ML20040G340
| ML20040G340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1982 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-209, NUDOCS 8202120188 | |
| Download: ML20040G340 (33) | |
Text
,
PUBLIC SERVICE SEAMOOK STATION Engineering Office:
Companyof New Hamph 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 (617). 372 8100 1 m E
February 10, 1982 S/
y x7 1
g.]
. " c SBN-209 T.F.
B7.2.2 Q] j y g C Wi tc:y:, r,u.,,, f Urited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
U Q n:t," f s D
Waahington, D.C.
20555 M,
f
.;\\c' Oy[}
Attention:
Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Reference:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444.
(b) NRC letter from F.J.
Miraglia to W.C. Tallman, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, " Request for Additional Information-Seabrook Station", dated January 18, 1982.
Subject:
Submittal of Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), Seabrook Station ER-OLS
Dear Sir:
In response to your request in Reference (b), I am submitting five (5) copies of our responses to the following RAI:
290.5 290.6 291.19 291.21 310.10 310.11 310.12 310.13 310.14 Responses to the remaining RAI listed in Reference (b) will be submitted by February 19, 1982.
If you have any questions on this material you can contact Rocco A. Marcello, Jr. (617/872-8100, X2407).
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY DD S
kee f;}'}
.n t
n_
John DeVincent.la
[
[
g Project Manager JD/ RAM /so 8202120'.88 820210 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C
=
e Terrestrial Resources 290.5 Please provide the staff with 1 set of suitable topographic maps showing the proposed Seabrook - Tewksbury and the Seabrook -
Scobie Pond transmission lines.
RESPONSE
A set of topographic maps showing the Seabrook - Tewksbury and the Scabrook - Scobie Pond transmission line route has been provided to the NRC.
0 1
-- -.~-..-
- -. ~
., ~. -. -
- ~..... -
1 l
MM**
-me+w-+-
-w.w_.,,,,,....,, __,
~
f 290.6 Provide a description of the methods to be used to insure continued stabilization of the rock storage area, including any efforts to promote natural re-vegetation of this area.
RESPONSE
The rock storage area contains material produced from two general activities, the excavation of native bed rock for placement of facility foundations, etc. (principally, the two containment structures and the screenhouse forebay), and tunnel construction.
Both of these are completed to the point that they are no longer generating rock. Presently, the stored rock pile is stable, perimeter angles of repose are established, these slopes are not being disturbed, and it is not an area where foot traffic occurs.
Some interior slopes are worked for removal of rock useful as fill on the site or for preparation of lay-down areas on the rock pile itself.
Continued stabilization of the area is insured by a continuation of the same reasonable site management practices as have been employed during--the build-up-of--the pile.-These-include -such measures as:
o Project notice prohibiting dumping on perimeter slopes o
Posted prohibition of dumping along rock pile perimeter o
Driver indoctrination sessions o
Weekly environmental surveillance o
Environmental checks by Site Environmental Review Board In addition, natural re-vegetation is occurring and this will add to the overall stability to the rock pile. While there are no active efforts underway to promote natural re-vegetation, neither is it discouraged, and our observations show that except for continually disturbed portions, the rock storage area is becoming re-vegetated (see the photos, Figures 290.6-1 and 290.6-2).
---e www w
e w
M-~
~
w-..
.mm,,s.,,
re+-esa.e=
=.w
-,%eom.o
-w-.w
-a,w..,
%.,,w.%
t
. u.
+
.y o.
I fEg of w
y, i
/
su... :..
-.,a
- - g ~,
w l
m,
...C' j
1 Ft *,
. me.
e
..a i
3 3.'
o6
,l.,
l
..., ~.
-,2 i s C k..G
..l g
y (6
Iftt n.
s l
l
~ ' :
l '9 l
t
/
/
~ - ' 7. t -
-/
'd
....T,*, 7&*J.a s
.\\
- --*W, l
l f'Y *
.~L b-
.. ~= :4
)
f
~ ~ '
p g, iw u rf._agre
~
.u....._p. J = =
l
- 5 9,,
7
'.9. ? '...,,. v..
m-N
% 3 n,gp,:';ggg 3
/,.,
.~
.W
~
.~
WA=
- ' st W
e
. i ;
s.
... -. [
s,,,pue se &
~
.^ -
- j. ustiisum
~
' ~,,
. ' ?!* +f *..
' '. [t',3
.r:-
et
.y m
g'?mfy?
l ;g. 9,.,
~-
~;~: m -f g
.6
^
.. -~ v. s,, :< ' -
,i 9g s
-i-.-
. 7" O
r.
'f
,s 2
o'me e
W ~
g 4
5 N,
g
,.7 p.- g .
y
~
\\.. - A ; ^
\\.
.i
~
I W:,5;[..
~r-1-
glf n : =d,.. ~.
r t, ;
l
' Y.y yf M,-
.,[.
\\
&%.... )/. -
sg g:
4 Wp..
Y r
J fdh r
^
.f
=
,s.
6,_-
Figure 290.6-1 l
Occurrence of Natural Re-vegetation of the Rock Storage Area i
l l
l l
.l ew-a-+w--e-w*-W-- en w wemg-___,%.e m,,,
--- - - -i-----
'j (
ky prg gq,,
- ; b..,
'U
<s
- lT, y
l j
U I,
I
g
\\j j
cq ;
d-f 1
.y
\\
f I
.4 r
l l
Figure 290.6-2 l
Occurrence of Natural Re-vegetation of the Rock Storage Area I
L e.
. - ~.. -. -. -
~ ~ ~ ~ - - - * -- -
--m.
mm_
291.19 During. the OL Stage Environmental Review site visit, the applicant indicated that a continuous low level chlorination system may be proposed for biofouling control in the station circulating water system.
