Text

to Environ Rept.One Oversize Drawing Encl. Aperture Card Available in PDR
	ML20041C306
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/28/1982
From:	; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20041C304	List: ML20041C303; ML20041C306;
References
	ENVR-820228, NUDOCS 8203010138
	Download: ML20041C306 (80)
	v • d • e

. . _

I O

SEABROOK STATION '

APPLICANTS j ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE i

i O i l

l l

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK, NEW HAMPSHIRE l

O Revision 1 888 Rb8b?a8888:a February 1982

( C PDR

1 l

l SEABROOK ST/. TION Engineering Office:

O l Companyof PUBLICNewSEAVICE 0 Wi e 1671 Worcester Road

\j Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 (617) - 872 - 8100 February 25, 1982 SBN-210 T.F. B 7.2.2 Unite

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Uashington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

References:

(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136,

(/)

\ s- Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) USNRC Letter, dated September 30, 1981, " Acceptance Review of Application for Operating Licenses for Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2," D. G. Eisenhut to W. C. Tallman (c) PSNH Letter, dated November 27, 1981, " Response to Acceptance Review Requests for Additional Information (RAI)," J. DeVincentis to D. G. Eisenhut (d) PSNH Letter, dated January 4,1982, " Submittal of Additional Information; Environmental Report RAI 240.25,"

J. DeVincentis to L. Wheeler

Subject:

Revision 1 - Seabrook Station ER-OLS

Dear Sir :

Pu rsuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Commission's Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as implemented by 10CFR Part 51, Public Service Company of New Hampshire hereby submits 41 copies of Revision 1 to the Seabrook Station Environmental Report-Operating License Stage.

The following information is included in Revision 1:

1) Responses [ References (c) and (d)] to NRC Staff Acceptance Review Requests for Additional Information (RAI), dated September 30, 1981

(N [ Reference (b)].

l ( / ,

l l

l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 ;

p Attention: Mr. Frank J. Miraglia February 25, 1982 P

)

11) Update of various ER-OLS chapters to incorporate information ,

provided in responses to RAI.

i lii) Miscellaneous and minor editorial changes.

Respectfully submitted, ;

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ;

r ,

i By -

a / , j 4114d7 Wende'll' M ~ Johnson, V' !

Vice President COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS) [

j )ss MIDDLESEX COUNTY ) ;

Then personally appeared before me, W. P. Johnson, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is a Vice President of Yankee Atomic Electric Company, that !

he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and on the behalf of Public Service Company of New Hampshire and that the ;

V statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

fl

u .'9 % tbJ Allen L. Mfge, Jr. Notary Public ;

My Commission Expire August 5, 1988 l l

y 93 'J R , h> )

t,y.*.........,-.

.1 uj G %'g..e .

. i LaJ - J*53 Jh b

6 M.y ' g? ':*~ x. .

?,.* +

% i i 4 j* . .....W.

. .*% s .- % . t i 7 7 Y @D i

O '

a

SB 1 & 2 Rtvision 1 ER-OL Februsry 1982

( INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING SEABROOK STATION ER-OL REVISION 1, FEBRUARY 1982 The following tabulated pages, tables and figures are to be inserted either as replacements for existing ER-OL pages, tables and figures or as new material.

I Remove . Insert Remove Insert !

Front /Back Front /Back Front /Back Front /Back VOLUME 1 VOLUME 2 (Cont'd)

T1.1-1/T1.1-2 T1.1-1/T1.1-2 6.2-1/6.2-2 6.2-1/6.2-2 F2.4-3 F2.4 -3 6.2-3/6.2-4 6.2-3/6.2-4 3.0-i/3.0-ii 3.0-i/3.0-ii 7.3-9/7.3-10 ~ 7.3-9/7.3-10 T3.3-1/- T3.3-1/-

F3.3-1 F3.3-1 (MATERIAL TO BE ADDED F3.4-4 F3.4-4 AT THE END OF VOLUME 2) 3.7-1/- 3.7-1/3.7-2 NRC REQUESTS FOR VOLUME 2 ADDITIONAL IN-FORMATION (RAI) !

5.1-1/5.1-2 5.1-1/5.1-2 Tab

,( T5.2-2 (Sh. 2)/ T5.2-2 (Sh. 2)/ -

R-i/R-ii T5.2-2 (Sh. 3) T5.2-2 (Sh. 3) -

R-iii/-

T5.2-2 (Sh. 4)/ T5.2-2 (Sh. 4)/ -

R-1/R-2 T5.2-2 (Sh. 5) T5.2-2 (Sh. 5) -

F240.2-1 T5.2-2 (Sh. 6)/ T5.2-2 (Sh. 6)/ -

R-3/R-4 T5.2-2 (Sh. 7) T5.2-2 (Sh. 7) -

F240.6-1 T5.2-3 (Sh. 2)/ T5.2-3 (Sh. 2)/ -

R-5/R-6 T5.2-3 (Sh. 3) T5.2-3 (Sh. 3) -

F240.9-1 T5.2-3 (Sh. 4)/ T5.2-3 (Sh. 4)/ -

R-7/R-8 thru T5.2-3 (Sh. 5) T5.2-3 (Sh. 5) R-17/R-18 T5.2-3 (Sh. 6)/ T5.2-3 (Sh. 6)/ -

T240.25-1/

T5.2-3 (Sh. 7) T5.2-3 (Sh. 7) T240.25-2 5.4-1/- 5.4-1/- -

.T240.25-2 Cont./-

5.5-1/- 5.5-1/- -

F290.1-1 6.0-i/6.0-ii 6.0-i/6.0-ii -

R-19/R-20 6.0-iii/- 6.0-iii/- -

R-21/R-22 6.1-3/6.1-4 6.1-3/6.1-4 -

T291.1-1/-

6.1-9/6.1-10 6.1-9/6.1-10 -

R-23/R-24 6.1-13/6.1-14 6.1-13/6.1-14 -

T291.2-1/T291.2-2 6.1-15/- 6.1-15/6.1-16 -

R-25/R-26 T6.1-3/T6.1-4 T6.1-3/T6.1-4 -

T291.3-1/T291.3-2 T6.1-6 (Sh. 1)/ -

R-27/R-28 thru T6.1-6 (Sh. 2) R-39/R-40 T6.1-6 (Sh. 3)/ -

T320.5-1/T320.5-2 T6.1-7 T6.1-8/-

i

SB 1 & 2 R:vicion 1 ER-OL Februery 1982 Oll Remove Insert Front /Back Front /Back VOLUME 2 (Cont'd)

R-41/R-42 R-43/R-44 T451.03-1/-

R-45/R-46 thru R-53/R-54 T470.4-1/T470.4-2 T470.4-3/

T470.4-3 cont.

T470.4-4/T470.4-5 T470.4-6/

T470.4-6 Cont.

T4,0.5-1/

T470.5-1 Cont.

T470.5-1 Cont./

T470.5-2 T470.5-3/-

EFFECTIVE PAGE LISTING Tab AMENDMENT HISTORY Tab (Insert ER-OL, Rev. 1, trans-mital letter, followed by the updating instruc-tion pages 1 and 2, directly behind this tat) 0 i

SB 1 & 2 ER--OLS

(

t, TABLE 1.1-1 i

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESENT CAPACITY Unit Capacity, Fuel Function (MW)

Ownei l Merrimack 1 119 Coal Base j Merrimack 2 337 Coal Base Newington 420 Oil Intermediate Ownership in 98 Nuclear Base Four Yankee Plants 1

> Various Intermediate 240 Oil Intermediate 1 011 Plants j

Various Peaking 114 011 Peaking Plants i Hydro 51 * -

Peaking and Base TOTAL 1379 ,,

Purchases Various 195 011 Intermediate-Peaking i

TOTAL 195 Sales Merrimack 2 100 Coal Base '

(Life of Unit)

Various i i TOTAL 100 t

i Os TOTAL CAPACITY 1474 ,

I r

1

. . . , _ _ . . _ . - - . . _ . _ - , , .,-,.,__,....y__,,,._.--,,y# , _m .

,. , ,. , _ _ _ . . .m .,- , ., ,. ,,.. -

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O

TABLE 1.1-2 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANNED FUTURE CAPACITY Date In Unit Capacity Fuel Function Service Owned Seabrook 1* 405 Nuclear Base 2/1984 Seabrook 2* 405 Nuclear Base 5/1986 Pilgrim 2* 40 Nuclear Base 11/1987 i Peaking 1 Garvin's Hydro 6 Hydro 11/1981 Eastman Falls Hydro 4 Hynro Peaking 11/1983 Errol Hydro 2 Hydro Peaking 11/1984 Murphy Hydro 2 Hydro Peaking 11/1985 Rerating l

Schiller 4,5,6 -12 Coal Base 1983 Retirements Eastman Falls 1 Hydro Peaking 11/1983 Manchester Steam 21 011 Peaking 11/1981 Janial Street 19 Oil Peaking 11/1983 Sales Merrimack 2 100 Coal (Life of Unit)

Purchases **

l Begins Ends l

Various 286 011 Inte rmedia te 11/81 10/82 Various 171 Oil In te rmediate 11/82 10/83 Various 285 011 Intermediate 11/83 2/84 Various 68 011 Intermediate 3/84 10/84 Various 8 Oil Intermediate 11/84 10/85 Various 96 Oil Inte rmediate 11/85 5/86 Various 8 Oil Intermediate 6/86 10/86

Company Ownership

- At Time of System Peak

]7 '

,-A . /

~

l s . }Iam on 1S I

~

\

(3) .

.g '

Q*e

,R

- RR \

m , . .

\ 95 ) .

/-

ta

\ . Mcm *~r f 'f .

l

,,, P t o ,

AVE

=w BM h h F . "s ,,l * ; I'*

8 l

fo* o -

O5e W9 e Je y$

/ /

s '

,.m

,i 9

+

e'YA1ERs 4xt Y

@ 's mpt o ine j j

... s g '. '. . ' - =p-

+ *

, El cod S O a

i. . .

~

' \

f-- '( [O' ice *~ - N s% % /

.' ,. .w

Y* , .,

O. "

he Rocks

_ - '. e

.; .' - c/ , /em= .t. . - -

o.. .:

r g / ,

o a .o s u ,. z

. s \ &

) ,.

.9 g l

==

=,=. o o,

A o s

. ., . t . 00o .,p 3 '

s I OHE

. .; - .,. ,,a

. som k

" o

,I s 9 ,;j.

";.*; : \

/o)

ts Beckm

. ?, i' . .' .';.

4. . . , * .*:

f. ,.

^W " ^

seabrogkstgr w as-~ e~

e ~r- ,~1E - L -

DATUM 15 ME AN SE A LEVEL ee .

e t

.\ .

. .>,e 9 3. . j , . . = .;

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 SITE VICINITY WELLS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 2.4-3

SB1&2 ER-OLS l C's CHAPTER 3 THE STATION i CONTENTS l 1

l 1

Page No. l 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE...................................... 3.1-1 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM ELECTRIC SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 2-1 i

l 3.3 P LA NT WATER US E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 -1 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM.................................. 3.4-1 3.4.1 System Concept and Reasons for 3.4-1 Selection.....................................

3.4.2 Description of Heat Dissipation System........................................ 3.4-1

f-s 3.4.2.1 General Specifications........................ 3.4-1

(_,) 3.4.2.2 Intake System................................. 3.4-1 3.4.2.3 Discharge System.............................. 3.4-2 3.4.2.4 Minimization of Thermal Shock to Marine Life.......................................... 3.4-2 3.4.2.5 Control of Marine Fouling and Debris

, Remova1....................................... 3.4-2 3.4.2.6 Disposal of Debris Collected in the Circulating Water System...................... 3.4-2 3.4.2.7 S e rvic e Wa te r Sy s tem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 4-2 3.4.3 Hydrographic Survey and Hydrothermal Model Studies................................. 3.4-3 3.4.4 References.................................... 3.4-4 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS AND SOURCE TERMS........................ 3.5-1 3.5.1 S o u r c e Te rm s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 5 -1 i 3.5.1.1 P r ima ry Sou rc e Te rms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5-1

- 3.5.1.2 T ranspo r ted Sou rce Te rms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5-2 3.5.2 Radioactive Liquid Processing Systems......... 3.5-4 3.0-1

,'~' ,

1

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page No.

3.5.2.1 System Description and Operational Procedure..................................... 3.5-4 3.5.2.2 Liquid Release to the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-11 3.5.2.3 Releases from Anticipated Operational Occurrences and Design Basis Fuel Leakage.................. .................... 3.5-12 3.5.3 Radioactive Gaseous Treatment Systems......... 3.5-12 3.5.3.1 System Description and Operational Procedure...................................... 3.5-12 3.5.3.2 Caseous Release to the Environment............. 3.5-14 3.5.3.3 Releases from Anticipated Operational Occurrences................................... 3.5-15 3.5.4 Solid Radioactive Waste Sys tem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-15 3.5.4.1 Ex pe c t e d V o l ume s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 5-18 3.5.4.2 Solid Release to the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-19 3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitoring............... 3.5-19 3.5.5.1 Gaseous Waste Processing System Monitors. . . . . . . 3.5-19 3.5.5.2 Co nde nser Air Mo ni tor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5-20 3.5.5.3 Boron Recovery Sys tem Monitors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-20 3.5.5.4 Primary Component Cooling Liquid Monitors. . . . . 3.5-20 3.5.5.5 Liquid Waste Test Tank Monitors............... 3.5-20 3.5.5.6 Steam Generator Blowdown Sample Monitors. . .. . . 3.5-21 3.5.5.7 Reactor Coolant Letdown Gross Activity Monitor....................................... 3.5-21 3.5.5.8 Turbine Building Drains Liquid Effluent Monitor....................................... 3.5-21 3.6 CH EMICAL AND BIOCIDE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 6-1 3.6.1 Circulating and Service Water Systems......... 3.6-1 3.6.2 Indus trial Was te Sys tem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 6-2 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 7-1 3.7.1 Sani t a ry Wa s t e Sys tem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7-1 3.7.2 Origin, Quantity and Nature of Gaseous Waste System.................................. 3.7-1 3.8 REPORTING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERI AL MOVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 6-1 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.................................. 3.9-1 3.0-11

_ ._. ~ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ ___..m_. __ _.m . . .. __ .m ___ . . _ _

p%

g f-V .

