ML20040G153
| ML20040G153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1982 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tallman W PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202110357 | |
| Download: ML20040G153 (8) | |
Text
.
l x:,
~c m
t,q
'Zy
'o.
-q.
f-7 e
UAN 181982
_~
9
>4 6
'N William C. Tallman RECh-, ~ 4 **.Q Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 8-JAtl211982#"
Public Service Company of Hew Hampsh.n-
~
ggu rm?
P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 b
tW: 'n,-
f/d
Dear Mr. Tallman:
- 771% "
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Seabrook Station Enclosed herewith are requests for additional information that have developed from the December,1981 site visit to Seabrook Station and related environmental reviews.
Your response to these requests should be received by the HRC staff not later than February 10, 1982.
Sincerely, Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: Sae next page.
DISTRIBUTIO:N Docket File 443/444 MKaltman, SAB LPDR JLehr, EEB PDR L. O'Reilly, RAB NSIC mQ$
TERA Ogo-LB#3 Files oo DEisenhut E@
SHanauer 0
RVollmer 3me RMattson oo HThompson 0
2 RTedesco re FMiraglia O$
LLWheeler L a.<
GGears, EEB CHickay FFR o"- >... D.L :
3.a...
.mfra..
""-%W.
..e r.; 3 b..rJMagua.
~>. Wgaz.
Ig[#2
~ NRC FORM 3ta diO 80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
"" 'ew-a2s e24
SEABROOK' William C. Tallman Chaiman and Chief. Executive Officer 6
Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
~
' John A. Ritscher, Esq.
E.. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street' Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Bruce B. 'Beckley, Project Manager l
Public Service Company of New Hampshire The Honorable Arnold Wight a
P. O. Box 330 New Hampshire House of. Representatives Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 S.cience, Technology and Energy Committee State House G. Sanbo'n Concord, New Hampshire 03301 r
U.. S. NRC - Region I 631 Park Avenue Resident Inspector King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station c/o U. S. Nuclear Regul.atory Comission Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold P. O. Box 1149 3 Godfrey Avenue S' abrook, New Hampshire 03874 e
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Mr. John DeVincentis, Project Manager -
Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company O'Neill, Backus and Spielman 1671 Worcester Road 116 Lowell Street Fanningham,. Massachusetts 01701 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. G. F. Cole, Project Manager Nonnan Ross, Esq.
United Engineers and Constructors 30 Francis Street 30 South 17tW Street
~
Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 Post Office Box 8223 i
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Karin P. Sheldon, Esq.
Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Mr. W. Wright, Project Manager 1725 I Street, N. W.
Westinghouse Elec.tric Corporation Washington, D. C.
20006 Post Office Box 355.
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15230 Laurie Burt, Esq.
Office of the Assista'nt Attorney General Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Environmental Protection Division Ropes and Gray One Ashburton Place 225 Franklin Street
' Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
P. O. Box 330.
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
m..__
f.
EilCLOSURE REQUESTS FOR ADDITI0llAL INFORMATION I
I Aouatic Resources.
291. 19 Durinlg the OL Stage Environmental Review site visit, the applicant indicited j
that a continuous low level chlorination system may be proposed for biofouling control in -the station c~irculating~ water system.
Provision for such'a system isbeingmadedu$ingthestation'sconstruction. This system would be used,
instead of the thermal backflushing system currently described as the biofouling 3
control method in the ER.
Provide a description of this chlorination system, as proposed,' including:
t i
- frequency of biocide application 2
- application points
~
- expected duration of application
- amount of biocide to.be used during each application
- concentration of biocide to be atlained in the system
- expected total residual oxidant to be present at the point 3
of discharge i
- if intermittent application of irregular (e.g., seasonal)
{
applications are anticipated, so describe
- describe any supplemental' biofouling control schemes (e.g., periodic shock chlorination of all or part of the system) i Provide a discussion and bases, therefore, of the expected environmental impact that this chlorination system would have during station operation.
291.20 Characterize by volumetric flowrate, general composition and influent sources-
'the settling basin effluents during station operation.
(
291 ?21
- Update the discussion of projected impact of. average and peak station use of groundwater on and off-site and of water from nearby public water systems on available water rescurces in the site area.. Address the preoperational cleaning ~and' testing and station operational phases.