Provision for such a system is being made during the station's construction. This system would be.used instead of the thermal backflushing system currently described as the biofouling control method in the ER.
Provide a description of this chlorination system, as' proposed, including:
o frequency of biocide application
- o application points o
expected duration of application amount of biocide to be used during each application o
o concentration of biocide to be attained in the system expected total residual oxidant to be present at the point of o
discharge if intermittent application of irregular- (e.g., seasonal) o applications are anticipated, so describe describe any supplemental biofouling control schemes (e.g.,
o periodic shock chlorination of all or part of the system)
Provide a discussion and bases, therefore, of the expected environmental impact that this chlorination system would have during station operation.
RESPONSE
System Description The main biofouling control method for the Seabrook Station circulating water system will be continuous low-level chlorination. This method will be supplemented by thermal backflushing as necessary to control biofouling on the intake side of the circulating water system.
Sodium hypochlorite solution will be produced on-site by four hypochlorite generators using 1,200 gpm of seawater taken from the circulating water system.
These generators are capable of producing about 848 pounds of equivalent chlorine per hour in a hypochlorite solution, which will be injected at a dosage of about 2 mg/l into the circulating water system.
The main injection point of the hypochlorite solution will be at the throats of the three offshore intakes approximately three "tnilds~fr5 C the site. - In"iddiHon, odier injection points are available in the intake transition structure, the circulating water pump house, the service water pump house and the discharge 1
transition structure should it be necessary to inject booster doses of hypochlorite solution to maintain the chlorine residual high enough to prevent biofouling of circulating and service water systems.
mwamswes w
e-4 ee - m M*
MM 4
S 4 e-4 m
w w*h
- 'W 1 4 a
-c
Because biofouling is seasonal in the Seabrook area, it may not be necessary to continuously chlorinate the entire intake side of the circulating water system throughout the year. However, operational experience will be needed to determine that portion of the year when continuous chlorination is necessary to prevent biofouling. Shock booster doses at the circulating and service water pumps may be necessary year round to control slime in the condenser and hest exchanger tubes which adverwely affect the heat transfer process.
The total residual oxidant measured at the discharge transition structure just downstream of the condensers will be 0.2 mg/l or less.
During the 43-minute transit time (two units; one unit transit time approximately twice as long) from the discharge transition structure, the total residual oxidant will continue to decrease so that the final concentration discharged to the environment will be low. Additionally, this concentration will be diluted by the diffuser flow, approximately 10 to 1, reducing even further the total residual oxidant concentration.
Environmental Assessment The low level injection of sodium hypochlorite into the circulating water system to control biological growth and fouling is expected to continuously release approximately 0.2 mg/l of total residual oxidants. The actual amount of sodium hypochlorite injected, the level maintained in the system, and the total residual oxidant present at the discharge will be dependent on a number of physical, chemical and biological parameters.
Vhen hypochlorite is introduced into sea water, there is an initial decay in which hypochlorite is converted to hypobromite.
This results in no loss of the oxidizing capacity. The products from this point depend on pH, salinity, the concentration of ammonia-nitrogen and organic carbon in the cooling water, temperature, and the concentration of the applied chlorine.
Normally, the conversion of hypochlorite to hypobromite prevents the production of chloramines, yielding bromamine analogs.
With the exception of temperature, the physical and chemical l
parameters of the Atlantic Ocean at the intake and discharge structures do not vary significantly throughout the year (Table 291.19-1).
In the marine environment, pH generally remains constant due to natural buffering capacities. Even within the narrow range of pH values at Seabrook (roughly 7.8-8.4), the j
l proportions of hypobromous acid and hypobromite ions can be affected. The presence of ammonia in chlorinated seawater also l
has an effect on the composition and concentration of residual oxidants. Depending again upon the pH, a reaction between chlorine and ammonia to form chloraminet or between chlorine and i
bromide ions to form hypobromous acid-hypobromite can take place.
At Seabrook, slightly greater amounts of bromide-based compounds l
are expected.
Based on the chemical reactivity of residual bromide, the oxidation of organic carbon (amino acids) with free bromine to form organic bromamines is another possible reaction.
l l
l
^2 W '~ : ~-.-_ -': ~ '- ~ '
~:-
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-~
r_
The literature indicates that increased salinity increases toxicity to chlorinated sea water. At Seabrook, the salinity at the discharge structure remains relatively stable throughout the year and, therefore, would not be an important factor in evaluating toxicity to local marine populations. The influence of temperature on the toxicity of chlorinated cooling water has been s
varied.
Investigations have found it to range from producing no change in toxicity to where increased temperatures have increased toxicity. Data suggests that the synergistic interaction between temperature and chlorinated cooling water would not be great for species residing in areas thermally altered by the discharge.
Biocides entering the receiving waters via the Seabrook Station discharge are_d_iluted by.a factor of 10 to 1, as described in Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of the ER-OLS.
As previously mentioned, a concentration of 0.2 mg/1, measured at the discharge transition structure, will further decay during a 43-minute transit time.
Thus, considering the above dilution factor, a final concentration which is much less than 0.02 mg/l will result at the surface.
Beyond this area, the concentrations would steadily drop off with increased dilution with distance from the discharge area and by the photochemical reactions promoted by solar irradiance.
Marine fouling organism can be divided into two general categories; those that cause substantial hydraulic restrictions to cooling water flow (primarilly the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis; the horse mussel, Modiolus modiolus; and barnacles, Balanus spp.),
and those organisms which form mats or films on heat exchange surfaces.
In the New England region, the blue mussel is generally regarded as the fouling organisms of greatest concern.