TABLE 3.3-1 PLANT WATER USE P

Condition Condition Condition Condition A B C D Point

Flows Flows . Flows Flows Notes 1 824,000 gpm 824,000 gpm .412,000 gpm 0-824,000 Continuous flow 1 2 780,000 gpm 780,000 gpm 390,000 gpm 0-780,000 Continuous flow 3 44,000 gpm 44,000 gpm 22,000 gpm 0-44,000 continuous flow 4 47,240 47,240 20,490 50,000 Max. allocation is 50,000 gpd 1

5 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 1/2 of 48 hr. drawdown test 6 - - -

138,000 7 53,600 53,600 26,850 120,000 480,000 gpd max. capacity 8 15,200 15,200 15,200 140,000 Maximum during construction tis $

7-

, 9 39,300 39,300 39,300 -

20 days use per year assumed, at O e.

358,600 gpd per unit

w 10 As Req. .As Req. As Req. As Req. In event of fire, two 500,000 gal.

j storage tanks available 11 6,400 6,400 3,200 -

Intermittent operation (with blowdown recovery in operation) 1

, 12 5,700 5,700 2,850 -

Variable due to batch releases 1

13 160,000 483,200 403,200 -

The steam generator blowdown i recovery system greatly reduces the

! water use by processing and . p recycling blowdown. e 1 ce 14 41,500 41,500 20,800 -

Continuous during operating $ d.

N=

15 - - -

120,000 (avg) Storage used for maximum flow during G flushing sequences $- ,

4

Refer to Figure 3.3-1

NOTES: All flow rates in gal / day unless noted otherwise.

! Condition A hio units operating. full load 80% C.F. C One unit start-up B One unit full load, one unit start-up D Station construction

_ r - __ _ m _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ - .

SEABROOK STATION ON-SITE TOWN OF ON-SITE WELLS GULF OF M AINE SEABROOK WELLS HAMPTON FALL 5 1r 1r I

i 1r l' _ _ _ _

1r 1r 1r RVI E CONDENSER r ir 3r 37 COOLING C OL NG 8 9 7 0 POTABLE DEMINERAllZED

'I '

i AND SANITARY WATER MAKEUP WATER POR I N SYSTEM PROT CTION AND DRIFT C

COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN 1

(O) 13 STEAM GFN STEAM GEN.

15 BLOWDOWN BLOWDOWN SYSTEM RECOVERY WITHOUT FLUSHING RECOVERY DURING CONSTRUCTION s if 1r

, 8 @y PRIMARY SECONDARY DEMINERALIZER PLANT PL AfiT REGENERATION LEAKAGE, L EA K AGE, EFFLUENT AND WASTE S A MPLI NG, EFFLUENT AND EVAP.

1r 1r 1r 1r S ETT LING BASIN 1r HAMPTON HARBOR GULF OF '

MAINE

,._)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 PLANT WATER USE DIAGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 3.3-1

R3 vision 1 Fabrusry 1982 O.

h N

45' NOZZLE ASSEMBLY CENTERLINE ANGLE s

69*

I\ 64* /

2 3 -

4 55'

%p5 0' o

%NS- _

+0 45'

~

8 DIFFUSER LENGTH 1000 FEET 45*

2 NOZZLES PER RISER SHAFT -

NOZZLE DIAMETER 2.65 FEET 9 45' DISCHARGE VELOCITY 15 FT./SEC.

45' 100' 11 45' TYP.

4

)

REFERENCE:

UE &C DRAWING 9763-F-103000 l

O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIAGRAM SHOWING SEABROOK STATION SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 MULTIPORT DIFFUSER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 3.4-4

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

!, l k/ 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS The information for this section is unchanged from information presented in Section 3.7 of the Seabrook Station 1 & 2 ER-CPS except as noted below.

3.7.1 Sanitary Waste System As stated in Section 3.7 of the ER-CPS, during station operation the wastes from the sanitary waste treatment facility will be discharged through the circulating water system. This will eliminate their discharge to the Brown's River and the settling basin. Storm water runoff will still pass through the basin. Water Quality Requirements for settling basin effluents are described in '.able 3.7-1 and for the Sanitary Waste Treatment Facility in Table 3.7-2.

3.7.2 Origin, Quantity and Nature of Gasecous Waste System Due to changes in design for the auxiliary boilers and emergency diesel generators, the gaseous emissions information contained in Section 3.7.2 of the ER-CPS is revised as follows.

The two auxiliary boilers for this facility are fired with No. 2, low sulphur (0.3 percent) fuel oil with a minimum heating value of 137,000 BTU per gallon. Each boiler has a maximum output capacity of 80,000 lbs of steam per hour with a maximum fuel use rate of 12 gallons per minute. Emissions from both auxiliary boiler; are released through a common 142-foot AGL stack.

(fS,) Boiler stack exit temperature is appioximately 560 F, and with one operating at 100 percent capacity, stack exit velocity is approximately 840 feet per minute.

The four emergency diesel generators are designed for a continuous electrical output of 6083 kW per diesel generator. They burn the same fuel as the auxiliary boilers and each has a maximum expected fuel consumption of 7.7 gallons per minute. Each diesel generator has a separate stack 80 feet AGL. At full operating capacity, each diesel generator stack has an exit temperature of 890 F and an exit velocity of 8270 feet per minute.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emission factors for fuel oil combustion and dieser industrial engines (Reference 1) were used to derive the following hourly pollution emission rates, assuming continuous operation at full capacity:

Pollutar.t Each Auxiliary Boiler Each Diesel Generator Particulates 1.44 lbs/hr 15.5 lbs/hr Sulfur Dioxide 30.67 lbs/hr 14.4 lbs/hr Carbon Monoxide 3.60 lbs/hr 47.1 lbs/hr

,- Hydrocarbons 0.72 lbs/hr 17.3 lbs/hr

! j (total, as CH 4) w/

Nitrogen Oxides 15.84 lbs/hr 216.7 lbs/hr (total, as NO 2) 3.7-1 1

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 The auxiliary boilers and diesel generators are designed to meet applicable O standards for release of gaseous effluents to the environment.

l 3.7.3 Re fe rences

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of 'tr Pollutant 1 Emission Factors, Third Edition (including Supplements 1-7), AP-42, August 1977.

1 0

1 O

l 3.7-2 1

I I

SB 1 & 2 i ER-OLS m

,,) CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION This chapter describes the interaction of the station and its various systems (radiological and nonradiological) discussed in Chapter 3 and the environment discussed in Chapter 2.

5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM This section has changed with regard to information presented in Lne ER-CPS in that extensive hydrothermal model studies and field monitoring programs have been performed beyond those conducted during the baseline study. This information in some cases contains over six years of in situ data acquisition. The following subsections describe the interactTon of Seabrook Station operation and the environment utilizing the analysis of data collected during these studies, which are described in greater detail in ER-OLS Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

5.1.1 Ef fluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards The discharge from Seabrook Station, as described in ER-CPS Section 5.1.2, has been designed to comply with the thermal standards of both federal fy (Environmental Protection Agency) and state (New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission) agencies in accordance with the Federal

( ) Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and its Amendments. Accordingly, the following subsections summarize the thermal discharge criteria for each government agency.

5.1.1.1 Federal Thermal Criteria Under Section 316 of the FWPCA, that part of the Act which relates to the cooling water from electric generating stations, the Administrator of EPA has established determinations [1, 2, 3]. The following specific determinations are relevant to the discharge of cooling water:

1. Except for discharge during backflushing for fouling control, the discharge shall not increase the temperature of the receiving water more than SoF, except that in the near-field jet mixing region (defined to be the waters within 300 feet of the submerged diffuser in the direction of discharge), the 50F limit shall apply only at the surface.

2. Backflushing operations for fouling control shall be performed only during times when meteorological and hydrological conditions are such that the plume flows offshore and/or temperature increases are minimized at the Sunk Rocks.

5.1-1

['lS L

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLd February 1982 5.1.1.2 New Hampshire Thermal Criteria h Pursuant to the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 149: 8-III (supp.) and Section 401 of the FWPCA, the NEWSPCC has certified and granted a permit on January 23, 1974 to discharge controlled volumes of cooling water from the station. The thermal criteria of the permit, which are for Class B tidal waters, are as follows:

1. Disenarge shall not be in amounts greate~ than 1900 cfs at mean sea level at the temperature of 45 above ambient ceceiving water temperature.

2. Except in emergency situations, any shutdown or start-up of the station shall be in such a manner that the rate of temperature change in receiving waters is no more than 1 per hour measured at a point or points to be established by the Commission in the mixing zone.

3. The maximum increase in temperature in the receiving water, outside a mixing zone to be delineated by the Commission, shall not exceed those temperatures required for a cold water fishery by the U.S. EPA or by the water quality standards adopted by the Commission pursuant to New lbmpshire statutes.

5.1.2 Physical Effects The Seabrook Sta* ion discharge system, which is described in ER-OLS Section 3.4, was designed to meet the regulatory thermal discharge criteria summarized in ER-OLS Section 5.1.1 above. Extensive hydrothermal model testing, performed by Alden Research Laboratories ( ARL) of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, has led to a state-of-the-art design that meets these criteria.

The model tests [4,5,6,7,8] and the physical effects of the thermal discharge system under various ambient and operation conditions are contained in the Summary Document [9]. The results and discussion presented therein remain unchanged. l 7

5.1.3 Biological Effects Biological effects of plant construction and operation were discussed in Section 5.0 of the Summary Document [9]. The information remains unchanged.

5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities The information contained in this section is unchanged from that presented in the same section for the ER-CPS. In addition, the operation of the once-through system will not result in any significant fogging or icing conditions. Some " sea smoke" or " sea fog", however, could form in the immediate vicinity of the discharge, or intake during backflush operation, O

5.1-2

O O e i

TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 2 of 8) .

D0aN=IhD NO. DISfaNEL FkUM WEttASt POINT (mates)

SECTUR OMS 25.00 Ju.uu 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 7

N 386 6.959t=u9 5.575t=09 a.619t=o9 3.923t=09 3.eu2t=u9 2.99tt=u9 NNL 525 7.566t=u9 a.067E=09 5.ub2t=u9 4.312E=09 3.750t=09 3.304E=u9 NL 67u 7.8eet=o9 6 elet=u9 5.385t=09 8.625E=ut- 4.05tE=u9 3.542t=u9 i ENE 763 1.138t=ue 9.299E=u9 7.859t=09 6.790t=u9 5.978t=u9 5.327L 09 l t e91 1. leet =ue 9.839E=u9 7.997t=u9 6.928t=09 6.197E=09 5.850E=ue i

ESE 1530 1.5esE=ce 1.270t=us 1.077t=08 9.339t=09 8.2e5E=09 7.367t=09 SL 858 9.906E=u9 A.185E=u9 6.902E=09 5.978t=09 5.273t=u9 4.707t=09 i,

SSE 334 5.265E=09 e.305t=u9 3.619E=o9 3.112t=09 2.729E=o9 2.423E=09 8 328 8.777E=u9 3.n66t=u9 3.232t=u9 2.765E=u9 2.eleL=u9 2.134t=09 53m 221 e uo2t=09 3. deut =ue 2.709E=u9 2.318t=u9 2.02eE=u9 1.790t=u9 sa 386 5.25ct=09 4.191t=u9 3. coot =u9 2.929t=o9 2.532t=u9 2.22tL=o9 m3m 3to 7.675t=u9 6.11tE=u9 5.037t=o9 4.258E=09 3.675t=u9 3.218E=u9

! = 385 7.529E=09 5.996E=o9 4.945E=o9 a.184E=09 3.616t=09 3.170E=09 m

=Na 351 e.607E=09 3.oq7 tau 9 2.992E=u9 2.518E=u9 2.168t=u9 1.892t=09 $*

n= ett 6.058E=09 e 8e2E=ov 4.004t=09 3.393t=ov 2.936L=u9 2.576E=o9 4-NN= Au9 5.to8E=09 8.057t=u9 3.382E=09 2.869E=09 2.ee5E=u9 2.182L-09 e e, un AVERAGE 8626 7.555t=09 6.122E=o9 5.12st=ug e.390E=09 3.837t=09 3.396E=09 I

l i

4 4

4 I

l 1

l

_.m,._ -..

TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 3 of 8)

Seabrook Annual Average Chi /Q After Depletion (sec/m )

Primary Vent Stack Release cuaN=INO NU. DISTANCE FRum HELEASE POINT (MILES) 1, SECTON 003 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 N 386 1.769E-07 7.104E=08 5.53tE-08 5.678E-08 6.270E-08 6.040E-08 5.4etE-08 6.068E-08 NNE 525 2.899E.97 1.22tE=o7 9.06tE=08 8.537E-08 8.344E-oo 7.608E oo 7.567E-08 8.04eE-08 NE 670 4.277E-07 1.786L-07 1.276E-07 1.131E 07 1.006E-07 8.777t-06 7.587E-08 7.28tE-08 ENE 763 u.513E-07 1.803E.07 1.230t 07 1.103E-07 1.065E-07 9.872E-08 8.847E-08 9.138E-08 E 8'l u.913E-07 2.059E-u7 1.438E-07 1.275E-07 1.193t-07 1.092E-07 9.756E.08 8.620E-08 ESE 1530 1.035t=06 4.226E.07 2.860E-07 2.395E=07 1.988E=uf 1.692E-07 1.447E-07 1.245L.07 SE 855 5.215t-u? 2.24tE.07 1.577E-97 1.364E-07 1.le5E-07 1.032E=o? 8.960L.08 7.7#4E 08 SSL 334 1.36tE-u7 5,965t-ce 4.671t-ce 4,765t-us 5.261E-u8 5.102E.08 4.670!-08 4.419E.08 3 326 1.631E=u? 6.990L-08 5.564E-u8 5.474E-98 5.410t-u8 6.310E=oo 5.370E-08 4.818E=08 38= 221 9.uS8t-u8 u,0a9t.08 3.19tt-u8 3.270E.08 3.556t-uo 5.23et.uo 4.502E=oo 3.866E=08 Sa 3ae 2.27eE.u7 9.563E.06 7.107E-08 7.465E-08 6.543E-08 6.590E-08 5.707E-08 7.093E-08 63* 316 1.6sbE=u7 7.79tE-08 5.879E=o8 6.364E-08 7.077E-08 7.105E-08 6.038E=08 1.188E.07

= 385 2.128E=o7 1.045E.07 9.200E.08 1.032E-07 1.058E=o7 9.970E-08 7.981E-08 9.05aE.08

=Na 351 1.958E.u7 1.060E-07 8.164L-08 8.371L-08 8.214E-08 6.750E-08 9.86SE-08 8.618E=08 m$

W Na ett 2,366E=u7 1,148E=u7 8.199E-08 8.291E-08 1.008E-07 9.281E-08 7.618E-08 6.984E.08 NN" 309 1.605E=u7 6.978E.08 5.163E-08 5.894E.08 7.002t.uS 6.160E-08 5.317E-08 4.567E-08 $"

re 8.919E-08 8.312t-98 7.454E-u8 7.543E-08 w avERAbt 8626 3.ll5t-Q7 1,34cE-07 9.72tE-08 9,194L US OUmhaINO NU. DISTANCE FROM HELEASE PUINT (MILES)

SECTUN UMS 3.50 4 ou 4.5u 5.00 7,50 10.00 15.01 20.00 N 386 6.369E-08 5.985t-08 5.493L-08 4.812E-08 2.830E-08 1.949E-08 1.105E-08 7.315t=09 NNL 525 6.563E-08 5.944E-08 5.242E=U6 4.954E=08 2.993E-08 2.06tt 08 1.187E.oS 7.9r1E-09 NE 670 6.317E ue 5.55tE-08 4.923t=08 4.408E-08 2.810E-08 2.002L-08 1.206E-08 8.334E=09 ENL 763 5.032t-um 7,132E-UU 6.378E-08 5.751E*08 3.763E-u8 2.732t=US 1.688E=08 1.186E.08 E 891 7.664t-us 6.568E-08 6.193t 08 5.619E.08 3.735E-06 2.733E 08 1.707E=08 1.209E-08 E5E 1530 1.ve6t-u7 9.591E-o8 8.554E=u8 7.7u0E=08 5.036E-98 3.664t=08 2.281E-08 1.621E.08 SE e56 6.839t.u8 6.077E-08 5.446E-08 4.920E.u8 3.2u5E-u8 2.369E-98 1.478E-08 1.050E-08 SSE 33u 3.928E.06 3.511E-08 3.155t-u8 2.852E=08 1.864E-06 1.342E=08

168E-09 5.6 sat.09 3 328 *.15tE=08 3.626E=08 3.199E-08 2.852E-08 1.797E-08 1.269t=08 ).536E.09 5.170E-09 SSa 221 3.356E=ue 2.950E-Os 2.615E-08 2.341E-08 1,491L-08 1,058E-08 6.316E=09 4.337E=09 Sa 348 5.852E-u8 5.426E=08 4.622t-08 4,006t-06 2.306E-08 1.540E-08 8.516E.09 5.543E-09

=Sa 316 9.57tt-u8 7.930E-08 6.695E-08 6.240E=08 3.368E-08 2.167E-08 1.14tE=0B 7.142E-09 a 385 8.ltBL-oo 6.799t-ce 7.16tE-u8 6.154t-u8 3.320E-08 2.138t=o8 1.13tE-08 7,112E-09 y aNa 351 6.edut-un 5.608t-08 4.690E-08 4.004E=ue 2.194L-u8 1.423t=08 7.566E-09 4.835E-09 &

N" 411 7.525E=08 e,321t=08 5.393t.08 4.676E-08 2.689E-08 1.795t-08 9,918E-09 6.441E-09 EE NNa 309 4.755t-98 4.lo8E-08 3.865E-08 3.636L-98 2.150E-08 1.459E.08 8.233E.09 5.425E-09 $

1 wm AWtWAGE 8626 6.690L=vo 5.839E-06 5.227L-oe 4.683L-08 2.851E-08 1.98tE-oe 1,159E-08 7.871E-09 g-8" m-O O O

O O TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 4 of 8) i

, 00mNm!ND hD. DISTANCE FROM RELEASE POINT (N1(ES) l SECTOR 088 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 N 386 5.262L-09 3.999E=09 3.146E=o9 2.539E=09 2.095E=o9 1.753E=o9 NNE 525 5.764E=09 4.410E=o9 3.491E=09 2.834E=o9 2.35tE-09 1.978E=09 i NE 670 6.te6E=o9 4,so7E=o9 3.657t=U9 3.168E=09 2.654E=o9 2.252E=o9 Eht 763 8.904E=09 6.967E=o9 5.623E=09 4.641E=o9 3.904t=U9 3.325t=09 E 891 9.129t=U9 7.178E=o9 5.8 DOL =o9 4.824E=09 4.075E=o9 3.484E=o9 E8E 1530 1.25cL=os 9.69sE=09 7.8s6E=o9 6.556E=09 5.553E=09 4.760L=09 SE 858 7.957t=09 6.274E=09 5.099E=o9 4.237E=o9 3.587E=09 3.074E=09 SSE 334 4.244t=09 3.313E=o9 2.671E=o9 2.204E=o9 1.856E=o9 1.583E=09 4 328 3.820E=09 2.961E=09 2.371E=09 1.944E=o9 1.627E=o9 1.379E=09 S8w 221 3.205E=09 2.484E=o9 1.989E=o9 1.631E=09 1.365E=09 1.158E=o9 Sn 348 3.924E=09 2.956E=09 2.307E=U9 1.848E=09 1.513E=o9 1.258L.09 W8u 316 4.495E=09 3.597E=U9 2.744E=09 2.153E=U9 1.730E=o9 1.418E=09 m$

a 385 4.922E=09 3.635E=09 2.788E=09 2.199E=09 1.778E=09 1.46tE=o9 j8 -

WNa 351 3.33tE=09 2.496E=09 1.943E=09 1.555E=o9 1.275E=o9 1.062E=09 o l NW 411 4.453E=09 3.360E=09 2.627E=o9 2.108E=09 1.730E=o9 1.441E=o9 [*N Nhw 309 3.856t=09 2.927E=o9 2.300E=o9 1.855E=o9 1.5d9t=o9 1.279E=o9 AVERAGE 6626 5.7b9E=09 4.44tE=o9 3.54tE=09 2.894E=u9 2.414E=u9 2.041E=09 l

l 1,

I l

J i

TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 5 of 8)

Seabrook Annual Average Deposition Rates (1/m3)

Primary Vent Stack Release '

00=N=IND No. 01 STANCE FHOM RELEASE POINT (mites)

SLC10d uns 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 J N 386 9.e52L.10 3.852E.10 2.662E-10 2.650t-10 2.450t-10 2.le2t=10 1.833t.10 1.865E-10 3.017E-10 2.788L-10 2,739E.10 NNE 525 1.540E=o9 6.667E.10 e.768E-10 e.182E 10 3.579E-:0 NE 670 2.387E.09 1.008E=u9 7.07eE.10 5.995t.10 4.85eL-10 3.970E-10 3.277t-10 2.967L-10 ENE 763 2.298E-09 9.353t.10 6.280L-10 5.31tE-10 e,530L-10 3.887E.10 3.316E.to 3.216E.10 E 891 3.07eE=09 1.290E-09 B.673E-10 7.08eE-10 5.60eE-10 e.608E.10 3.841t-10 3.239E-to E8E 1530 7.115E-09 2.9 tee.09 1.909E.09 1.500E.09 1.099E-09 8.567E-10 6.898E.10 5.663t-10 3E 858 3.466E.09 1,o66E=09 9.798E-10 7.846L.10 5.BocL-10 4,651E.10 3.776E-10 3.127E.10 SSE 334 6.006E-10 2.653E-10 2.015E.10 1.906E-to 1.815E-10 1.612E-In 1.395E.10 1.255E.10 5 32e 8.266E-10 3.568E=10 2.767L-to 2.56tE-lo 2.242L-10 2.284t-10 1.83eE-10 1.552L-10 33a 221 e.708L-10 2.006L-10 1.518E-10 1.a27E=10 1.313E-10 1.565L.10 1.259E-10 1.032L-10 Sa 3e" 1.578E.u9 6,604E-10 e 6e7E-10 e.398L-10 3.318L-10 2.887L-10 2.312E.10 2.313L-10 u3a 3: S. sole-10 e,e57E.go 3.33tt.10 2.976E.10 2.679t-10 2.332t.10 1.557t=10 2.490L-10 a 385 1.123E-09 5.428E-10 e 5.' 3 E -l o a.598L-10 3.919t.10 3.322E-10 2.557t-lo 2. cool.10 mNa 351 9.952E-lo 5,290E-to 3,972Ea10 3.818L-10 3.299E.10 2.543L-lo 2.933E-10 2.377E-10 m@

Na 1.116E.09 5.el6E-10 3.788E.to 3.576E.10 3.742E-10 3.183L-10 2.522t.10 2.200E-10 m NN=

ett 309 8,7e6E.to 3.78eE.10 2.680E-lo 2.699L.to 2.636t-10 2.le2E-to 1.750E-10 1.e51E=!0 $~

re AVEkAGE 8626 1.8eut.o* 7,866E-10 5.e7eE.to a,7e9E.10 3.92HE-to 3.29at-10 2.759E-10 2.499E-10 w 00sNalND NU. DISTANCE FRUM RELEASE POINT (mites) 3ECTUN Ob5 3.Su e.uo 4.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.01 20.00 N 386 1.825E-10 1.646E-10 1.465E-10 1.268L-10 7.2elt-il 4.828L-It 2.65tE-Il 1.7deE-11 NNE 525 2.284t-lo 1.9u3E-10 1.685t=10' l.Soat-to e.974t 11 6.018t-It 3.3eaE=ll 2.192L-11 NE e70 2.503t-to 2.te9t-to 1.860t-10 1.6ent-to 9.895E.11 6.777t-il 3.872E-!! 2.589L-11 ENE 763 2.756E.10 2.396E-lo 2.105t=10 1.870t.10 1.16tE-10 8.133t=11 8.796L-ll 3.268t.It l

E 691 2.77BE.10 2.u20t-to 2.131t-lo 1.59tL=10 1.16eE.to 8.314t=11 c.925t-il 3.376E.11 LSE 1530 e.768E=10 a.itet-to 3.588E-10 3.164t-10 1.935t-10 1.3ubt-lo 7.e91t-11 5.e06E.11 SE 556 2.643t.10 2.276t-10 1.986t-lu 1.755E-10 1.075L-to 7.471t-il e.370E-11 2.987E-11 SSE 33e 1.083E-to 9,uS6t-gl s.330t-It 7.u09t.11 4.569L-11 3.lo9t-11 1. 8 u 8i ' .11 1.2e7L-11 3 326 1.29tE-to 1.095L-lo 9.429t-il 8.23eE it 4.639t-il 3.256E-It 1.812E-st 1.196E 11 33= 221 8.624t.11 7.348E.It 6.346E-Il 5.556E=ll 3.295E-it 2.232t-il 1.251L.tl 8.287t-11 3= 3ee 1,ee9L.to 1.59tt.10 1.332E-10 1.138E-10 6.269t-11 c.u66L.11 2.160E.11 1.383L.11 "Sa 316 1.977E-to 1.620E-to 1.355E.10 1.196t=10 6.41st-il a.luSL-It 2.tebE-11 1.352E.11 385 2.085E-10 1.716L-10 1.5 bot.10 1.336E-10 7.lo0E-11 e.577L-11 2,392E-11 1.509E-11 m g.

