnic Area 5 3 2 1 10 5
- 39. Jacksonville Picnic Area and Swimming Area 37 15 6 2 20G
- 40. Harriman Dam--Clory Hole spillway 2 1 4
- 41. Sherman Picnic Area 6 2 1 10 4 BEAR SWAM"
- 42. Dunbar Brook Picnic and Information Area 20 5 2
- 43. Monroe Forest Tra11need 9**15
- 44. Visitors' Center 2 40
- 45. Fisherman's Access Area
- 46. Public Hunting Area LOWER DEERFIELD
- 47. Zoar Picnic Area 39 23 2 50
- 48. East Charlemont Picnic Area 10 6
- 49. Stillwater Bridge Picnic Area 4 5 STEAM PLANTS
- 50. Brayton toint Picnic and Boat Launching Area 10 1 6 2 1 200 100 1
- 51. Lynn Harbor Picnic and Fishing Area 12 12 2 1* 1 40
- 52. Sales Harbor Fishermene Pier 1 20 TOTAL 171 100 143 67 4 y 23 22 1741 595 7 3 4 4
#Approminately 2,000' Timber Bulkhead at Shoreline Available for Public Fishing.
**Nine miles of hiking trails in the Monroe State Forest--Construction financed g by New kngland Pouer Company--built, operated and maintained by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Division o. Forests and Parks.
gv 2/16/77 F.9-152
z N y a p i R E , I- [ b3 [/] f g $ ~_.%.
!= z5'm8 , x ([V-~ 'd'7 . ~i4A'%aTJ iE6 mq#'N~ + ,
pT ^ ~ ~ g 5/ 1 1' *f L'- p gotp_nyING MOUNTA.N S/SJ yh a: ~ ~ ~ a
?~; .
N< ~- [
~
c.7,1 _o u ~~-
/w-/- evV3 znF'* .j ~ ; _
e e wp-< f.m 1 E m r ._ L,-~ T. , z a_- t j ; J ga .. g n_[ .- '
--. v4L-
* ,ff 3 = g_ _J 7 - -
/_ ((._. _ kf
< - - e
--(_.-..
? siXY _-2. g d" r,' j)/fb ._.
p st -- /'<h W- .'$ =M?
- _(': Ld+>hy,,,,tt,y,y yw s/S
,7 \ _ [ -C e z
.' (- h{, e,%g -
.^ ^**",8b 1A - -
j-,_ O -- e-m e (~_s E .
~~ D_ E
._J , h_1E I __I t,
-h i A'L '
>> v o
4 ygn 4 l ,
., ,1
-/-
.F oh T* a
-}
,;Q'(,wESTq5 go u OdO s-' r.-
u gmgm
$ '# y m.i ~~
*$ g A ***
a C a en O {o.dSg""""f; 4 Y __'c-
~~j a_ * * ' ,.,' .
m W ygw C 0 N N E C y l C U T '* v - l ._ {, a D
,L. e _ , _ ' . - - - ..
CU gm3 - cAno L___d ~,7couNTv _ co g y *tt STREET gio 0,, .J\,): i 3AKU, 3 - tt & O , S/S, , / , g $ p *-J S/S nivEn n . , s , m ye'A, -- _ L M JUNCTION *^' _7 y ,~ V ' j -~
- LC Wcw
=gO J < g' 5~
g" "'t A[ 5
<l
_ t" tn CU 4WD WESTERLY g / v"g,s:,,- ~ r- a r * < a ' 'y -- y ,s t cN4'R LESTOWN'J '
> $ . -] ,,
k= ta zN Ag> s t_ r ' \ _. ' ~- I~'H ,yJ _. K..I-o e io is p* e i e SCALE IN MILES
. . ' ?O$
<v w
- h5* n
" a m P e
q $- 5~
- n 2 Cn 01
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 4 300.8 Sect ions 10.1.5.2 and 10.1. 5.4. Which figure is the correct one for the differential cost of the natural draft cooling system,
$49 million or $19 million?
RESPONSE: The correct differential cost of the natural draft cooling system is $49 million. ER Section 10.1.5 has been revised accordingly. 301.47. Sections 10.1.5 and 10.1.6 provide the following values for the natural-draft cooling tower and mechanical-draft cooling towers:
- a. water to air mass flow ratio
- h. tower inside radius
- c. stack gas exit velocity
- d. elevation (above sea level) of tower base
- e. dissolved solids concentration in the circulatino water system.