Mytilus, the major fouling organism expected at Seabrook Station, generally is found as a planktonic settling larvae from early May through late October. Heavy sets of larvae in February, however, have been reported north of Portland, Maine. As with all biological components, the frequency and magnitude of larval set is dependent on the previously mentioned physical parameters (most notably temperature). Mytilus spawns primarily when the water 0
temperatures rise to between 10 and 15 C, after which they remain as planktonic larvae for 2 to 3 weeks or as long as 3 months during cold water periods.
Settling also occurs at this temperature range, but can be seen at temperatures as low as 80 to 90C.
Control of fouling is usually initiated in the spring when temperatures rise above 7.20C and continue until they drop below this in the fall.
To evaluate the effect of biocides on the biota in the vicinity of Seabrook Station, a review of toxicity data from open literature f
for selected local species was performed (Table 291.19-2).
An l
evaluation of this data has determined that the continuous release l
of 0.2 mg/l of total residual oxidants will not present unmanageable stress or alter the local indigenous populations which are expected to be exposed co the discharge of biocides.
l
{
The above evaluation is based on a r. umber of factors. First, the concentration of total residual oxidant released by Seabrook Station will, for the majority of species, be well below that required to produce lethal effects. Secondly, rapid mixing and dilution of released biocide will further reduce any possible toxic effects. With increased distance from the discharge, the concentration will drop as additional mixing and dilution occur.
Exposure time is a critical factor in chlorine toxicity.
Planktonic organisms which passively drift into the discharge plume will not be. subjected to lethal concentrations and duration within the plume. With rapid dilution and a diffuser designed to avoid bottom impact, benthic organisms, which potentially could be exposed to continuous levels of chlorine, would not be exposed.
Fish _ species __d_o not_normally maintain themselves in discharge plumes and therefore, limited exposure times and minimal concentration mitigate possible effects to released biocides.
The expected environmental impact to the continuous release of chlorine at Seabrook Station would be minimal and would not adversely affect the local indigenous marine populations based on combinations of the biological and physical parameters above.-
Considering the cyclic nature of fouling organism settling, it is-expected that efforts will be made to minimize use of biocides during periods when biofouling is not a problem.
References to 291.19 1.
Becker, C. D. and T. O. Thatcher,1973. Toxicities of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories for.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
2.
Electric Power Research Insitutute,1980. Review of Open Literature on Effects of Chlorine on Aquatic Organisms. EPRI EA-1491, Project 877.
3.
Envirosphere Company, 1981. Chlorine Toxicity as a Function of Environmental Variables and Species Tolerance for Edision Electric Institute.
4.
Frederick, L.
C., 1979. Chlorine Decay in Seawater. Public Service of New Hampshire.
t 5.
Ichthyological Associates, Inc., 1974. The Ef fect of Temperature and Chemical Pollutants on the Behavior of Several Estuarine Organisms.
Bulletin No. 11.
6.
Liden, L. H., et al., 1980. Effects of Chlorobrominated and Chlorinated Cooling Waters on Estuarine Organisms. Journal of Water Pollution Control, Vol. 52, No.l.
7.
McLean, R.
I., 1973. Chlorine and Temperature Stress on Estuarine Invertebrates. Journal of Water Pollution Control, Vol. 45, No. 5.
8.
Mattice, J.
S., 1977. Power Plant Discharges: Toward More Reasonable Effluent Limits on Chlorine. Nuclear Safety, Vol.18, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
m.,,,w m
wm-
=
ge
..amsea-.s
.im
"*M
- N m
w.g we6 S h ensuhhhe a^6ees*
Gmum hhM= - - a y+
e ogw=-p ee----
euk**Ne
.hawn-esp hi4
--4
-+-e aut w*n=wie gu-e,
9.
Middaugh, L P., et al., 1977. Responses of Early Lifa History Stages of the Striped Bass, 'Morone Saxatilis', to ChloriL2ation. Environmental Research Lab, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
10.
Roberts, M. H., et al.,1979.
Effects of Chlorinated Seawater on Decapod Crustaceans and Mulinia Larvae. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, EPA-600/ 3-7 9-031.
11.
TRW, Inc., 1978. Assessment of the Effects of Chlorinated Seawater from Power Plants on Aquatic Organisms.
Industrial Environmental Research Lab., NC.
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency; EPA-600/7-78-221.
I
~ * ' ~ '
- " * " * ~ ^ * * " * * - = * - - -
+- w.
TABLE 291.19-1 Seawater Sample Parameters Total Kjeldahl-N Temp.
Salinity Ammonia-N Organic Carbon Date (mg N/1)
( C) ppt pH (mg N/1)
(mg C/1) 6/29/76
.12 15.00
.32.16 8.4 09 1.0 7/29/76
.17 9.71 33.34 8.3 07
<1.0 8/26/76
.11 14.92 33.87 8.15 04 8.5 9/28/76'
'.11 12.42 33.61 8.3 07 24.0 10/26/76
.16 8.54 34.42 8.0 08 18.0 1
11/30/76
.12 6.92 35.13 7.8 09 2.5 12/30/76
.09 2.34 35.12 7.9 07 7.0 1/26/77
.16 0.50 36.06 7.8 09 3.0 2/23/77
.09 0.00 34.76 8.35 05
< 1.0 3/29/77
.05 1.80 33.70 7.95
< 01
-<1.0 4/27/77
.07 5.68 34.16 8.1 02 16.0 5/26/77
.07 5.99 33.34 8.2
< 01 3.5
~ --
6/30/77
.06 10.99 33.24 7.85 04-9.0 Source: Frederick, L.
C.,
1979 e-msm-wveh+-
w-e-pwemmen m
-we..wa
,e e
we e,p w
megn -w
=
+
me%e m-mer-e-eme+u eep w-ge-
-hi
I t
TABLE 291.19-2 Toxicity of Chlorinated Seawater to Aquatic Biota
'I
.[
(Sheet 1 of 11) l Concentration *** Duration Temp.