1.077t-to 5.525t-11 1,9o8E.it 1,253t.11 k *Na 351 1.678t=10 1.525t-to 1.207t-lo 3,7ett.11 1.707E-11 ng Na 411 2.15bL-10 1.795E-lu 1.520t-10 1.309L-10 7.366E-tt 4 oS5t-11 2.ea3E-It nNa Ju9 1.euCE-lo 1.le7t=10 1.07et.10 9.768t.11 5.575E-11 3.70lt-il 2.03tt-it 1.3206-11 gQ MW AvEWAGE 8020 2.135E-10 1.522t=10 1,565L-In 1.393L-to d.156E-11 5.5ast-11 3.13tE=tl 2.068L-11 * $.

50 8-O O O

TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 6 of 8) 3 DOWNMIND NO. DISTANCE FROM htLEAst POINT (MILES 3 SECTOR Oss 25.00 30.00 15.00 *0.00 45.00 50.00 N 386 1.227E=11 9.2b9E=12 7.263t=12 5.847E 12 4.819E=12 e.03tt=12 NNE 525 1.549E=11 1.191E=11 9.370E=12 7.572E=12 6.262E-12 5.256t=12 NE 670 1.881E=11 1.443E=11 1.146E=11 9.337t=12 7.779E=12 6.572L-12 ENE 763 2.404E-11 1.857t=11 1.483t=11 1.213t=11 1.o!3E=11 6.579E=12 E 891 2.496E=11 1.937E=11 1.55eE 11 1.277E=11 1.072E-11 9.110t=12 ESE 1530 4.003E*11 3.11tE=11 2.50tL=11 2.06CE=11 1.732E-11 1.876t=11 4

3E 858 2.209E=11 1.715E=11 1.378E=11 1.134E-11 9.532t=12 8.12tt=12 SSE 334 9.114E=12 7.020E=12 5.597E-12 a.576t=12 3.82eE=12 3.240t=12 8 328 8.618E=12 6.578E=12 5.207t=t2 4.233E=12 3.521E-12 2.971E=12 S8w 221 5.987E=12 4.576t=12 3.625E=12 2.949t=12 2.854E 12 2.07tE=12 g On 348 9.640E=12 7.246E=12 5.659E=12 a.545E=12 3.7etE=12 3.127t=12 m os maw 316 9.227E=12 6.860E.12 5.303E.12 a.22tE=12 3.ae5E=12 2.859E 12 $8 r, 7.783t=12 6.046E-12 8.836E.12 3.966E=12 3.307t=12 o i w 385 1.042E=11 wNw 351 8.426E=12 6.359t=12 4.991E=12 4.03tE.12 3.338E=12 2.8u9t=12 ["N Nw 411 1.142t=11 8.647E=12 6.796L-12 5.eB9t=12 e.538t=12 3.810t=12 NNW 309 9.201E=12 6.963E=12 5.468E-12 4.411t=12 3.64st-12 3.oS6t=12 AVERAGE 8626 1.500L-11 1.149E=11 9.12tE=12 7.430t=12 6.190E-12 S.230t=12

_ - - , , . - - - , . . . . . . - - . , e- - - - , , . , - . - - - - - - - ,,,r,,, - , - , -----m-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,. _ . - - ,- - - - - - - , - r7- , - _ . - , , - - - - _, . . _ , ,

TABLE 5.2-2 (Sheet 7 of 8)

Seabrook Annual Average Effective Gamma Chi /Q (sec/m3)

Primary Vent Stack Release 00mNw!ND NU.

SECTOk UPS DISTANCE FROM RELEASE P0lNT (MILES) 1 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 N 386 4.806E-07 2.859E-u7 1.712E-07 1.345E-07 9.667E-u8 7.581E-08 6.200E-08 NNE 525 6,193t-u? 3.le3E=u? 5.918E=08 2.162E-07 1.679E-07 1.lu3E-07 9.140E-08 7.918E=08 7.408E-08 NE 670 7.674L 07 3,872E-07 2.6esE-07 ENE 763 9.780E-07 2.035E-07 1.413E-07 1.082E-07 8.725E-08 7.735E-08 4.930t=07 3.357E-07 2.585E-07 1.807E*o7 1.396E=07 1.136E-07 1.043E-07 E 891 1.ll2t=06 5.594E-07 3.805E-07 ESE 1530 2.928E-07 2.041E-07 1.574E-07 1.278E-07 1.072E-07 1.720E-u6 8.555E-07 5.763t-u? e.395L-07 3.009E-07 2.289E-07 SE 858 1.037E-06 5.222E-07 3.545E-07 1.839E-07 1.532L-07 SSE 33u 2.717E-07 1.876E-07 1.434E-07 1.157E-07 9.664E-08 e.617E-07 2.370t-07 1.6ect-07 1.281E-07 9.157E=o8 7.17tE-08 3 328 e,093t=07 5.876E-08 5.12tE-08 38a 2.u90E-07 1.4e9E-07 1.133E-07 8.053E-08 7.198E-08 5.780E-08 4.938E*08 221 3,0e9E=o7 1.553E-07 Sa 3eo 3,891t-o7 1.073t-07 8.399E-08 6.026E=o8 5.910E-08 4.7b8E-08 3.957E-08 1,9ect-u7 1.368E-07 1.le9t=07 8.010E=u8 6.726E-08 nS= 31o 4,199E=o7 2,189t-07 5.502E-08 5.630E=08

= 1.517E-07 1.276E-07 9.672L-08 7.937E-08 6.357E-08 7.811E-08 385 e.820E-07 2.539E-07 1.910E-07 1.609E=07 "N= 1.201E=o7 9.7e3E 08 7,678L-08 7.341E-08 m 351 e 086E-07 2.196E-07 1.5 ele =07 1.281E-07 9.455E-08 7.le2E-08 7.483E-08 Na NNm ell e.966E-07 2.594E-07 1.776E-07 1.e68E-07 1.173E-07 9.288E-08 7.342E-08 6.288E-08 6.312E-08

@W a -

309 3.765E-07 1.930E-07 1.3e0E-07 1.139E-07 8.7e2t-08 6.722E-08 5.415E-08 4.506E-08 @ o, A v t W a r,E d62o m 6.5ect=07 3.326E-07 2.288E-u7 1.80eE u7 1.286E-07 1.0let-07 E.321E-08 "

7.444E-08 DQxNalND No. DISTANCE FRUM RELEASE POINT (MILES)

SEC10R 083 3.50 e 00 4.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 '. 5 . 01 20.00 N 386 5.62tE-08 5.086E-po 4.577E-08 a.0e0L-08 2.49eE-08 1.763L-08 1.072t-08 7.548E-09 NNE 525 6.200E-08 5.402E-08 a.748E-08 4.380E-06 2.730E-08 NE 070 1.943L 08 1.19tE-08 8.444E-09 6.563E=o8 5.716E-08 5.031E-08 4.486E=o8 2.864E-u8 2.069E-08 1.293L-08 9.282E-09 ENE 763 8.930E-Oo 7,79eE=u8 6.890L-08 6.168E-08 3.997E-08 2.921E-08 1.859E-08 1.350E-06 E 891 9.205E=uo M.055L-08 7.140t=08 6.405L 08 4.11EE-08 3.063L-08 1.956L-08 1.424E-08 ESE 153o 1.30eE=o7 1.139t=07 1.006E-07 9.000E-08 5.825E-08 SL 856 4.25tt-08 2.699E-08 1.961E-08 6.268t-os 7.21eE-06 6.379E=o8 5.712L 08 3.706E-08 2.707t-08 1.720E-08 1.249E=08 SSL 334 e,cott-os 3.850t-v6 3.e10E-08 3.055E-08 1.979t-08 1.439E-u8 3 328 e,189E-06 9.047E-09 6.514E-09 S3a 3.626E=ue 3.182E-08 2.830E=08 1.792E-uS 1.284L-08 7.912t=09 5.630E-09 221 3.309E-us 2.926g=08 2.575E-08 2.295E-08 1.463E-06 1.053E-08 6.533E-09 4,663E 09 Sa 3ee e.673t-08 a.150E-08 3.579E-08 .3.138E-08 1.898E-08 1.328L-08 7.902L 09 5.509E-09 "Sa 310 e. sele-08 5.e52E-08 e.696E-08 4.320E-08 2.58tE-08 1.795E-08

= 3B5 1.072E-08 7.477E-09 2 0.319E-vo 5.370E-08 5.027L-08 e.433E-08 2.642E-08 1.833E-08 1.093E-08 7.596E-09 &

Na Na 351 5.155E-05 4.342t-oo 3.723E-08 3.2e8E-08 1.927E-08 1.328E-08 7.792E-09 5.359E-09 ef NN*

ett 5.Qu5t-u6 5.058E=co 4.374t=uo 3.843E-08 2.335E-08 1.63eE-08 9.807E-09 6.641E-09 m<

309 e.2e8t-os 3.662E=u8 3.339t=08 3.066E-u8 1.889E u8 1.33eE-08 8.084E-09 5.678E-09 OE AVERAGE 8620 e eleE-08 5.569E-08 c.92tE-08 4. cole-08 2.769E-u8 1.98eE=08 1.229E-08 8.773E-09 e 9 9

f~ R q k

TABLE 5.2-3 (Sheet 2 of 8) 00NNw!ND NO. DISTANCE FNUM NELEASL POINT (MILLS) -

SECTOR OSS 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.0u e5.00 So.ou N 384 7.954t=09 6.33tE=09 5.219E=o9 4.412E=o9 3.811t=09 3.339t=09 NME 522 9.397E=39 7.485t=09 6.172E=09 5.219E=09 a.507E=09 3.948t=09 NE 467 1.236E=08 9.881E=09 8.174t=U9 6.931E=u9 5.998E=09 5.264t=u9 ENE 761 2.046t=08 1.6s5E=08 1.367E=08 1.165E=08 1.012E=ue 8.910E=09 E 482 2.251E=08 1.810E=ce 1.50eE=o8 1.280E=08 1.111E=08 9.766t=09 ESE 1521 3.142E=08 2.528E=u8 2.103E=08 1.792E=o8 1.557t=o8 1.371t=u8 SE 850 1.933E=6* 1.553E=08 1.290E=08 1.098E=06 9.531t=09 6.389t=u9 SSE 331 9.619E=09 7.712E=09 6.396t=09 5.436E=09 a.713E=u9 4.144L=u9 8 32s 6.568t=09 5.234E=u9 4.317E=c9 3.652E=09 3.154E=09 2.763E=u9 U)

SSW 218 5.672E=o9 4.533E=09 3.750E=t9 3.181E=o9 2.754t=u9 2.419t=u9 SM 345 5.302E=09 8.227E=09 3.487t=o9 2.950t=09 2.5e7E=u9 2.231t=v9 N*

M8n 318 6.89eE=09 5.516t=u9 4.565E=09 3.873t=09 3.352E=u9 2.943t=u9 6**

r* m n 388 6.604E=o9 5.282E=09 e,373E=u9 3.713E=o9 3.218E=09 2.829t=u9 hNe 350 4.342E=09 3.e47E=o9 2.83eE=09 2.39th=o9 2.060L=u9 1.cott=uv "' s Nw ett 5.935E=09 a.739E=09 3.917E=09 3.319t=09 2.870E=09 2.518t=u9 NNm 30s 5.515E=09 e.38et=09 3.609E=09 3.049E=09 2.631E=09 2.303t=o9 AVERAGE 858e 1.12eE=08 9.008E=09 7.466E=09 6.342E=09 5.496t=09 4.e31t=u9

__.___ _ ___.___ __ ___... _ ___. _ ~ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . . _ - _ . _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _

TABLE 5.2-3 Seabrook Annual Average (Sheet Chi3 /Q of 8)

After Depletion (sec/m3)

Turbine Building Release DU.N=1Nu NO. Ol$iANCE FNUM WELEASE POINT (MILES) 1 SECluk Ub3 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 N 364 5.572E-u6 1,a34t.06 9.800E-07 6.326E-07 3.353E-07 2.159E.07 1.534E-07 1.162t=07 NNE 522 6.543E=ub 2.126E.06 1.128E-06 7.306E=c7 3.890E-07 2.506E=07 1.782E-07 1.352E-07 NL 667 6.251t=ub 2.617L-06 1.369E-06 8.836E-07 4.700E-07 3.048E-07 2.177E-07 1.657E=07 ENE 761 1.275t=05 3.916E-06 2.028E=ub 1.295E-06 6.853E=o7 4.496E=u7 3.239E-07 2.477E-07 t 882 1.u16L-uS 4.348E-u6 2.244E=ub 1.436E=06 7.604E-u7 4.981E-07 3.586E-u? 2.741E-07 LSE 1521 1,995E-95 6.ll5E-06 3.129t-06 1.988E=u6 1.046E-06 6.858t=07 4.940L-07 3.772E-07 SE 850 1.254E=u5 3.864t-06 1.991t-06 1.266E=06 6.661E-07 4.355t-07 3.129E-07 2.365E-07 SSE 331 6.3e4E=u6 2.016E-06 1.uqaE-06 6.650E-07 3.496E-07 2.277E-07 1.630E 07 1.239E-07 3 328 4.731E-06 1.547E-96 8.095E-07 5.185E-07 2.728E=u7 1.758E-07 1.248E-07 9.440E=08 SS= 218 3.942t-06 1.276E-06 6.665t-07 4.239E-07 2.218E-07 1.437E=07 1.025E-07 7.769E=08

6. 345 3.843E=ub 1.25tE-96 6.507E-07 4.174E-07 2.202E-07 1.420E-07 1.009E-07 7.631E=08 "Sa 318 4.767E-06 1.523E-06 7.695E-07 5.063E-07 2.6 ele-07 1.742E=07 1,246t-07 9.467E-08