RESPONSE: The following values for the natural draft and wet mechanical draft cooling towers were used as input parameters to generate model results. The water to air mass flow ratio (301.47 a above) was not used per se; however, in lieu of this parameter, the values for tower water and air flows are included. Cooling tower heights and drift rate are also included as supplemental information. Natural Draft Wet Meehanical Cooling Tower Draft Cooling Tower
- 1. water flow 1,250 cfs/ unit 1,352 cf s/ unit (36 cells)
- 2. air flow 1 x 106 cfs a design 2.67 x 106 cfs/ cell wet bulb (36 cells)
- 3. Stack exit diameter 320 ft/ tower 32 ft/ cell (36 cells)
- 4. stack exit velocity 12.5 fet/secadesign 30 ft/see wet bulb
- 5. Ground elevation 15 feet 15 feet
- 6. Blowdown (total 66,000 ppm 46,900 ppm dissolved solids)
~,. Total height 570 feet 66 feet
- 8. Drift rate 0.002% 0.002%
F.10-1
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER ER Sections 10.1.5 and 10.1.6 emphas se that the mathematical model results were developed using general regional meteorological information and preliminary tower design parameters. For comparison purposes, preliminary model results were used and may be considered adequate within the limitations of the available meteorological data. 340.29. Section 10.1.1.3 Envir onmental cost (Proposed Once-Throtiqh System Consistent with his treatment of Section 5.1, the applicant has not documented the magnitude of potential offects of once-through cooling on the biota of Block Island Sound. Until this is accomplished, adequate comparison of the environmental costs of the preposed v s_. alternative cooling system types cannot be assessed. Both deficiencies should be addressed. RESPON3E: The environmental costs of the proposed system is addressed in ER Appendix G. The environmental costs of alternative cooling system types will be addressed at a later date.
- Section 10.2.2.3 Environmental Cost (Alternative Ocean Front 340.30 Intake) l In ase.essing the environmental costs of an alternative ocean front intake structure, the applicant states that data which would identify quantitative dif ferences in the fish populations between the proposed and alternative locations are not available. Further, he states that in the absence of such data, the propose 3 offshora and the alternative shore front intakes cannot be compared. These statements are not surprising since neither shore zone sampling nor li terature searching were pursued. The absence of such data, thus, nakes the applicant's discussion of the environmental costs very weak. As was discussed for Sections 3.4.2.2 and 5.1.4.2 above, the fate of impinged fish in the alternative beach front intake is not discussed. These inadequacies should be remedied and the environmental costs of the proposed vs. any alternative designs assessed.
RESPONSE: In May 1978, Applicant initiated a one year study to obtain data en the shore zone fish populations in the vicinity of East Beach, Charlestown, Rhode Island. When completed, this study will provide the data needed to make comparisons between the proposed and the alternate onshore intakes. At the completion of the study, the results will be compared with available literature, and the enviror. mental costs of the proposed vs. the alternative intake designs will be assessed. As with the proposed intake design, fish impinged at the alternate onshore intake would be collected, taken away by truck and disposed of at an appropriate land fill (see ER Section 10.2.2.1). F.10 -1A
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 340.31. Section 10.1. 5.4 Reasons for Reiecting the Natural Draft Cooling Tower System Clarify the ' uncertainties of reliability associated with the natural draf t cooling tower system' . RESPONSE: As stated in ER Section 10.1.5.4, " Operating experience with salt water cooling towers of the size required, ranges from extremely limited to non-existent. Without adequate operating experience the reliability of the salt water cooling towers is a serious question." These statements concerning reliability apply only to the salt water natural draft cooling towers. These statements are not meant to apply to freshwater natural draft cooling towers, whose reliability has been demonstrated. The statement in question on ER Page 10.1-17 has been clarified to read: "This does not justify the additional environmental impacts nor the additional cost and uncertainties of reliability associated with a salt water natural draft cooling tower system." 340.32. Section 10.3 Alternative Discharoe System
- a. As discussed in the above comments on Sections 10.1 and 10. 2, proper evaluation of the environmental costs of the alternative discharge system cannot be
/' F.10-2 . 4
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2. ER compared with the proposed system until the effects of the proposed system are properly and adequately evaluated. These deficiencies should be addressed,
- b. The feasibility of placing the intake and discharge pipeline system in a tunnel beneath Ninigret Pond has not been investigated.