4 I
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(OC)
Effect Reference
.I Phytoplankton i
Skeletonema dostatum 0.095 1,440 20 50% decrease TRW (1978)/ Gentile, in growth et al. (1976)*
0.6 1.7 50% decrease TRW (1978)/ Gentile,
!I in growth et al. (1976)*
i 0.4-0.65 5
Reduced growth Becker & Thatcher (1973)
I l
'.Chaetoceros dicipiens 0.14 1,440 50% decrease TRW (1978) in growth f
Chaetoceros didymum 0.125 1,440 10 50% decrease Gentile, et al. (1976)*
in growth i
Thalassiosira nordemskioldii 0.195 1,440 50% decrease TRW (1978) l in growth i
Thalassiosira rotula 0.330 1,440 10 50% decrease TRW (1978)/ Gentile, in growth et al. (1976)*
i i
i l
Reference as, cited in EPRI (1980)
Jj** Adults unless otherwise noted.
ia** Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
I1 Total Residual Oxidant 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) l l
l 1
)
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 2 of 11)
I Concentration ***- Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
J[0C)
Effect Reference
_J i
Benthic Algae
- s i
Cladophora sp.
1.0 1,440 30 Slight mortality Betzer & Knott (1969)*
1.0 4,320 30 Slight mortality Betzer.& Knott (1969)*
- i 3.0 2,880 30 90% mortality Betzer & Knott (1969)*
5.0 4,320 30 100% mortality Betzer & Knott (1969)*
10.0 2
30' 100% mortality Betzer & Knott (1969)*
h
- 'I Enteromorpha intestinalis 0.1 Abundant Betzer & Knott (1969)*
i
,1 Bivalves Mytilus edulis 2.5 1 7,200 100% mortality Turner, et al. (1948)*/
TRW (1978) 1.0 1 21,600 100% mortality Turner, et al. (1948)*/
TRW (1978) l 0.25 Prevented Turner, et al. (1948)*/
l attachment G TRW (1978) 0.4 m/see velocities t
Mulinia lateralis Embryos 0.07 2
18-28 50% mortality Roberts, et al. (1979) 0.01-0.10 2,880 18-28 50% mortality Roberts, et al. (1979) 1.
i!
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- f*Adultsunlessotherwisenoted.
- Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
1 Total Residual 0xidaat 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) t
=
i l
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 3 of 11)
Concentratior.*** Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(*C)
Effect Reference 1
Crustaceans Copspods Acartia tonsa 0.75 2
20 30% mortality Dressel (1971)*
0.75 2
25 70% mortality Dressel (1971)*
- i 1.15 2
20 100% mortality Dressel (1971)*
0.11-0.44 20 65.2% mortality Lanza, et al. (1975)*
i!
0.11-0.44 1,440 100% mortality Lanza, et al. (1975)*
2.5 5
>90% mortality McLean (1973) 0.03 2,880 50% mortality Roberts, et al. (1979)
I 0.028-0.175
> 10,000 15 50% mortality Heinla & Beaven (1977)*
i 1.0 120 50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
2.5 5
50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
0.75 2
20 30% mortality TRW (1978) i; 0.75 2
25 70% mortality TRW (1978) il 1.0 120 50% mortality TRW (1978) i 10.0
.07 50% mortality TRW (1978) 2.5 5
90% mortality TRW (1978)
O.12 2,880 20 50% mortality Roberts & Gleeson (1978)*
0.11 2,880 25 50% mortality Roberts & Gleeson (1978)*
4 O.067 2,880 20 50% mortality Roberts & Gleeson (1978)*
0.029 2,880 25 50% mortality Roberts & Gleeson (1978)*
i I!* Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
,8* Adults unless otherwise noted.
- concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
1 Total Residual Oxidant
,2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) ll
i TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 4 of 11)
Concentra tion * ** Duration Temp.
SP cies Stage **
(ag/1)
(min)
( C)
Effect Reference i.
Copepods (cont'd)
'l Eurytemora affinis 0.11-0.44 1,440 70% mortality Lanza, et al. (1975)*
1.0 360 50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
i 2.5 9
50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
l Amphipods Melita nitida 2.5 5
4% mortality McLean (1973) 2.5 180 97.2% mortality McLean (1973) f Gammarus sp.
2.5 180 25% mortality McLean (1973)/TRW (1978) i Corophium sp.
10.0 410 0% mortality McLean (1973)/TRW (1978)
Bernteles Balanus sp.
Nauplii 2.5 5
80% mortality McLean (1973)/TRW (1978) l i
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- Adults unless otherwise noted.
- Concentration as f ree residuals unless otherwise noted.
1 Total Residual Oxidant
- 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) t i
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 5 of 11) i Concentra tion **
- Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(OC)
Effect Reference Decspods i
Crangon septemspinosus 0.15-0.25 1,080 50% mortality Patrick and McLean (1970)
TRW (1978) 0.90-1.00 180 50% mortality Patrick and McLean (1970)
TRW (1978) 5.0 10 42% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*/
l TRW (1978) 10.0 5
60% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*/.
TRW (1978) 0.05-0.09 Avoidance Ichthylogical Assoc. (197 i
Pagurus longicarpus 0.062-0.102 5,760 50% mortality Roberts (1978)*/ Roberts, et al. (1979)
Homarus americanus Stage I 2.89 30-60 20 40% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
Stage I 0.41 30-60 25 50% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
i Stage I 0.69 30-60 30 50% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
Stage I 0.32 30-60 20 50% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
l Stage I 0.06 30-60 25 50% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
Stage IV 3.95 60 30 50% mortality Goldman & Ryther (1976)*
i k
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- Adults unless otherwise noted.
- Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
'l Total Residual Oxidant i2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) l i
i
g,
(.
i l
i TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 6 of 11)
Conce ntration***
Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(ag/1)
(min)
( C)
Effect Reference l l Flah'
^
I i
- ;0smerus mordax 1.27 30 50% mortality Seegert & Brooks (1978)*
t i'
!Alosa pseudoharangus 2.15 30 10 50% mortality Seegert & Brooks (1978)*
l 1 70 30 20 50% mortality Seegert & Brooks (1978)*
0.297 30 30 50% mortality Seegert & Brooks.(1978)*
'Alosa aestivalis Egg 0.57 100% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
a Egg 0.33 4,800 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
1 day 0.28 1,440 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
i t
larvae 1 day 0.24 2,880 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
larvae I
i 2 day 0.32 1,440 50% mortality
' Morgan & Prince (1977)*
larvae 2 day 0.25 2,880 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
j larvae 1.20 15 50% mortality-Engstrom & Kirkwood (1974 i
0.56' 120 50% mortality Engstrom-& Kirkwood (1974 0.67 60 50% mortality TRW (1978) j 1.20 15 50% mortality TRW (1978)
J i
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- Adults unless otherwise noted.
. *** Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
i l 1 Total Residual Oxidant 2
]'
Combined Residuals (chloramines).
i l
4
f E
4 i,
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 7 of 11) i j;
Concentra tion * ** Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
( C)
Effect Reference
-t Fish (cont'd)
Brevoortia tyrannus Larvae 0.3 8
0% mortality Hoss, et al. (1975)*
Larvae 0.3 5
oT100 40% mortality Hoss, et al. (1975)*
Larvae 0.3 8
oT100 100% mortality Hoss, et al..(1975)*
Larvae 0.5 5
40% mortality Hoss, et al. (1975)*
Larvae 0.5 3
o T100 100% mortality
. Hoss, et al. (1975)*
3 Larvae 0.5 10 100% mortality Hoss, et al. (1975)*
1.20 30 50%-mortality Engstrom and Kirkwood (1974)*
0.21 300 50% mortality Engstrom and Kirkwood (1974)*
0.70 10 50% mortality Fairbanks, et al. (1971)*
0.22 60 50% mortality Fairbanks, et al. (1971)*
0.22 2,880 50% mortality Roberts & Gleeson (1978)*
0.12 1 5,760 25 50% mortality Gullans, et al. (1977)*
0.22 60 50% mortality TRW (1978) 0.7 10 50% mortality TRW (1978) 0.21 300 50% mortality TRW (1978) 1.20 30 50% mortality TRW (1978)
I Larvae 0.5 3
0% mortality TRW (1978) j i
i i,
l 0 Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- I O* Adults unless otherwise noted.
000 Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise. noted.
1 Total Residual Oxidant 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines)
~ _
i 5
TABLE 291.19-2 I
(Sheet 8 of 11) 1
'l Conce ntration*** Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(OC)
Effect Reference Ff'sh (cont'd) i Pseudopleuronectes americanus Juvenile 0.20 1 Stress Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
L i
t l
2 Juvenile 0.55 1 100% mortality Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
i Juvenile 1 50 1 Stress Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
Juvenile 2.55 1 100% mortality Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
1 2.5 15 50% mortality TRW (1978)/ Gentile, et al. (1976)*
10.0 0.3 50% mortality TRW (1978)/ Gentile,
!f et al. (1976)*
S' Egg 10.0 20 0% mortality TRW (1978)/ Gentile, et al. (1976)*
0.20 1,440 50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
Limanda ferruginea 0.10 1,440 50% mortality Gentile, et al. (1976)*
t i '
I 2.5 1,440 50% mortality TRW (1978)
I 0.095 1,440 50% mortality Roberts, et al. (1975)* '
Menidia menidia O.037 5,760 50% mortality Roberts, et al. (1975)*
1.20 30 50% mortality Engstrom & Kirkwood (1974 0.55 120 50% mortality Engstrom & Kirkwood (1974 f
Young 0.13 1
4% mortality Hoss, et al. (1977)*
l Young 0.13 3
46% mortality Hoss, et al. - (1977)*
i i
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
- Adults unless otherwise noted.
- Concentration as f ree residuals' unless otherwise noted.
Il Total Residual Oxidant 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) i i
1 t
I
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 9 of 11)
Concentra tion * ** Duration Temp.
4 I
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(OC)
Effect Reference i
{ Fish (cont'd)
Menidia menidia (cont'd)
Young 0.13 5
63% mortality Hoss, et al. (1977)*
Young 0.13 7
80% mortality Hoss, et al. (1977)*
2-hr. Egg 0.38 1 1,440 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
2-hr. Egg 0.30 1 2,880 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
2-hr. Egg 0.12 1,440 5% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
i 2-hr. Egg 1.23 1,440 95% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
2-hr. Egg 0.16 2,880 5% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
l l
2-hr. Egg 0.56 2,880 95% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
l i
0.08-0.25 Preference Ichthyological Assoc.
l (1974) 0.59 Death Ichthyological Assoc.
(1974)
O.58 90 50% mortality TRW (1978)
I 1.20 30 50% mortality TRW (1978)
Morone saxatilis 1 week 0.50 1,440 50% mortality Hughes (1970)*
1arvae j
1 month 0.30 1,440 50% mortality Hughes (1970)*
fingerling 0.04-0.16 60 oT
>50% mortality Lanza, et al. (1975)*
l 6.90 t
i I* Reference -s cited in EPRI (1980) f* Adults un_ ass otherwise noted.
- Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
i 1 Total Residual Oxidant 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines) i I
t
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 10 of 11)
Concentration *** Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
(OC)
Effect Reference iFish (cont'd) l Morone saxatilis (cont'd)
Embryo 0.07 1 3.5% hatched Middaugh, et al. (1977) 50% mortality Middaugh, et al. (1977)
I 2 day 0.04 prolarvae 12 day
< 0.07 50% mortality Middaugh, et al. (1977) larvae 30 day 0.04 50% mortality Middaugh, et al. (1977)
I juvenile
< 13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> 0.20 2,880 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
larvae 24-40 hour 0.22 2,880 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
larvae l
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 0.20 1,440 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
1arvae 70 hour8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> 0.19 1,440 50% mortality Morgan & Prince (1977)*
1arvae Larvae 0-2.47
< 30% mortality Cinn & 0' Conner (1978)*
Larvae 0-2.47 AT 60-85% mortality Cinn & 0' Conner (1978)*
i Egg C.3 2 4.8 oT 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
{
Egg 0.22 2 120 oT 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
Egg 0.14 2 240 oT 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
- Reference as cited in EPRI (1980) 1e* Adults unless otherwise noted.
- f*1Concentration as free residuals unless otherwis'e noted.
Total Residual Oxidant 2 Combined Residuals (chloramines)
TABLE 291.19-2 (Sheet 11 of 11)
Co ncentra tion * ** Duration Temp.
Species Stage **
(mg/1)
(min)
( C)
Effect Reference
, Fish (cont'd)
{
t Morone saxatilis (cont'd)
Prola rvae 0.04 2 4.8 oT 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
Prolarvae 0.03 2 120 oT 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
Prolarvae 0.03 2 240 ST
> 50% mortality Burton, et al. (1979)*
l Oncorhynchus kisutch Juvenile 0.141 2,880 7.7 100% mortality Holland, et al. (1960)*
Juvenile 0.08 7,920 7.7 50% mortality Holland, et al. (1960)*
Juvenile 0.08 10,080 7.7 100% mortality Holland, et al. (1960)*
Juvenile 0.04 12,960 7.7 0% mortality Holland, et al. (1960)*
Juvenile 0.04 5,760 15-77 50% mortality Rosenberger (1972)*
l 0.01 2 5,760 15-77 50% mortality Rosenberger (1972)*
O.04 2 5,760 15-77 50% mortality Rosenberger (1972)*
0.560 30 10 50% mortality Brooks & Seegert (1977)*
0.287 30 20 50% mortality Brooks & Seegert (1977)*
i Stenotomus versicolor 0.67 30 100% mortality Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
3.10 2 30 100% mortality Capuzzo, et al. (1977)*
l Casterosteus aculeatus 0.09-0.13 5,760 50% mortality TRW (1978) i
(* Reference as cited in EPRI (1980)
}*9*Adultsunlessotherwisenoted.
4* Concentration as free residuals unless otherwise noted.
1 l2 Total Residual Oxidant
- Combined Residuals (chloramines) l l
l I.
i I
\\
\\
291.21 Aquatic Resources 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 resources in the site area. Address the preoperational cleaning and testing and station operational phasec.
RESPONSE
The projected water flows for various station conditions are described in ER-OLS Table 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-1, and in RAI 240.12.
Some of the numbers are reported as daily averages. The average use of treated water for flushes is shown to be 120,000 gpd.
To meet the demands of the larger flushes, estimated at 400,000 gallons, storage will be manipulated and extra water drawn from the municipal supply.
Agreement has been reached with the Town of Seabrook to supply I
water in accordance with the schedule below:
a.
I' the capability of the Well Field Site is 875,000 gallons per day or less, the Town agrees to supply to PSNH 175,000 gallons per day averaged over a calendar monthly period with a maximum of 215,000 gallons on any one day.
b.
If the capability of the Well Field Site in between 875,000 gallons per day and 1,200,e'0 gallons per day, the amounts set forth in (a) shall be increased by an amount which is 20% of the excess over 875,000 gallons per day.
c.
If the capability of the Well Field Site is 1,200,000 gallons per day or more, the Town agrees to supply PSNH 240,000 gallons per day averaged over a calendar monthly period with a maximum of 270,000 gallons on any'one day.
d.
The capability of the Well Field Site shall be determired for purposes of this agreement by pump tests on production wells to be performed as soon as such production wells are installed.
The capability determination shall not be subsequently altered.
In the event that a prolonged drought or other act of e.
God or a water system failure causes a water shortage requiring the Town to ration water, PSNH shall be treated on a non-discriminatory basis with other users.
3.
The amounts of fresh water which the Town shall be obligated to supply hereunder are in addition to the 50,000 gallons per day which the Town agreed to supply to PSNH by agreement dated October 5, 1978, in settlement of Public Service Company of New Hampshire vs. Town of Seabrook (Rockingham County Superior Court Docket No. E 625-78), it being the intent of the parties that said agreement shall remain in full force and effect."
==.=.
_... - - = - _
=. =.
.--r---_
i Three 10-inch wells have been drilled by the Town to the 500-foot depth. Prior to drilling the new wells, the Town's consultant j
estimated that the aquifer could support three 350 gallon per minute (approximately 1,500,000 gallons per day) wells. Initial surging of the wells indicates that the estimated capacity can be developed.
The Applicant plans to use municipal water (circle 4 in Figure 3.3-1) to the extent available and keep the site wells in reserve for station peaks or to accommodate the Town during heavy municipal system peaks or unscheduled outages.
The Station's demand on the municipal system will be spread over the new and existing Town wells. Since these well fields are separated by a considerable distance, PSNH's allotment should have no adverse impacts on the water resources in the site area.
310.10 Siting Analysis What is the basis for the Applicant's conclusion that the station would not be visible from the Governor Mesheck Weare llouse in llampton Falls (Section 2.6)?