= 38e e.787t=06 1.559E-96 8.193t=07 5.215E-07 2.738E=of 1.778E-07 1.271E-07 9.657E-06 aNa 350 3.442E=o6 1.15tt-96 6.050E-07 3.925E=07 2.054t-07 1.340E-07 9.500E-08 7.179E=08 v>

N= 411 4.283E-06 1.392E=06 7.311E-07 4.722E-07 2.520E-07 1.636E=u7 1.170E-07 8.909E-08 yW 7.099E-07 4.576E-07 2.422E-07 1.559E-07 1.107E-07 8.374E=08 s -

NNa 308 u.014E-06 1.333t=ub ADERAGE 8584 7.49eE-ob 2.368E-06 1.231E-06 7.879t=07 4.163E-07 2.709E-07 1.940E=07 1.477E-07 00*NalNO 40 0137 &NCE F NUM RELEASL Polhi (mites)

~

Sttiud 083 3.59 4,09 4.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.01 20.00 N 384 9.174t-98 7.478t=uo 6.223E=o8 5.289E-08 2.842E-08 1.818E-08 9.475E-09 5.913E=09 NNE 522 1.069E-07 8.719E-08 7.264E-u8 6.179E=ce 3.333E-06 2.138L-08 1.119E-08 7.004E=09 NE 667 1.312E-07 1.072E-07 8.949E-08 7.623E-08 4.It8E.uS 2.640E=08 1.378E-08 8.563E=09 ENE 701 1.969E-07 1.613E.07 1.349E-07 1.151E 07 6.218L-08 3.982E-08 2.070E-08 1.273E-08 E 862 2.tist=07 1.765E=07 1,493E-u7 1.274E-07 6.866t=08 4.413E-06 2.296E=08 1.415E=08 ESE 152 2.9'5L-07 2.454t=07 2.053E-07 1.752E-07 9.465E-08 6.054E-08 3.136E-08 1.925E=08 SE B5u 1.89tt-07 1.54BE-07 1.294t=07 1.104E.07 5.964E-08 3.813t-u8 1.975E-u8 1.215E.08 SSE 338 9.oluE-08 8.ol6E-vu 6.692E-08 5.70lt-u8 3.078t 08 1.960E-98 1.013E-08 6.24tE=09 8 328 7.4u2E=ue 6.uo3E=u8 5.050E-u8 4.295E-06 2.313E-08 1.477t-u8 7.655E-99 4.763E=09 S3a 21b 6.135t-ub 5,005E=ue 4.173E-98 3,551E.08 1,911E-0M 1,220E-08 6.309E-09 3.908E=09 Sa 345 6.019E=uo 4.907t-vo a.091E=vo '3.4ett-08 1.8e0E-os 1.202L-08 6.231E-09 3.881E-09 aSa 316 7.493t=uo 6.125t=uo 5.tl8t=08 4.362E-08 2.360E-06 1.510t-08 7.838E=u9 4.863E=09

= 388 7.6u0E-08 6.242E-08 5.211E-u8 4.438E=u8 2.394E-u8 1.53tE-08 7.968E=u9 4.966E.09 y aNa 350 5.660E-05 4.614E*08 3.845E-08 3.271t=08 1.768E-08 1.133E=uo 5.918E=o9 3.725E=o9 m N> 411 7.ub3t-ce 5.753E-96 4.837t-08 4.124E-08 2.239E-08 1.439t-08 7,540t.09 4.729E.09 ( pa NN= 308 6.bu6E-08 5.384t=08 4.482t=08 3.810t-uS 2.uS2t-08 1.313E-08 6.839E-09 4.277E-09 ga

et act 856. i.i10t-07 9.566t-ve 7.990t-u8 6.8uSE.08 3.676E-u8 2.353E=0e i 223E u8 1.570E.09 4E G8 0 O e

' ~

O - O

' TABLE 5.2-3 (Sheet 4 of 8) l i

00ahm1ND NO. DISTANCE FNUM HELEASE Pulhi (MILES) i SECTUR ums 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 h 384 4.073E=09 2.995E=09 2.29tE=09 1.806L 09 1.4 ale =09 1.202E=o9 NhE 522 4.835E=09 3.5tlE=09 2.728E=09 2.152E=09 1.742E=o9 1.435t=09 hE 667 5.867E=09 4.289E=09 3.261E=09 2.554t=U9 2.053E=09 1.679t=09 EhE 761 8.624E=09 6.229E=o9 4.68tE=09 3.624E=09 2.880E=o9 2.330E=09 E 682 9.600E=09 6.946E=o9 5.228E=09 4.054E=09 3.225E=09 2.613E=09 ESE 1521 1.302E=o8 9.397E=09 7.054t=09 5.458t=o9 4.333E=u9 3.505E=o9 SE 850 8.242t=o9 5.964t=o9 4.49tE=o9 3.485E=09 2.775E=o9 2.252E=o9

I SSE 331 4.24tE=09 3.076E=09 2.322E=09 1.807E=o9 1.443E=o9 1.173E=o9 8 32s 3.273E=09 2.402E=o9 1.e34E=o9 1.444E=09 1.166E=o9 9.591L=to 88w 218 2.673k 09 1.952t=09 1.485E=u9 1.164E=o9 9.375L-10 7.686t=10 vs Sp 345 2.652E=09 1.949E=09 1.49tE=09 1.175E=o9 9.593E-10 7.826E=10 @ D' 1

I m8m 318 3.200L-09 2.3a7t=09 1.819E=o9 1.428E=09 1.15tE=u9 9.447L-10 g-i a 388 3.2eUE=09 2.405E=09 1.848t=o9 1.464E=09 1.190E=o9 9.856t=10 e e,

nha 350 2.400E=o9 1.834E=o9 1.424E=09 1.138E=09 9.334L-10 7.789tato U' y j hw 411 3.069E=09 2.292E=09 1.769E=o9 1.407E=09 1.148E=09 9.539L=to j

Nhw 308 2.912t=09 2.149E=o9 1.65cE=09 1.306E=09 1.000E=09 8.760E=10 l AVENAGE 8584 5.130E=09 3.739E=09 2.836E=o9 2.217E=09 1.778L-09 1.452E=09 i

i 4

l I

I

TABLE 5.2-3 (Sheet 5 of 8)

Seabrook Annual Average Depletion Rates (1/m3)

Turbine Building Release 00sNw!ND NO. DISTANCE FHUM NELEASE PQ{NT (MILES)

SECTOR 083 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 1

N JAe 1.308E-05 4.485E-09 2.427E-09 1.565E=o9 8.2e9E-to 5.261E-10 3.709E-10 2.795L-10 NNE 522 1.678E-08 5.700E.09 3.068E-09 1,983E.09 1.0e8E-09 6.676E-10 4.708t-to 3.550E-10 NE 667 2.275E-08 7.582E-09 4.051L-09 2.609E-09 1.376E-09 8.810t-10 6.237E-10 e.717E-10 ENE 761 3.037L-08 9.72eE-09 5.leeE=o9 3.308E=09 1.752t-09 1.134L-09 8.100t-10 6.165E-10 E 882 3.352E-06 1.078L-08 5.640E-09 3.617E=09 1.908E-09 1.233E-09 8.797E-10 6.688E-10 ESL 1521 5.637E-08 1.806E-os 9.393E-09 5.980E 99 3.132E-09 2.024t-09 1,483t-09 1.095E-09 8E 850 3.933E-08 9.8etE 99 5.126E-09 3.261E-99 1.70eE-09 1.098t=99 7.811E-10 5.918E-10 SSL 331 1.166E-08 3.se2E-09 2.051E=o9 1.313E-09 6.889t-lo e,G20t-to 3.131E-10 2.363E 10 3 328 1.015E=o8 3.513E=u9 1.666E-09 1.189E 09 6.185E-10 3.929L-10 2.763t-10 2.071E 10 Saa 218 6.791E-09 2.314E-09 1.222E=o9 7.767E-lo 4.035E-10 2.577E-lo 1.819L-10 1.367L-10 sa 3e5 9. coat-09 3.253E-09 1.795E-09 1.082E-09 5.609E-10 3.562L-10 2.506E-to 1.874E-10 m3= 318 9.269E-09 3,tl7E-09 1.6e6E-09 1.056E-09 5.571E-lo 3.585E-lo 2.5e7L-10 1.927L-10 a 388 1.061E-08 3.630g-09 1.938E-09 1.243E=o9 6.56tE-10 e.222E-10 2.999E-lo 2.268E-10 aN= 350 9.063E-09 3.133E-09 1.672L-09 1.075t=09 5.681E-lo 3,636E-lo 2.572E-10 1.939t-to y3 Na ett 1.08eE-08 3.619E-09 1.925E-09 1.248E-09 6.7 pit-10 e.349E 10 3.11eE-10 2.375E-10 m es NNa los 9.615E-09 3.296E-09 1.769L-09 1.138E-09 6.000E-10 3.837t-lo 2.7tlE-10 2.045E-10 7-o AvtNaGE 8564 1.817E-08 5.993E-09 3.165E-09 2.028L 09 1.067E-09 6.860t=10 8.572E-10 3.6b9E 10 C 00aN=tND NO. DISTANCE FNUM NELEaSE POINI (MILES)

SECTOR 083 3y5u e.00 e.50 5.00 7.50 10.09 15.01 20.0u N 384 2.196E 10 1.7est-10 1.480E-10 1.255E 10 6.725E-11 e.295t-11 2.28tE-11 1.41tE-11 NNE 522 2.793E-10 2.27tt=10 1.eB6E-10 1.601E-lo 8.61tE-11 5.52tE-Il 2.901E-71 1.838L-11 NE 667 3.718E-10 3.028E-10 2.519E-10 2.te0E-19 1.152E-10 7.389L-11 3.58aE-11 2.447E-11 ENE 761 4.882E-10 3.990E=to 3.328E-lo 2.833L-10 1.528t-1V 9.809E-11 5.le2t-11 3.211E-11 E 882 5.292E-10 e.32Gt=10 3.606E-to 3.070t-to 1.658t-lo 1.068E-lo 5.562t-11 3.898L-11 ESE 1521 8.660E-10 7.071t-lo 5.899E-10 5.023t-lo 2.712E-10 1.738E-10 9.0e3t-il 5.677E-11 8E 850 4.667E-10 3.806E-10 3.173E-10 2.700E-10 1.456E-10 9.324E-11 4.863E-11 3.043E-11 SSE 331 1.860t-to 1.514L-10 1.259t=10 1.070t-10 5.754E-11 3.675E-11 1.911E-11 1.196E-11 8 328 1.623L-10 1.316L-10 1.092t=10 9.262E-Il c v 970E-Il 3.169L-11 1.6eGE-11 1.037E it 88= 218 1.07!E=ic 8.716L-il 7.20eE-Il 6. 'l 5 0 E - I l 3.397E-11 2.110E-Il 1.095E-11 4.893E-12 8a 3e5 1.472E-10 1.195t-lo 9.936E-11 6.436E-11 e.548E-Il 2.909E=ll 1.519t-It 9.662L-12 a3M 316 1.52tt-10 1.281E-10 1.035E-lo 8.81eE-It 8.7Tet-il 3.063E-11 1.604E-11 1.018E Il

= 38e 1.7e0E-30 1,e59E-10 1.217E-lo 1.036t=10 5.602E-11 3.592L-11 1.e83E-It 1.193L-11

Na 350 1.527E-10 1.283E-10 1.036E-lo 8.807E-Il e.766E-11 3.059L-11 1.608 t=11 1.025L-Il 2 Na ell 1.586E-10 1.547L-lo 1.297L-10 1.107E-lo 6.039E-Il 3.899E 11 2.coet-11 1.312E-11 Nha 308 1.609E-10 1.3!0E-10 1.089E-10 9.288E-11 8.979E-It 3.167L-11 1.666E-11 1.052E-11 cE<

AWERAGE 8584 2.9ttE-lo 2.373L-10 1.977E-10 1.682E-lo 9.071t-11 5.eleE=ll 3.043E-11 1.913E-11 E{

G8 L

O O O

O O O TABLE 5.2-3 (Sheet 6 of 8) 00ahw!ND No. DISTANCE FWuw RELEASE POINT (MILES)

~

SECTOR 088 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 e5.00 50.00 N 388 9,821E=12 7.299E-12 5.ee6E-12 4,e98E=12 3.078E=12 3.057t=12 NNE 522 1.286L-11 9.co7E=12 7.eeeE=12 5,972E=12 e.99tE 12 4.oest-12 NE 667 1.70eE=11 1.267E=ll 9.795E-12 7.801E=12 6.375E=12 5.297L-12 ENE 761 2.2 tie =11 1.42eE=11 1.242E=Il 9.775E-12 7.899E=12 6.893L-12 E 842 2.el3E=11 1.777E=11 1.362E-11 1.075L=tt s.712L-12 7 te3t=12 ESE 1521 3.915E=11 2.8a2L-11 2.208E=tt 1.7e4E 11 1.413t=11 1.le6Latt SE 850 2.103E=tt 1.55tE=11 1.19tE=Il 9.e29E=12 7.oS9L-12 e.33eE=12 SSE 331 8.272E=12 6.11tE 12 a.700E-12 3.725E-12 3.030E=12 2.5uBL-12 8 328 7.236E=12 5.398L-12 4.193E-12 3.356L-12 2.756E=12 2.303t=12 85p 218 a.797E=12 3.569L-12 2.766E=12 2,209E=12 1.811L=12 1.51tL-12 m$