This possibility should be addressed along with the resultant environmental costs and benefits. RESPONSE: a. The effects of the proposed system are discussed in detail in ER Appendix G.
- b. The required geotechnical informati.on is not available to realistically evaluate the feasibility or practicability of tunnels.
When such data becomes available, an evaluation will be made. 301.70 Section 10.3 Discharge Syctem Alternatives - The ER does not 4 cocaider an alternative multiport discharge farther away from shore than the proposed discharge. The staf f requires such an alternative to compare with the proposed discharge, particularly with respect to thermal impact at the shore and at the breachway into Ninigret Pond. RESPONSE: The ER does not c;aalder an alternative multiport discharge farther away from shore than the proposed discharge because the proposed staged diffuser has little or no thermal impact at the shore and at the Ninigret Pond breachway. As shown clearly in Appendix C-1 and C-1A, the staged diffuser imparts an of fshore momentum to the heated cooling water and at no time during the tidal cycle will the thermal plume be near the beaches or Ninigret Pond breachway. These analyses indicate that there will be no benefit from locating the diffuser farther offshore. 6 F.10-3
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 5 301.67 Section Appendix C 4.2.18.3 Impacts of Plant Operation 3 Results of the 1976 and 1977 lobster larvae sampling program should be made available to the staff. RES PONS E : Results of the 1976 lobster larval sampling program can be found in the Marine Research, Inc. report entitled, "Charlestowr Site Study, Five-Month Report (April-August, 1976), Volume Two, May 1977" which was submitted to the NRC on September 30, 1977. A final report on the results of the 1977 lobster larval sampling program is currently being finalized. It is anticipated that this report will be ready for submittal to the NRC by mid-December 1977. 5 301.83 Revision 4 deleted from Appendix C information regarding tautog. Information regarding tautog as contained in Section 4.2.10 and Table 4.2-1 of Appendix G (Revision 1 dated April 4,1977) should be put back in the ER because we have made usa of it in our analysis. RESPONSE: Prior to the initial issuance of Appendix G, a list of Representative Important Species for consideration in the 316 demonstrations was not available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, Applicant developed the list of species initially published in Revision
- 1. Subsequently, Applicant, EPA, and NRC met in Boston to discuss the representative important spe cie s . A final list (which did act include the tautog) was subsequently promulgated by the EPA Region 1 Administrator. To reinclude the tautog at this time is counter to the concept of representative important species and, consequently, Applicant has no plans to return an analysis of the tautog to Appendix G.
4 F.A-1
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 Table G.4.1-1 ENTRAINMENT OF EGGS AND LARVAE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES ASSUMING 100% POWER DURING d STUDY PERIODU) Species Year Eggs Larvae Atlantic Menhaden 1974 0 2.027x10 7 6 1975 8.592 x10 3.789x10 7 Average 4.296x10' 2.908x10 7 Bay Anchovy 1974 1.029x10 7 5.243x10 8 1975 1.126x10 8 5.131x10 8 Average 6.147x10 7 5.187x10 8 Silver llake 1974 3.054x10 7 8.614 x10 8 1975 1.108 x10 8
' a81x10 6 Average 7.069x10 7 .571x10 6 Striped Bass - - -
Bluefish - - - 7 Scup 1974 2.946x10 2.169x10 6 1975 1.299x10 8 7.429x10 6 Average 7.969x10 7 4.799x10' Cunner 1974 6.883 x10' 4.142x10 8 1975 6.202x10' 7.471x10 8 Average 6.543x10' 5.806x10 8 4 Sand Lance 1974 1975 - 1.763x10 8 1975-1976 - 4.577x10 7 Average - 1.110x10 8 Atlantic Mackerel 1974 3.558x10' 2.038x10 8 1975 9766x10' 2.748x10 8 Average 3.162x10' 2.393 x10 s 7 Butterfish 1974 2.832x10 6.621x10 8 1975 8.889x10 7 1.876x10 7 Average 5.861x10 7 1.269x10 7 Winter Flounder 1975 - 4.577x10 8 1976 - 2.221x10 8 Average - 3.399x10 8 TOTAL ICHTIIYOPLANKTON Year 1 1.054 x10'8 1.806x10' Year 2 9.419x10' 1.874 x'.0* Average 9.979x10' 1.840x10' Mussel 1974-75 - 6.393 x10' ' 1975-76 - 2.799 x10' ' Average - 4.597 x10' ' 4 Ilard Clam - - (2) 8 Squid 1977 - 1.983x10 Sand Shrimp - - (3) American Lobster 1976(*) - 1.251x10 6 1977 - 4.948x10 8 Average - 8.729x10 8 Eelgrass -- - - I') Numbers based on area under temporal abundance curve at BIS-A or EB-B (Figure G.2.0-1) times plant .~ low (2) Density is extremely low (8)To be ascertained during 1978. E') Estimate from an imcomplete year and surface samples only.