RESPONSE
Personal observation from front of house.
310.11 Siting Analysis 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.
RESPONSE
The towns which have ocean-beach frontage within 10 miles of '
l Seabrook Station are Rye, North Hampton, Hampton and Seabrook, New Hampshire, and Salisbury, Newbury and N wburyport, Nbssachusetts.
e From the Essex County Tourist Council in Peabody, Massachusetts, the Applicant learned that in 1979, Professor N rman Cournoyer of o
the University of Massachusetts estimated tourists in the entire Essex County area would spend $115 million annually. This estimate was based on 3.7 million visitor days at $30 per day.
This estimate was not broken down by town.
The Applicant has not been able to obtain any study or data which is indicative of the economic contribution of the New Hampshire beach area commerce. Two taxes are levied by the state on businesses.
They are the rooms and meals tax applied at the rate of 6% and the business profits tax collected at 8% of net income.
The revenues go into the state general fund and are redistributed according to a formula in which net valuation and population are factors. Revenues collected by towns are not available to the Applicant.
The amount of redistributed revenues is available by towns.
ae Applicant judges the four seacoast towns as net producers of revenue for the state. To the extent that this is true, the redistributed revenues provide a crude low-side indication of the business level in the towns. The 1981 distributions to the scacoast towns were:
Town Business Profits Rooms & Meals Hampton
$256,903
$65,575 North Hampton 77,801 17,082 Rye 55,527 21,003 Seabrook 112,440 26,722 i
-.-____....__.___~__e 4-m,r e
=
-.e.
e p
-+
---a.-
m y
<-n.
.g,.g-
-y
1 l
310.12 Siting Analysis The Applicant should comment on the following concerns raised at the Seabrook scoping meeting on December 2,1981:
a.
Even under normal operating conditions, the existence of the plant will represent a threat to some percentage of the summer beach-oriented population and will reduce beach attendance as a consequence.
Hence, the economic foundation of specific towns and the state, which rely on tourism, could be threatened.
b.
In the event of an accident which results in the release of radioactive material in the beach area, the beach economy would be permanently and adversely affected, even if the beach were decontaminated.
RESPONSE
a.
The Applicant sees this as a valid concern for area businessmen but feels the viewpoint is pessimistic and unsupported by experiences elsewhere.
In 1974, the Applicant contacted spokesmen in the vicinity of several nuclear plants. The findings were reported in Applicant's Direct Testimony No.18, post-transcript page 590. A recent spot check by the author of that testimony found no negative change in the business activity previously reported at any of the locations checked.
For example, in the 10 miles around Oyster Creek, a building boom has been experienced producing many housing facilities especially for retired persons.
Beach attendance in that area continues to grow and numbered about twice the New Hampshire beach attendance this past summer.
b.
The Applicant feels that this concern is also valid but overstated. Many unfortunate experiences could discourage tourism including fish kills, oil spills, riots or a nuclear accident, but once the hazard is shown to be removed, tourists will forget and return. This is the case in the TMI area.
Personal communication with local utility information manager indicates that tourism is not suffering from the TMI accident.
In fact, attendance at the TMI information center is above the pre-accident numbers.
MMm~
' ~^
m'mW% M
26AM4 4
310.13 Siting Analysis In response to Question 310.3, the Applicant indicated that Unit 1 l
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 include real estate taxes to the Town of Seabrook? Or is the Applicant suggesting that real estate tax payments would be made to local jurisdictions during the construction period, but such payments would be made only to the state during the operating l
period?
RESPONSE
Answer 310.3 was predicated on state taxing of completed facilities - an assumption. The Unit 1 figure was a payment to the state only based on that assumption.
f
-:===
.=- -- - =
310.14 Siting Analysis At the present time, is the state legislature considering proposals to establish a state real estate tax on electric generating stations? If the state legislature is considering such proposals, would local jurisdictions retain any right to implement' a real estate tax levy on generating stations? If they would retain such a right, what conditions would be imposed?
If, under these tax proposals, local jurisdictions did not retain the right to tax, how would taxes be distributed to local governments?
Assuming no change in state laws governing local real estate tax
. policy, what is the Applicant's estimate of Unit l's assessment in the Town of Seabrook during the startup year? What percent of the Town's total assessed value would Unit I represent in the startup year? What is the Applicant's estimate of Unit 2's assessment in the Town of Seabrook during its startup year? What percent of the Town's total assessed value would both units represent in that same (Unit 2's) startup year? The Applicant should provide all necessary assumptions in presenting the response.
RESPONSE
a.
No, the state legislature is not considering proposals to establish a state real estate tax on electric generating stations.
b.
It must be said that any response to this question can be no more than an estimate.
There are only assumptions to base an answer on.
The applicant has tried unsuccessfully to determine the Town Assessor's basis for evaluation. Also, application has been made under New Hampshire Statute RSA 72:12-a to exempt approximately $140 million of pollution control equipment and structures from real estate taxes for 25 years.
The determination of this application may not be made for several months. These two items alone introduce a substantial degree of uncertainty in this answer.
The Town recently engaged the Thoresen Group to review the town's growth patterns and to make suggestions for future town policy. To what extent the consultant's recommendations will be adopted is not known.
The discussion on revenue generation and tax consequences from the Thoresen Report is provided as Table 310.14-1.
The Applicant is interested in levelizing real estate taxes for a long-term period. The Town's position has not been made known. With those uncertainties, the Applicant makes the following estimates assuming the Town will assess the station facilities at approximately two-thirds their cost of construction and that the net valuation of other real estate in town will grow at 3% per year from 1980.