8 385 6.680E=i2 5.028E=i2 3.9ect=12 3.ia:E=i2 2.63eE=i2 2.2i9t=12 y-m8m 318 6.703E=12 5.02tE=12 3.918E=12 3.te4E=12 2.591L-12 2.172t=12 o n 388 7.582E=12 5.722E=12 4.e95t=12 3.637E-12 3.018L-12 2.547L-12 [

mNu 350 6.550E-12 a.972E=12 3.927E-12 3.193E=12 2.662E=12 2.256t=12 N Na ett 8.215E=12 6.205E=12 a.875L-12 3.9eeE=12 3.272E=12 2.76tL=12 NNm 308 7.It0E=12 5.310E.12 4.128t=12 3.306E=12 2.716E-12 2.270E-12 AVERAGE 8584 1.300E-11 9.703E 12 7.e92E-12 5.9606.-12 a.865t=12 4.outE=12 l

I l

l I

TABLE 5.2-3 (Sheet 7 of 8)

Seabrook Annual Average Effective Gamma Chi /Q (sec/m3)

Turbine Building Release DuaNalND NU. 01STANLE FHUM RELEASE POINI (MILES)

SLCTUW UH3 25 50 75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 1 N 36* 1.949t=U6 8.501t=07 5.21st-u7 3.676L-07 2.210E=o7 1.539E-of 1.159E=07 9.201E-08 kNE 522 2.30eE-u6 9.921t=07 6.031E=u7 4.2eeE.07 2.5e9E-u7 1.77eE=07 1.338E=u7 1.063E=07 NL 667 2.733E-ub l.175E=06 7.13tE=07 5.022E-97 3.024E-of 2.lt5F-07 1.602E=u7 1.278E=07 ENE 761 3.BoSE=ob 1.6Abt-06 9.996E=o7 7.062t=o7 4.263E-97 3.026E=07 2.310E-07 1.8545 07 L Sag 4.258L.96 1.83M.06 1.117E-06 7.876E-07 c.764E=o7 3.359E-07 2.562E=o7 2.055E=07 E 5t 1521 e.014E-06 2.576E=0e 1.557L-u6 3.093E=ob 6.580E=07 4.633E=07 3.530E=07 2.828E=07 SE e50 3.893t=0e 1,o68t-06 1.006E=oo 7.054E=07 4.23eE-u7 2.971t 07 2.258E=07 1.805E=u7 SSE 331 2.930t-o6 8,7e7t.o? 5.337E=of 3.749E=o7 2.251E-07 1.576E=07 1.19eE=u7 9.516t=08 3 326 1.6s7E-06 7.208E=u7 4.355L-07 3.043E-07 1.81tE=07 1.255E=07 9.439E-08 7.474E=08 33a 21s 1,3e2E 06 5.783E=U7 3.497E-07 2.447E=o7 1 160L 07 1.017E=07 7.672E.08 6.090E=08 S= 3e5 1.376t=06 5.896t-o? 3.5etE-of 2.876E=07 1. 7eE=07 1.022E-07 7.687E=08 6.085E-08 a$a 31s 1.6est.06 7.088t.o7 4.288E=07 3.012E=07 1.808E=07 1.263E=o7 9.551E=08 7.595E=08 v3

38B 1.752t=ob 7.570E=o7 8.610E-07 3.239t-07 1.943t=07 1.357E-07 1.025E=u7 3.141E-08 m os

=Na 35u 1.377L-06 5.922t-u7 3.586E-u7 2.518E=o7 1.507E-07 1.oe4E-07 7.839E=us 6.199E=08 7 _.

C)

Na ett 1.636E-06 7.023E-07 4.26et-07 3,00eE=07 1.810E*07 1.26eE-07 9.548E-08 7.589E=08 NNa 308 1. a o e E = 0 6 - 6.373E.07 3.898E-07 2,7elt=U7 1.643E-07 1.le2E=07 8.589E=08 6.805E=08 5"w AvEWAGE 858a 2.455L-06 1.uS6Le06 6.409E-07 a.5c6E=u7 2.70eE=07 1.897t=07 1.e38E=u? 1.147E=u7 -

00=Na!Nu NU. 01sfaNCE FNum NELEASE PolNT (MILES)

StCloa 083 3.50 e.00 4.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.01 20.00 N 38e 7.555E.uo 6.373E=08 5.871E-08 4.760E-08 2.861E=o8 1.987t-08 1.lb3E=08 8.239E=09 NNE 522 5.743L-08 7.363E-08 6.346t=05 5.549E-08 3.334E=08 2.323t=08 1.389E=06 9.700E=09 NE 667 1.053E=o7 8.920E=oo 7.667E=u8 6.738E=0B e.082L-06 2.862E=08 1.729E-08 1.215E=08 LNL 761 1.537E=o7 1.3 pot =o7 1.13tE=07 9.95eL=08 6.lu0E=o8 e.319E-08 2.653E=08 1.883E=08 L 882 1.703E=o7 1.eeBt-07 1.253E-07 1.102E=07 6.749E-08 a.777E=08 2.932E-08 2.080E=08 ESE 1521 2.341t=u7 1.989t=07 1.721t=07 1.513E=07 9.267t.08 6.55eE-08 e.016E-06 2.649E=08 SE 859 1.491E-u7 1.265E-07 1.093E=u7 9.60lE=08 5.858E-08 c.130L-08 2.516E=08 1.779E-08 SSL 331 7.883t=08 6.639E-96 5.7232 08 5.018E=0b 3.042E.08 2.133t=08 1.289E=08 9.068E.09 ,

5 32e 6.126E-08 5.162t=ce 4.83tt-u8 3.871t=08 2.318t-os 1.608E=08 9.537E-09 6.635E=09 S3a 21e 5 uC2t=ue 4.222t-06 3.630E=06 3.175t=08 1.909E-UB 1.329E-u8 7.932E=u9 5.540E.09 Sa 345 4.958E-oo 4.203E=so 3.60eE-08 3.153E=08 1.869E=ue 1.310E-08 7.765E=09 5.800E=09 asa Sto 6.248t-06 5.282E-08 c.547E-08 3.982L-08 2.402E-ve 1.676t=08 1.002E=08 6.999E=09 gi a 388 6.693E-u8 5.653E=uo a 662E=uo 4.253E=08 2.548E-ub 1.767E-ue 1.049E-u8 7.277E-09 o-

Na 35o 5.077E-08 u,275t.08 3.667E=08 3.200E=08 1.901E-uo' l.3u9E=08 7.659E=09 5.263E=09 yy Na all 6.239t=uo 5.269E=ub 4,530E-08 3.962E=08 2.376E-po 1.648E-vo 9.763t=09 6.767E-09 m<

NNa 306 5.580t=o8 4.791E=ub e.033E=u8 3.521E-08 2.192E=u8 1.455E-08 8.605E=09 5.965E=09 Q g*

AVERAGE 85Ae 9.e59E=u6 8.0llE-u8 6.907E=08 6.057t=o8 3.671t-08 2.574L-08 1.555t.08 1.093E=08 5 0 --

O O O

f SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 .

( 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES The information in this section remains unchanged from that presented in Section 5.5 of the Seabrook Station ER-CPS except as noted below. i-5.4.1 Sanitary Waste System !

j The effluent from the sanitary waste system will be discharged through the !

circulating water system as described in Section 5.5.1 of the ER-CPS and will i meet secondary treatment standards as depicted in Table 3.7-2 of the ER-OLS.

< Solid waste is not expected to occur in quantities requiring disposal due to the design of the aerated lagoon and as such, will pose no adverse '

i environmental effects as a result of its disposal.

5.4.2 Other Waste Systems 5.4.2.1 Auxiliary Boilers l Due to changes in design for the auxiliary boilers and emergency diesel l generators, information contained in Section 5.4.2 of the ER-CPS is no longer i applicable. Updated information on the auxiliary boilers and emergency diesel I generators is provided in Section 3.7.2 of the ER-OLS. '

1 i l

1 b

l r

I I

r f

i i

5.4-1 i E

i

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSt!ISSION SYSTEM The information in this section remains unchanged from that presented in Section 5.6 of the Seabrook Station ER-CPS except as noted below.

References to brandnames and mixtures of chemicals have been removed to allow for the use of generic chemicals and associated mixtures.

1 p

i l

[\

l O i

l

\

l 5.5-1 l

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

('~

\s -

4 i

CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENIS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

_CO. NTENTS Page No.

6.1-1

, 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . .

6.1.1 Surface Waters................................ 6.1-1 ,

6.1.1.1 Physical Parameters........................... 6.1-1 6.1-1 4

6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters.........................

6.1.2 Croundwater................................... 6.1-2 6.1.2.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters.............. 6.1-2 6.1.2.2 Models........................................ 6.1-2 6.1.3 Air........................................... 6.1-3

' 3

)

a Existing On-Site Meteorological 6.1.3.1 Mea sur emen t s P rog ram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-3 6.1.3.2 Atmospheric Diffusion Models.................. 6.1-5 6.1.4 Land.......................................... 6.1-6 6.1.4.1 Geology and So11s............................. 6.1-6 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys.............. 6.1-7 6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters......................... 6.1-9 6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring....................... 6.1-9 6.1.5.1 Sample Locations.............................. 6.1-10 6.1.5.2 Analytical Sensitivity........................ 6.1-10 6.1.5.3 Airborne Monitoring........................... 6.1-11 6.1.5.4 Gamma Radiation Monitoring.................... 6.1-11 6.1.5.5 Milk Monitoring............................... 6.1-12' 6.1.5.6 Croundwater Monitoring........................ 6.1-12 6.1.5.7 S u r f a c e Wa t e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .1-12

\-sl 6.0-1

l t

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 l

O 00NTENTS (Continued)

Page No.

l 6.1.5.8 Food Crops and Vegetation Moritoring. . . . . . . . . . 6.1-13 6.1.5.9 Sediment Monitoring........................... 6.1-13 6.1.5.10 Fish and Invertebrate Monitoring.............. 6.1-13 6.1.5.11 Quality control Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-13 6.1.5.12 Re porting Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-14 1

6.1.6 References.................................... 6.1-15 6.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONAL MONITORING PR0 GRAMS................................................. 6.2-1 6.2.1 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 2-1 6.2.1.1 Station Radiation Monitoring System. . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-1 6.2.1.2 Environmental Radiological Monitoring. . . . . . . . . 6.2-2 6.2.2 Surface Waters................................ 6.2-2 6.2.3 Meteorological Monitoring..................... 6.2-4 6.2.4 O t her P ro gr ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 2-4 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PR0 GRAMS................................................. 6.3-1 6.4 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING DATA..................................................... 6.4-1 0

. s 6.0-11

SB 1 & 2 Rsvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

)

O I

CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND f MONITORING PROGRAMS {

TABLES I

a Table No. Title 6.1-1 Seabrook Station Surface Water Data Collected Physical Parameters 6.1-2 Preoperational Ecological Study Program, Seabrook Station :

?

6.1-3 Summary of Field Permeability for Glacial and Bedrock !

Materials in the Seabrook Area !

6.1-4 Existing On-Site Meteorological Instrumentation Specifications [

t 6.1-5 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis (LLD) !

6.1-6 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

' 6.1-7 Off-Site Environmental Radiological Monitoring Summary [

6.1-8 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in !

Environmental Samples 1 l t

i i

f i,

f l

r I

I.

ps

\ l i

l \

l :

, i i 6.0-111 .

?

6. r

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

('~ .,

Table 6.1-3 for which a maximum permeability of 25 gpd/f2 t is reported.

'O Assuming a water table gradient of 0.06 feet per foot as observed during high water table conditions and a porosity of 0.3, the maximum rate of groundwater movement along a flow path moving southward from the southern portion of the site is 0.7 ft/ day. The shortest distance from a site location at which a radioactive liquid spill could hypothetically occur to the marsh is about 200 feet. Therefore, it will require at least 290 days for a liquid contaminant release at the site to reach the marsh.

Furthermore, a part of such contamination would be absorbed on clay or silt particles in the till and marine deposits.

The nearest point of body-contact water activity to the site is in the marsh and estuary of Hampton Harbor. Once a liquid radioactive release had entered the marsh, it would reach Hampton Harbor during a normal tidal cycle.

Therefore, as above, it would require at least 290 days for a liquid radioactive release at the site to reach the nearest point of body-contact water activity. The release would be greatly diluted before reaching Hampton Harbor.

6.1.3 Air To determine actual atmospheric conditions experienced at the site, an initial on-site meteorological monitoring program was started at the Seabrook 1 & 2 site in November 1971. This monitoring program, which utilized an f- w instrumented 150 foot high tower, suspended operation in June 1974. A

( ') description of this initial on-site monitoring program is presented in

'~

Subsection 6.1.3.1 of the Seabrook 1 & 2 Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage (ER-CPS). Models used to calculate diffusion estimater from the initial on-site program data are described in Subsection 6.1.3.2 of the Seabrook 1 & 2 ER-CPS, and the resulting data summaries are provided in Section 2.6 and in Appendix H of the Seabrook 1 & 2 ER- PS.

Metcorological data collection was resumed in April 1979 with the erection of a new 210 foot high tower at the same location as the old tower. A description of the existing meteorological monitoring program is given in the following subsections. The models used to calculate estimates of gaseous effluent dispersion with data from the existing meteorological program are discussed in Subsection 6.1.3.2.