Revision 5 N E P 1 & 2 ER Table G.4.2-1 LOBSTER LIFE TABLE STATISTICS UNEXPLOITED POPULATION Age Class Fecundity Per Adult (8 ) Survival Rate (2 ) Relative Frequency 0 0 .00005951(3) 1,000,000 5 1 0 .86 59.51 2 0 .86 51.18 3 0 .86 44.01 4 0 .86 37.85 5 221 .86 S2.55 6 1,679 .86 28.00 7 2,359 .86 24.08 8 3,129 .86 20.71 9 3,975 .86 17.81 10 4,890 .86 15.31 11 5,855 86 13.17 12 6,865 .86 11.33 13 7,904 .86 9.74 14 8,939 .86 8.38 15 10,004 .86 7.20 16 11,052 .86 6.20 17 12,086 .86 5.33 18 13,117 .86 4.58 19 14,112 .86 3.94 20 15,108 0 3.39 (8 h'his column represents the first row of the Leslie matrix describing a stable population with a maxi-mum age of 20. his column represents the subdiagonal of the above matrix. S o
=
k - ~ as demonstrated by Vaughan and Saila (1976). S 1* i+1 j.1 i i= 1. O
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY J;lN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 95 -
, , , , , , , , , _y 95
- ~
. l1 90 --;
' '# {7 -
90 4 ~ eE
~ "
85 -- -- 85 l
&~~~ l 80 - -
80
.C- ID m . i.i :
-~
75 - 75
*2 P 70 "
m , 70 P E e n E $ s, --3 $ g C5 . s: g e r 2 2
- 60 -
60 W 2 'B. $ t- $ 55 s 6'F INDUCED 55 $
, SURFACE -
, MAXIMUM ' ' '
50 c - - - l 50 MAXIMUM OF TWO- \ YEAR AVERAGE WATER
~ 7EMPE R ATUR E 45 -
,e - 45 40 - -
40
\~~~~~~<~~~~~~~ '
W . ADOLF- RELATIVE 5M 1342 m. '.... LARVAE' TEMPORAL ABM DANCE
, , , ,, E-5 EGGS.
I' 'I e 'l 'I e a: ' I- I i' i t JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC KEY TO D ATA POINTS
- 1. UPPER LETHAL TEMPERATURE FOR ADULTS ACCLIMATED AT 58 F (AUTHOR, DATE)
- 2. UPPER LETHAL TEMPERATURE FOR LARVAE. NO ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURE GIVEN (AUTHOR, DATE)
- 3. SPAWNING TEMPERATURE RANGE (AUTHOR, DATE)
- 4. INCIPIENT LETHAL TEMPERATURE FOR ADULT WHEN ACCLIMATED AT 77 F (AUTHOR, DATE)
- 5. NUMBER /100 M3 DURING THE MONTH WITH GREATEST FREQUENCY. SITE OF TEMPORAL OCCURRENCE BLOCKS ARE RELATIVE WITHIN BUT NOT BETWEEN LIFE STAGES.
- 6. SOLID OR DOTTED LINE INDICATES DATA COLLECTED AT SITF. DOTTED LINE INDICATES VERY LOW DENSITY. DASHED LINE INDICATES OCCURRENCE IS FROM A LITERATURE CITATION.
- 7. UPPER LETHAL 1EMPERATURE FOR EGGS AT 97 F, NO ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURE (AUTHOR, DATE)
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY EXAMPLE OF SELECTED SPECIES NEP1&2 RELATIVE TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE AND TIIERM AL CllARACTERISTICS Ensironmental Report FIGURE G.4.1-1 NEP1&2
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 95 , , , , , , , , , , 95
^ " ' ~ -
_,..- 90
~ -
90
> -f - -
2a .; [~n - '- 85 85 .: .m , ,.