Terrestrial Resources j - 290.5 Please provide the staff with 1 set of suitable topographic maps showing the f
proposed Seabrook - Tev,iksbury and 'the Seabrook - Scobie Pond transmission
^
(,
j lines.
t i
290.6, Provide a description of the' methods to be used to insure continued stablization of the r.ock storage area, including any efforts to promote natural re-vegetation of this area.
i
}
I t
4 l
l
)
i l
l
?
I I
i f
Sitins Analysis.
j i
310.6 The Applicant should review the data, sector by sect.or, in ER Figure 2.1-5, and Figure B'-1 in the report entitled, l
" Preliminary Evacuation Clear Time Estimates for Areas Near
~
4 l
Seabrook Station" (CTE), because the data for the 1983 I
j population differs in both figures. The Applicant should explain the methods used and assumptions made in developing.
J l
the population data.
l 310.7 Which of the above figures most accurately portrays the projected 1983 population distribution?
J.
i 310.8 What is the reason for the discrepency between ER Figure 2.1-18 and CTE Figure B-87 How does the Applicant explain a number less i
than 10 in the SSW Sector, 2-3 miles in ER, Figure 2.1-187 310.9 Infonnation in ER, Section 2.1.2.3.e and FSAR, Section 2.1.3.3.e on Route 1 shopping center parking lot capacities differs from data in CTE Figure B-5.
The Applicant should explain the reasons for the differences.
310.10 What is the basis for the Applicant's conclusion that the station would not be visible from the Governor Mesheck Weare House in Hampton Falls (Section 2.6)?
~
l
a s
' r, is the
. include real estate taxes te the Town of Seabrook?
O Applicant suggtsting that real estate tax payments would be made
~
tolocaljurisdictionsduringtheconstructionperiodbutsuch 1
f payments wauld be made only to the. state during the operating period?
e I
)
310.14
'At the present time, is the state legislature considering proposals to establish a state real estate tax on electric j,
generating stations? If the state legislature is considering i
j such proposals, would local jurisdictions' retain any right to j
implement a real estate tax levy on generating stations?
If 1
{
they would retain such a right, what conditions would be imposed?
}
If under these tax proposals, local jurisdictions did not retain l
the right to tax, how would taxes' be distributed to local governments?
I Assuming no change in state laws governing local real estate tax policy, what is the Applicant's estimate of Unit l's' 3
assessment in the Town of Seabrook during the start-up year?
.j What percent of the Town's total assessed value would Unit 1 i
i represent in the start-up year? What is the Applicant's estimate of Unit 2's assessment in the Town of Seabrook I
during its start-up year? What percent of the Town's total 1
I assessed value would both units represent in that same i
(Unit 2's) start-upyear? The Applicant should provide l
l all necessary assumptions in presenting the response.
[i O
t.
l 310.11 The Applicant should: supply studies and information which
. indicate the economic importance of beach-oriented activities to the towns within 10 miles of the station site and to-the state.
i i
'l]
310.12 The Applicant should comment on the following concerns raised at
..I 3
the Seabrook scoping meeting on December 2, 1981:-
1 1
~
'(a) Even under nonnal operating conditions, the existence t
j of the plant will represent a' threat to some percentage
~
of the summer beach-arfented population and will reduce ii beach attendance as a consequence. Nence,.theeconomic foundation of specific towns and the.. state, which rely on tourism, could be threatened.
1 1
i
}
(b)
In the event of an accident which results in the release 1
6 of radioactive material in the beach area, the beach economy would be premanently and adversely affected, j
even if the beach were decontaminated, t
i 1
310.13 In response to Question 310.3, the Applicant indicated that Unit-1 1 would pay $42.6 million to the state and Unit 2 would' pay 3.9
~
million'to the Town of Seabrook.
Does the $42.6 million payment 4
l 9
I
I i
1
-o j
d
. Radiological Assessment 470.6 Update Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-15 to include all of the parameters and assump-tions used to calculate both the maximum individual and population dose estimates from th_e liquid and gaseous pathways, respectively.
5.2-20, 5.2-21, and 5.2-22 to include the latest infonnation -
470.7 Update Tables j
available and specify the date of the data used in preparing these tables.
1 470.8 Update Table 2.1-14 to include any' changes noted during the latest land use census conducted, including the beef cow pathway, e
t 470.9 Update Section 5.2.4.4 of.the Environmental Report (OL) to, conform with the infonnation submitted in response to Accept ~ance Review Question 470.4 and to reflect the latest information available pertaining to the annual production rates (in kg/yr) for fish and invertebrates.
b 4
f f
i 4
e g
i 4
4 l
i I
1