Except for backflush operations during which an ultimate heat sink cooling tower may be utilized, plant operation will not include the use of cooling towers or open bodies of cooling water. As a result, it is anticipated that normal plant operation will have no significant effect on local meteorology. Fogging and icing on the plant environs are not predicted.

6.1.3.1 Existing On-site Meteorological Measurements Program A new 210 foot instrumented meteorological monitoring tower has been erected at the same location as the old tower and became fully operational in April

~

/1 6.1-3 Lj

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 1979. A description of the existing tower's location remains unchanged from h the description of the initial tower's location as presented in Subsection 6.1.3.1 of the Seabrook 1 & 2 ER-CPS.

The sensors and data processing procedures for the existing program, as described below, meet the requirements for time averaged values as specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. A meteorological program consistent with NRC Regulatory Guides for on-site meteorology programs will be maintained throughout the life of the plant.

a. Instrumentation The existing tower is instrumented for wind measurements at heights of 43 feet and 209 feet above the tower base. Wind speed and direction are observed by Climatronics F460 wind systems, which have a starting speed of less than 1.0 mile per hour.

Ambient temperature difference is measured on the tower between 150 and 43 feet and between 209 and 43 feet. These data are obtained by Rosemount platinum temperature sensors and precision resistance bridges. Ambient temperature is also measured by this system for the 43 foot level.

The temperature and delta-T sensors are installed in Teledyne Geotech aspirated shields.

Dew point was initially measured at the 43 foot level on the tower by a h General Eastern Model 1200 APS dew point system. The General Eastern dew point system was replaced in May 1981 with a Climatronics lithium chloride dew point system.

1 A heated tipping bucket precipitation gauge and an Eppley pyranometer are also installed on the ground near the base of the tower.

A digital recording system is the primary data collection mechanism for the Seabrook Meteorological System. Through the use of a MODCOMP minicomputer located on-site, each meteorological parameter is scanned once per second and stored on disc as four 15 minute averages per hour. Analog strip charts are also utilized as a backup source of data and for quality control analysis.

Wind data are recorded on Esterline-Angus Model LilS2S strip chart recorders; the temperature, delta-temperature, dew point, precipatation, and solar radiation data are recorded on an Esterline-Angus E1124E multichannel recorder.

Table 6.1-4 presents the equipment components, performance specifications, and system error analyses for both the analog and digital data systems. Presented values are summaries from manufacturer's specification sheets.

b. Equipment Maintenance and Calibration The descriptions of the equipment maintenance and calibration procedures described in Subsection 6.1.3.1 of the Seabrook 1 & 2 ER-CPS for the initial O

6.1-4

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

~'

/ campgrounds in the areas of interest.

V) The size and leeation of the daily transients who drive into the beach area each day during. the summer season was determined from review of several series of aerial photographs of beach area, which showed the auto loadings ;

and capacities of the various parking facilities, including street parking, I in the area. Average auto occupancy factors were derived from field surveys of the number of people per car who were using beach area parking facilities. l These two determinations were combined to give the size of the daily ;

i transient population.

The transient population estimates are given in Section 2.1.2.3. The methodology applied in assessing the transients is described in greater !

detail in the Seabrook FSAR, Section 2.1.3.3.

6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters The information presented in Section 6.1.4.3 of the ER-CPS remains unchanged.

Greater familiarity with the terrestrial biota as a result of station construction has confirmed the condition of the site as presented in the ER-CPS. A comparison of the list of endangered and threatened species with ,

one developed by the state of New Hampshire indicates that no individuals ,

occupy the site and that possible transients in the adjacent marshes will not be affected as a result of station operation.

' ~~

6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring

'~

There has been new guidance and requirements in the area of radiological environmental surveillance since 1973, when the preoperational radiological monitoring program was first described in the construction permit stage ,

of the Environmental Report. The guidance provided in USNRC Regulatory l Guides (References 5,6,8,10) and USNRC Branch Technical position on ,

radiological monitoring (Reference 7) were used to modify the proposed ER- '

CPS preoperational surveillance program. The updated environmental '

radiological surveillance program is described below.

A preoperational radiological environmental surveillance program will be i

initiated two years prior to startup of Unit I to:

1. provide information on background radiation levels, their variations i

in environmental media and to document seasonal variations or trends,

2. evaluate procedures, equipment and techniques necessary for sample collection and analysis,

3. provide a sufficient data base of man-made and natural activity '

for comparison with operational data,

4. provide experience to personnel.

[ 6.1-9 L !

r

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 The program is designed to establish correlation between levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the environment and radioactive releases from plant operation by comparison of operational measurements between indicator and control locations. Indicator locations are those sampling stations situated within five miles of the plant site, and are considered to reflect increases in the environment due to plant operation. Control locations are situated ten to twenty miles from the plant usually in the least prevalent vind direction, and are considered to be outside the influence of plant operation. Comparison of indicator and control station measurements allows for dif ferentiation between levels of radiation caused by fallout, seasonal variations, and plant operation.

6.1.5.1 Sample Locations A census is carried out six months prior to the start of the preoperational environmental surveillance program to identify:

1. the nearest milk producing animals within a three mile distance from the plant,

2. the nearest garden greater than 500 square feet producing broad leafy vegetation within three miles of the plant,

3. the most abundant food crop in the area and estimates of local consumption rates.

Upon completion of the census, a critical pathway analysis is performed utilizing site specific meteorological data to identify critical population groups along with selection of sample media and locations which would contribute the most significant radiation exposure to the public. Table 6.1-6 outlines the Radiological Environmental Program and Sections 6.1.5.3 to 6.1.5.10 give a description of each sampling pathway. J.

6.1.5.2 Analytical Sensitivity Table 6.1-5 indicates the detection capabilities for environmental samples that will be achieved by the radioanalytical laboratory. These analytical sensitivities for radioactive material in environmental samples are calculated using the lower limits of detection (LLDs). The LLD is the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will y~ield a count greater than background corresponding to a 95 percent confidence level.

4.66

S b

LLD = E*V*2.22*exp (- A t)

Where:

Sp = the standard deviation of the background counting rate E = the counting efficiency (in counts / disintegration)

O 6.1-10

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

/

LJ

~] 6.1.5.8 Food Crops and Vegetation Monitoring Representative samples of three principle food crops from three indicator locations are compared to a control location. Food crops including samples of tuberous and root food products are collected, and a gamma isotopic analysis is performed on edible portions at harvest time. If milk samples are not available within a three-mile distance of the plant, then three samples of broad leafy vegetation grown nearest the off-site location, with the highest calculated annual average ground level D/Q, are analyzed when available for I-131 during growing season. All food product samples are analyzed for both years of the preoperational sampling program.

6.1.5.9 Sediment Monitoring Sediment samples are collected from three indicator and one control location.

The indicator stations include beach and recreational areas in the vicinity of the discharge area, plus a location in the discharge area. The control station is located outside the influence of the station's effluents. Bottom sediment samples will be collected using a 1.5 to 2 inch coring device.

Six core sections, each having a minimum core depth of six inches, are collected per sampling site. All sediment samples are analyzed for gamma emitters semi-annually for both years during the preoperational program.

6.1.5.10 Fish and Invertebrate Monitoring 7-s Representative samples of three commercially and recreationally important

( ) rpecies in the vicinity of the discharge point are cellected seasonally

or semi-annually if they are not seasonal. The came species collected in the vicinity of the discharge point are also sampled in control areas not influenced by the plant discharge. Only edible portions of fish and invertebrates are analyzed for gamma emitters for both years during the preoperational program.

6.1.5.11 Quality Control Program A quality control program is established to cover all levels of the environmental surveillance program. Written procedures are developed for calibration of all sampling equipment. The equipment is calibrated on a regular basis, so that the accuracy of the equipment can be checked, and if necessary, adjusted to bring the equipment within established specifications.

Procedures for sampling, preserving, shipping and storing environmental media are established to insure that representative samples are being collected in a uniform manner and are being preserved, packaged and stored to maintain the integrity of the sample from time of collection to time of analysis.

The radioanalytical laboratory is required to participate in an environmental radioactivity laboratory cross-check program. This provides an independent

/Q/

\

6.1-13

..j

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 cl eck of accuracy and precision of the laboratory analysis. If results of a cross-check analysis fall outside the control limit, an investigation is made to determine the cause of the problem and corrective action is taken.

The radioanalytical laboratory maintains an intralaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of the data. This program includes quality control of laboratory equipment, use of reference standard for calibration, determination of counting ef ficiencies and analysis of blank and spiked samples. The records of the quality control program are reviewed and corrective measures are taken whenever applicable.

A blind duplicate sample program is established. Samples are prepared from split or homogenous media and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The results from the analysis are used to check for precision in-laboratory analyses.

6.1.5.12 Reporting Requirement A report on the radiological environmental surveillance program for the previos calendar year is submitted to the Director of the NRC Regional Office as a sepe. rate document by May 1 of each year. The report is first submitted on May 1 following the date of initial criticality and includes summarized and tabulated results in the format of Table 6.1-7 of all radiological environmental samples taken during the report period. In the event that some results are not available, the report is submitted, noting and explaining the reason for the missing results. The missing data is submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.

The Annual Radiological Environmental Report includes interpretations and an analysis of trends for the results of the radiological environmental surveillance activities for the report period, including a comparison with operational controls, preoperational studies and previous environmental surveillance reports and an assessment of the observed impacts of the station on the environment. The report also includes a summary description of the radiological er.viromental monitoring program, a map of all sampling locations keyed to a table giving distances and direction from one reactor, the results of the land use census, and the results of licensee participation in the quality assurance program.

If a confirmed measured radionuclide concentration in an environmental sampling medium averaged over any calendar quarter sampling period exceeds the reporting levels of Table 6.1-8, a written report is submitted to the Director of the NRC Regional Office within 30 days from the receipt of the laboratory analyses, but not in any case more than 60 days from the end of the affected calendar quarter. When more than one of the radionuclides in Table 6.1-8 are detected in the sampling medium, the reporting level is exceeded if:

Concentration (1) Concentration (2) ,y 7 Reporting Level (1) , Reporting Level (2) , ,

If radionuclide other than those in Table 6.1-8 are detected and are the result of plant effluents, a reporting level is exceeded if the potential annual dose to an individual is equal to or greater than the design objective 6.1-14 l

_ _ . . _ - .- . . . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . _ . . _ _ _ - ._. __ _ _ . _ _ ____m._.-_

i SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 l

l doses of 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I. This report is not required if the i measured level of radioactivity was not the result of plant effluents; however, in such an event, the condition shall be reported and described in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.

1 i

l i

i i

1 I

i 4

i !

i 1

i i

i 1

i i

1.

6.1-15 i

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS O

6.1.6 References

1. Normandeau Associates, Inc., 1977. " Summary Document: Assessment of Anticipated Impacts of Construction and Operation of Seabrook Station on the Estuarine, Coastal, and Offshore Waters, Hampton-Seabrook, New Hampshire", prepared for Public Service Co. of N.H., Manchester.

2. Nomandeau Associates, Inc. ,1979a. " Annual Summary Report for 1976 Hydrographic Studies Off Hampton Beach, New Hampshire", Technical Report VII-1.

3. Normandeau Associates, Inc., 1977b. " Annual Summary Report for 1977 Hydrographic Studies Off Hampton Beach, New Hampshire", Technical Report X-1.

4. Nomandeau Associates, Inc., 1980. " Annual Summary Report for 1978 Hydrographic Studies Off Hampton Beach, New Hampshire", Technical Report X-2.

5. USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, April 1975.

6. USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental Technical Specifications O for Nuclear Power Plants, December 1975.

7. USNRC Branch Technical Position, An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, July 1979.

8. USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Nomal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment, Revision 1, February 1979.

9. NUREG-0475, Radiological Environmental Monitoring by NRC Licensees for Routine Operations of Nuclear Facilities, October 1978.

10. USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.13, Performance Testing, and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmental Applications, Revision 1, July 1977.

11. American National Standards, Performance, Testing, and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry (Environmental Applications), August 1975.

( 12. WASH-1400, (NUREG-75/014), The Reactor Safety Study, An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, NRC, October 1975.

6.1-16

l l

l SB 1 & 2 ,

ER-OLS TABLE 6.1-3

SUMMARY

OF FIELD PERMEABILITY FOR GLACIAL AND BEDROCK MATERIALS IN THE SEABROOK AREA Type Number Permeability in of of gpd/sq. ft.

Material Samples Range Mean Outwash 6 17 - 130 50 Marine (silty phase) 2 0.3 - 0.6 0.4 Till 21 0.3 - 25 5 Bedrock 9 1 - 51* 4 iO *Large fracture, not used in mean

Reference:

Groundwater Hydrology for the Proposed Seabrook Nuclear Station, by Weston Geophysical Research, Inc., 1969.