, i 80 - :. .J lo! ,-l-80 I
- a ~ '-
75 -. "',Co- . . 75 70a[
*[ =
70 -: ,
=
- 2a . o m
>= l-g 65 '
3 65 g e - e s :s
..^*
Y 60 -;
, g,._
. , . . .- 60 Y m m Y Y
$ 55 ' ,:: .';- "'
s P. ,- :n 55 $ 50 50 . , 45 45 - , -
" - - - 40 40 - .
y__ m g, - -~ . ..
.p 7.-m.
,n. w - --- - - - --- == i
" RELATIVE
' ~
w #: s s,. E . . .'- - TEMPORAL C, 'h m'"g , gy ABUNDANCE
,- * ,. 3,- rg . . . , ,- ,. ;,- ,- Q- a- >
I JAN FEB M AR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
- 1. Ft P. DING TEMPERATURE SURVIVORSHIP INDICATED FOR LARVAE (HOUDE,1974) 2a. PAEFERRED TEMPERATURE (MELDRIM AND GIFT,1971)
- b. AVOIDANCE TEMPERATURE (MELDRIM AND GIFT,1971)
- 3. TEMPOGAL OCCURRENCE OF ADULTS (GORDON,1974)
BAY ANCllOVY - NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY NEP1&2 RELATIVE TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE AND TilERM AL CIIARACTERISTICS Environmental Report FIGURE G.4.212 NEP1&2 h
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4
\ ?f ',
j ~
- r. ! ),f :f CY MkQ
~@"
fe,7 -
"s i k
^
(k NINIGRET PONO r'- , C P Q /- W B) 1 ei j o ,,- 60 1.56 'soim ~ ( ~
~fNgx
& N go _
N 'k
, *0
$ 120
') '
)
J \,, %c v q\ -12 V [Y
/ k120-NO PER 1000 m3 BLOCK ISLAND SOUND 0 w JUNE 28,1977 OCTOBER 25,197V
}
0.5 l AVERAGE OF SURFACE, BOTTOM, DAY AND NIGkT k l ? M f[ SCALE IN MILES , x - s n y \
@ ;H8
/
gx 90603o BLOCYI N NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY DISTRIBUTION AND AVEllAGE DENSITY NEP1&2 OF SQUID JUVENILES Environmental Report
A / 400;>, sh'4t
+)+ t . e. ev <e.1,.
r.4 4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 5E4mEl 5 I m as !L22 l,l p # hb 1.8 l.25 1.4 1.6 4 6" > O /% w%\ S 'I '4 4
- Ilt? 5,,
k' .
%+:,(O
4 4 4 4>++% 4'+# m eEEv<e T,. TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l# EM E4 yly IE I.I ['S LM
'.8 ll 1.25 l.4 1.6 4 6" : #4 ' $ 4%
- $f>b//$/
/////
#<A)(
4
<s:*
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4
- V Mdg k 'I
[ (7 r. t '/,f 3
^d{ 0\x/4(3p.cg p j
[LJ & s r " s - 0
-\ y g,m,"
= ~~o
, 7 f~. ,
)
t
,y- of
#M'$/ 1.80 y jY
?/ \
)- '
[ Ov / tzdf 30 2.os
) /
' g e ~b 3
/~ 'O f % 90-GO^ l .
/
N y V 120
'?
-ww /
~
k s / 220 M x
\C x N
120 ( N [ 'N Ws x N' _ , . M NO. PER 1000 m3
' @) (
4 b120-M, 120
\{\
/
0
)
BLOCK ISLAND' SOUND MAY 3,1977 - AUGUST 2,1977 ( '\ x N
\ ( x 120^
3 f ; ,_f[ 1 i / kx SCALE IN MILES N \ '\ s 4 (*j m .N
< /
; o " .xid 60 l l' (If',
90 60 30 BLOC ISI N DISTRIBUTION AND AVERAGE NEW ENGLA 9 POWER COMPANY DENSITY OF LOBSTER LARVAE NEP1&2 (SURFACE) 1977 Environmental Report
N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4
, f &" '
{T ~ < i i, )' ; ON%[ M M[g
, .y , & u, ~
,Q ; pg i%{(L;fu4-y 5 .