Estimated Valuation Unit 1 and Common 1984
$1,008,000 Unit 2 1985 580,413 Unit 1 & Unit 2 1986 1,588,413 In 1986, the estimated plant valuation is 95% of the estimated town net valuation.
w n+m
t, i
Table 310.14-1 l
Discussion on Revenue Generation and Tax Consequences. Source: Seabrook Growth Analysis and Development Plan.
Prepared by the Thoresen group, l
Portsmouth, New Hampshire for the Seabrook Planning Board and office of State Planning. June 1981.
1 REV, ENE GENE 21ATION
'Ihe single most dramatic inpact that a nuclear generating facility (or A!O TAX 00NSEQUENCES any major energy generating facility) has on a comunity in New llanpshire is its ability to generate tax revenue for the nunicipality through the pmporty tax.
i
\\
A generating facility is a capital intensive investment which is taxed for its mal estate value. A generating station in any comunity in l
New Ilanpshire is likely to be one of or the biggest single taxpayer in the nunicipality.
In Seabrook this is especially tme Wmaa of the i
size of the undertaking. While Seabrook does not have the highest I
equalizod assessed value in the State, it could have by the time that l
Seabrook Station is conplete.
Table 3.1 below shows the dranntic change over time of the public electric j
j valuation in relationship to the total evaluation of the ' Ibm.
- 'i Table 3.1: PERCENT OF ELEC111IC UFILI'lY VAI11ATION OF 'IUPAL VAWATION I
1970 IfRD Public Electric
$601,150
$221,505,500 i
Net 'Ibtal Valuation 20,007,030 316,454,885 Electric as Percent 2.1%
38'.0%
of Total 70 34 Source: Annual lleports t
l i
lt r ;
Table 310.14-1 Continued i
'Ihe data shous that the public electric utility in ten years has gmwn flun i
2.1 percent to 70 percent of tie total not valuation of the canunity.
Furthermore, the not valuation has grown 991 percent in the decade. Um public electric category grew a phenmenal 36,747 percent.
h
'Ihe trtmendous increase in assessed value in turn allows the nunicipality to increase its revenue generating capability. Such an increase in the revenue base allows the connunity to choose to either (1) increase services greatly with a relatively constant tax rate, (2) maintain service levels with a reduced tax rate, or (3) adopt both a lower tax rate and a higler level of services. While timse factors are easy to describe they are difficult to distinguish when looking at connunity data.
'Ihe tranendous increase in, assessed value makes the tax burden nuch less l
onerous per dollar of ag enditure. For exanple, in 1970 if Seabrook raised its tax rate $1.00 it would generate about $29,000 of tar. revenue.
i In 1 W 9, however, the same $1.00 increase would raise about $316,450 in tax revenue.
'Ihe total accccced value of Seabrook will continue to increase dramatically as Seabrook Station moves toward project coupletion.
It is estimated by l
the h's assessor tint Seabrook Station may account for up to 90 percent of the total ammmuw1 value by the tine it is couplete.
l
'lhe h's increased revenue generating capacity has allowed it to increase expenditure levels significantly over the decade while still preserving a relatively low tax rate. Between.1MO and 1W9, for example, expenditures for nunicipal purposes increased overall by 609 percent. During this time the tax rate decreased from $30.00 in 1MO to $13.70 in 1M9.
l I
In the last few years the h Weeting has voted to expend funds on a l
variety of nunicipal projects that uould have been difficult or impossible without Seabrook Station. For exanple, it voted to expend $680,000 for j
i a new h llall, $1.5 million for a recreation center, $900,000 for exploration and development of new water sources and inprovanents to the syston, $220,000 for purchase of beach and dune area, and $100,000 for the nunicipal building fund.
Carmunity Invact: 'Ibe short term inpact of the construction of Seabrook 35 Station is that the assessed value and revenues are likely to increase
};
Table 310.14-1 Continued
{
at a rate faster than municipal expenditures thus lowering taxes. Major nunicipal expenditures for capital facilities are likely to be nudo fmn current revenue rather than from long-tenn bonds.
Over the long tonn, however, the 'Ibwn nust take care to forecast its revenue and expendituro needs. Particularly inportant is to evaluate l'{
the assessnent policios regarding a public utility.
In general tonne, assessnent of a public utility is not like a house, a connercial or other industrial facility. Custanarily over time, housco, connercial establistynents, and industrial facilities increaso in value.
Public utilities, on the other hand, take the position that generating stations depreciate in value over time. 'Ihis occurs, they argue, Wan=
the equipment wears out and has to be replaced and because generating stations custanarily are not sold thus there is no narket value for the station. 'Iherefore, on a number of occasions there has been disagroanent between nunicipal assessing officials as to what constitutes fair market value of the generating station.
In onter to help understand tie different assessing approaches two concept graphs are provided below. 'Ihe first one shows the an=asuvl value if one follows the deprociating value approach. 'De second one shoue an approach whero the neuuwuvl value is leveled out over time.
Pecusm4 VALuE.
wa Os k>i A
w n
ConsiAst \\/ALUE H
0 n$.
3a 4
.k 36 botancm,!
ewsamos Eh' TIME Y"#,
i^'g Table 310.14-1 Continued In each case, the assessed value increases up to the point when operation
,l begins. 'Ihen under the first appmach the a-wi value of the plant declines as the plant ages. Under the other approach the a W value drops to a levelized point and stays that way over time (provided that the utility does not alter the plant),
d It is inportant to understand these differences primarily for the purpose of fomcasting future revenues in relationship to comunity needs. For zit exanple, nunicipal facilities, like the new 'Ibwn Offices, or services,
}ll like the water systen, may require major capital inprovenants during the useful life of Seabrook Station. Deciding what aa - ing approach best
.!j meets comunity needs will help the 'Ibwa plan wisely for its future.
{l Fp t
I i
.' k bI e
in i
!l
'l t
i i
}
1
!l I f