- sf!
INIGRET PONO , a y__ y', W'f' T t 1.0 S f p' < ~ r/
/ ~-
A 3
) e 0.32 M'f~^w
'3 ( 73o O
- '~ N N 90-
^J k
'90s-
/
p / p
') - , '2p
~
( a
, / l f
m-v x g a N
\
J 6" e\\ /
/ \
\ NN (C \N 'N
-120 \ k[ <7 ls120-NO. PER 1000 m3 7 (/ v (120 05 BLOCK ISLAND SOUND MAY 3,1977 - AUGUST 2,1977 x 2 x jg / ). ( \q\ 120~ o 's d 2 f ,/ s x 3 l ; ; ;
/ t s x
SCALE IN MILES ' ( \ s 4 ( ,lj L o, \
/
1 b T so
" g,18 \
906o 30 fBL IS N DISTRIBUTION AND AVERAGE NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY DENSITY OF LOBSTER LARVAE NEP1&2 (BOTTOM) 1977 Environmental Report FIGURE G.4.2-58 NEP1&2
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 APPENDIX H OTHER REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES H.0 INTRODUCTION This appendix of the ER contains Applicant responses to comments and questions received from regulatory agencies other than the NRC. (Responses to NRC requests for additional b1 formation are located in Appendix F.) It is divided into sections (one section to each agency) and arranged chronologically. Most responses appear directly after the comment or question; however, in some cases revisions to the ER have been made instead and are so noted. H.0.1 COMMENT AND RESPONSE INDEX Index H.0-1 is a listing of agencies formally commenting and the section assigned to each. Within each section, responses are arranged chronologically. 6 H.0-1
Revision 4 N E P 1 & 2 ER Revision 4 8 INDEX 11.0-1 Appendix 11 Agency Page No. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. H.1-1 4 e 11 . 0 - 2
Revision 4 NEP 1 & 2 NUCLEAR PROJECT 69 ' f~k . NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY TcIcphonc 617 366-90II g, ,"ric S tem 20 Turnpde Road, Westborough, Mossochusells 01581 January 23, 1978 NM-N-896 Mr. Sanfor E. Caines, Attorney Enforcement Division Region I, U.S. E.P.A. J. F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Gaines :
- In response to questions and comment s raised at the January 10, 1978 meeting at your of fices, we have attached clarifications or supporting information to the Envi ronme ntal Report. Attached please find:
Attachment 1. Summary of Considerations Resulting in Selection of the Proposed Of fshore Intake. At tachrent 2. Clarification of the Use of Gill Nets in Block Island. A t tachmen t 3. Reference to Further Inf orma tion Regarding the Prcposed Intake Approach Velocity. Reference to the Source Used to Identify Threatened or Endangered Species. Reference to Inf ormation on Applicant's Proposed Preoperational Ecological Monitoring Program. Attachment 4. Additional Information on the Local Recreational Fishery. At tachment 5. Additional Information on the Plume Tine-Temperature Relationship. Attachment 6. Addi tional Inf ormation on Sediment Ch arac t e ri s t ics and Summary Data of the Benthos. Attachment 7. Ph ot og r aph s and Description of the Physical Characteristics in Block Island Sound of f Charlestown, Rh ode Islaad. (1 set of photographs pr ovided t o F. J. H orva th , P. C. Cot a, A. D. Michael and S. E. Gaines only). H.1-i
Revision 4 j k. 9 s These data, e x c lu s ive of the photographs provided in Attachment 7, will be included in subsequent revisions to the Environmental Report as indicated in each attachment. We trust this information will be sufficient for your purposes. We appreciate this opportuntiy to clarify ou r applica t ion. Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to call me. Ve ry t ru ly you rs , Joseph Harrington Project Manager Enclosures 3 copies cc: Philip C. Cota, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, w/7 encl. Mary Shaughnessy, EPA, w/o encl. Carleton Maine, State of Rhode Island, Dept. of Env. Management, w/1 encl. R. M. Rush, ORNL, w/2 encl. Frank S. Horvath, Wapora Inc., w/2 encl. Allan D. Michael, Taxon Inc. , w/l encl. Raymond Bogardus, Wapora Inc. , Washington, D.C. , w/l encl. 9 H.1-li}}