)

4 i

e 1

O j

t i

__ _ _ . . ____.._~

Tabic 6.1-4 EXISTING ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION SPECIFICATIONS SENSORS TRANSt> TORS ANA1.0C RECORDER AfD CONVERTOR SYSTEM ACCURACY FARAMETERS ROOT-SUM-SQUARED MANUFACTURER THRESHOLD OR MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURER TIME AVERACED & HDDEL RANGE ACCURACY SENSITIVITY & W DEL ACCURACY & HDDEL ACCURACY & MODEL ACCURACT Wind Sp;ed < t 0.5 mph Climatronics O to 100 mph 1 0.15 mph 0.56 mph Climatronics 2 0.2% Esterline F460 or 1% Threshold 100078 Angus Transmitter LilS25 1 0.25%

Wind <t 5.00 Climatronics 00 to 5400 1 30 0.58 mph Climatronics 2 0.05% 4%" Chart Dirsction F460 Threshold 100077 Transmitter Mod Comp I'mPirsture Temp: Teledyne Temp Sensor: Temp: Climatronics 1400 m cnd < 1 0. 9 F Ceotech 127 -300 to 2 0.470 F 2 0.20F 100142 Analog 2 0.05% tu! tu Delta Tcap. Delta T: Asp. Shield +1160r e 00C Maximum 100143 2 0.05% Esterline Input

< t 0.180 F f

Rosemont 78 2 0.950F 0

Radiation Angus Subsystem o Flatinus Delta T: $ 100 C Effect Ell 24E 2 0.3% MP Sensors -10* to Bridge w Rosemont fl80 F 2 0.1% of 414L Span Temp Bridge Dew Foitt <t 0.9*F Cen. Eastern -300 to

0.36 0F N/A Climatronics 2 0.05% 8 Channel 1200 AFS ( a ) +110*F 100089 Multipoint Prscipitation 2 0.01 inch Belfort N/A 1 1% to 2 0.01 inch Climatronics 2 0.05% 10" Chart (Instantaneous) 5-405H 2 6% Sensitivity 100157 Precip.

5212r < 1 0. Eppley 8-48 0 to 2 2 5% 2 0.05%

Cal /cm)-min 75avger Climatronics Radittisn Pyranometer Cal /cm2 -min Cal /cm -min 100144 Sensitivity (a)The General Eastern dew point system was replaced in May 1981 with a y Climatronics Model DP-10 lithium chloride dew point system with a range e o o o M 90 from -40 to +107 F and an accuracy of + 0.9 F. gg M We M to 1 r, wO e :3 CD DJ W O O O

O O O TABLE 6.1-5 DETECTION CAPABILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS (LLD)

Airborne Particulate Water orGag Fish Milk Food Products Sediment Analysis (pCi/1) (pCi/m ) (pCi/kg, wet) (pCi/1) (pci/kg, wet) (pCi/kg. dry) gross beta 2b 1 x 10-2 3

H 2000 (1000b )

54Mn 15 130 59 Fe 30 260 ME

?-

58,60Co 15 130 hm w 65 2n 30 260 89 Sr 10 90 Sr 2 95 Zr 10 131 1 1,ge 7 x 10-2 1.0 C 60c,d 134,137 Cs 15 (10b ) 1 x 10-2 130 15 60 150 140 Ba 15 15 b - LLD for drinking water c - LLD for I-131 in water, milk and food products

.d - LLD for leafy vegetables l.

, .gu- * -w= --tT ym+g e-y--y T- -vtm-r-- M v -+gt-'T s--- r- -Mr---T-mTT----vt--rTrm T-4-vrTr4---WWM-m? $ e- WW't -yr--- -w- r r- - *7 *T T2'- - - - y'--T- T-'---- 7---1-" -Tr-1 '*-w-- - - - - ' +e w -

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O

TABLE 6.1-6 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (Sheet 1 of 3)

Number of Samples Type and Exposure Pathway and Sampling and Frequency e.nd/or Sample Sample Locations Collection Frequency of Analysis

1. AIRBORNE Radioiodine

Samples from 3 of f- Continuous operation Radioiodine and site locations (in of sampler with sam- canister. Analyze Particulates different sectors) ple collection as at least once per with the highest raquired by dust 7 days for I-131.

calculated annual loading but at least ground level D/Q. once per 7 days.

I sample from the Particulate sampler.

vicinity of a popu- Analyze for gross lation center having beta radioactivity the highest calcu- > 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months following lated annual average filter change.

ground level D/Q. Perform gamma iso-topic analysis on 1 sample from a each sample when control location gross beta activity 15-30 km distance. is> 10 times the yearly mean of con-trol samples. Per-form gamma isotopic

' analysis on compo-site (by location) sample at least once per 92 days.

Consideration for location of air moni-toring stations was given to year round access to the location, availability of power, '

and population in the area.

1 0

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

[,, }

N/ TABLE 6.1-6 I (Sheet 2 of 3)

Number of Samples Type and Exposure Pathway and Sampling and Frequency and/or Sample Sample Locations Collection Frequency of Analysis

2. DIRECT 32 stations with At least once per 92 Gamma dose. At RACIATION two or more dosi- days. least once per metere placed in 92 days.

two c<>ncentric rings around the plant.

8 stations with two or more dosi-meters placed at control locations, population centers and nearby residences

3. WATERBORNE

a. Surface 1 sample in the At least once per 31 Gamma isotopic 4 1 area of the days. analysis of each discharge. sample.

1 sample from a Tritium analysis control location. of composite samples at least ence per 92 days.

b. Ground 2 samples from At least once per 92 Gamma isotopic sources likely to days. and tritium analy-be affected. ses of each sample.

c. Sediment 3 samples from At least once per 184 Gamma isotopic beach locations days. analysis of each near the discharge sample.

area.

1 sample from a control location.

1 l

l l s~)

l l

i 1

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 6.1-6 (Sheet 3 of 3)

Number of Samples Type and Expoaure Pathway and Sampling and Frequency rnd/or Sample Sample Locations Collection Frequency of Ana?ysis

4. INGESTION

a. Milk 3 samples from At least once per 15 Gamma isotopic locations within days when animals are and I-131 analysis 3 miles distance on pasture; at least of each sample.

from the plant once per 31 days at having the highest other times.

dose potential.

1 sample from a control location.

b. Fish and 1 sample from the One sample in season, Camma isotopic Inverte- discharbe area. or at least once per analysis on brates 184 days if not sea- edible portions.

1 sample from a sonal of 3 commer-control location. cially and recrea-tionally important species.

c. Food 1 sample from 3 At time of harvest. Gamma isotopic farms or gardens One sample of 3 analysis on having the highest principal classes of edible portion.

dose potential. food products grown in the area.

1 sample from a control location.

I 1

i i

l

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 g

\- TABLE 6.1-7 0FFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING

SUMMARY

Name of Facility Docket No.

Location of Facility Reporting Period MED.JM: MILK UNITS: PCI/ LITER RADIONUCLIDES INDICATOR STATIONS HIGHEST STATION CONTROL LOCATIONS (NO. ANALYSES) NOMINAL MEAN, RANGE, AND MEAN, RAFGE, AND MEAN, RANCE, AND (NON-ROUTINE)* LLD*** NO. DETECTED ** STA. NO. DETECTED ** NO. DETECTED **

K-40 (48) 2.0E+02 (1.4 j; .0) E 3 13 (1.4 + .0) E 3 (1.3 j- 0) E 3

( 0) (1.1 - 1.6) E 3 (1.2 - 1.6) E 3 (1.3 - 1.4) E 3

(36/36)* *(12/12)* *(12/12)*

I-131 (48) .5 (1.8 + .6) E -2 13 (2.2 + .8) E -2 (2.2 + 1.6) E -2

( 0) (-6.6 - 8.8) E -2 (-4.6 - 12.7) E -2

(0/36)* *(0/12)* *(0/12)*

("'S CS-134 (48) 9. (-1.2 j; .2) E O 12 (-9.7 j- 3.5)E -1 (-1.3 j; .3) E O

(_,/

( 0) (-3.6 - 1.4) E O (-3.2 .3) E O ,

(0/36)* *(0/12)* *(0.12)*

CS-137 (48) 9. (4.1 + .2) E O 21 (8.6 + 1.3) E O (8.6 + 1.3) E O

( 0) (1.5 - 67.7) E -1 (9.5-189.0) E-1 (9.5-189.0) E -l

(27/36)* *(11/12)* *(11/12)* ,

Non-routine refers to the number of separate measurements which were greater than ten (10) times the average backgtnund for the period of the report.

- The fraction of sample' analyses yielding detectable measurements (i.e.,>3 sigma) is indicated within *( )*.

- - Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) as defined in table notation a. of i ER-OLS Table 6.1-5, Specification 6.1-5.

a. Note: The example data provided in this table are for illustrative purposes only.

1

)

[

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 6.1-8 REPORTING LEVELS FOR RADI0 ACTIVITY

! CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES i

Reporting Levels I

Airborne Particulate Water or Cases Fish Milk Food Products Analysis (pCi/1) (pCi/m3 ) (pci/Kg, wet) (pCi/1) (pCi/Kg, wet) l 11 - 3 2 x 104 (a) l l Mn-54 1 x 103 3 x 104 Fe-59 4 x 102 1 x 104 Co-58 1 x 103 3 x 104 Co-60 3 x 102 1 x 104 Zn-65 3 x 102 2 x 104 Zr-Nb-95 4 x 102 (b)

O I-131 2 0.9 3 1 x 102 Cs-134 30 10 1 x 103 60 1 x 103 Cs-137 50 20 2 x 103 70 2 x 103 l

(a) For drinking water samples. This is 40 CFR Part 141 value.

(b) Total for parent and daughter.

1 1

0

i t l SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

! 6.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS 4 6.2.1 Radiological Monitoring 6.2.1.1 Station Radiation Monitoring System i

a. General Description i The Radiation Data Management System (RDMS) is a real time digital computer based system. The system consists of front end microprocessors (which convert the pulse type detector signals into engineering units, provide local indication, alarm / control functions and transmit data to the host computer), a redundant Central Processing Unit (CPU) host computer and various operator / programmer interface devices. Gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring is accomplished by using monitors which are part of the RDMS.

The manner in which this monitoring is provided is described -in the following 4

sections.

J

b. Gaseous Effluent Monitoring j There are three monitors in the waste gas system. Two of the three monitors

are used as indicators of carbon bed performance. One monitor is located upstream and the other downstream of the carbon delay bed. The third monitor maintains a running inventory of the total activity vented to the atmosphere.

This monitor automatically closes the waste gas discharge valve upon an indication of high radiation levels.

Gaseous activity that might result from a primary to secondary system leak I would be detected at the condenser air evacuation vent. Under certain ,

operating conditions, the detector at this location would monitor the

, discharge of radioactive material to the atmosphere. The discharge of the condenser air evacuation system is normally unfiltered, but may be manually redirected to filters on receipt of a high radiation alarm.

The plant vent radiation monitor measures the radioactivity of the air i exhausted (from the waste process building, fuel storage building and the ;

1 containment enclosure) to the unit plant vent.

Air from the vent is drawn by a pumping cystem through two isokinetic probes.

Each probe is equipped with a flow element that provides a signal to the radiation monitors to calculate the microcuries per cubic centimeter flowing in the duct, microcuries per second and the integrated microcuries released

! through the plant vent.

The air collected by the isokinetic probe is passed through a combined moving ,

paper filter, iodine cartridge and a noble gas radiation monitor sample chamber. The range. of the noble gas radiation monitor is 10-7 to 103 uCi/cm3 i

T

! (-'/

4 N,

s 6.2-1 .

I t I

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 In addition, airborne radioactivity monitors are located in the administration building fume hood exhaust, fuel storage building exhaust, containment enclosure exhaust, PAB ventilation exhaust, waste process building ventilation exhaust, and the exhaust from the administration building, the controlled area locker room and the counting room.

c. Liquid Effluent Monitoring The monitors in the liquid waste ef fluent system maintain inventory totals of radioactivity stored and discharged from each tank, as well as liquids transferred into the tanks. A high radiation reading on the monitor in the system discharge will isolate the stop valves in the discharge line.

The monitors in the steam generator blowdown sample system measure radioactivity in the steam generator blowdown samples. An additional monitor isolates the blowdown sample tank discharge to the environment when high radiation is detected.

6.2.1.2 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Except for surf ace water monitoring, the operational radiological environmental surveillance program will be an extension of the preoperational program described in Section 6.1.5 of this report. This is to ensure that data from both programs are compatible for evaluation of radiological impact from plant operation on the surrounding environment, and to assure that a smooth transition between programs can be achieved. Installation of composite samplers for surf ace water from the discharge area and a control location will be accomplished before the start of the operational program.

A yearly census will be conducted within three miles of the facility to determine locations of all milk animals and gardens greater than 500 square feet producing broad leafy vegetation. If the census reveals that milk animals or gardens exist at locations that would yield calculated thyroid doses greater than existing sampling locations, then these locations would be added to the surveillance program.

A report on the operational environmental surveillance program will be prepared and submitted to the Director of the NRC Regional Office on a yearly basis. This report will include: a description of the radiological environmental monitoring program; results of analysis for each media with comparison to controls and preoperational analysis; results from milk animal and garden census; a map of all sampling locations with a table giving distance and location from one reactor; results of the contractor's analytical laboratory participation in an environmental radioactivity intercomparison cross-check program; and an assessment of observed impacts of the facility operation on the environment.

6.2.2 Surface Waters The operational phase receiving water thermal effluent monitoring program will 1

9 6.2-2

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

) be designed to determine compliance with those federal and state regulatory

\_ / criteria described in ER-OLS, Section 5.1.1, " Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards". The program outlined below addresses both the routine (day-to-day) and backflush phases of station operation, and includes a description of the proposed continuous in situ monitoring and periodic field surveillance plan. The description, however, is limited in scope to program objectives and technical approach. Program specifications will be detailed prior to station operation.

6.2.2.1 Routine Operation Monitoring The thermal monitoring program for the day-to-day phase of station operation will be directed at the measurement of temperatures inside and outside the discharge jet mixing region. In each case, in situ recorded temperatures will be compared to a farfield reference station to determine station induced temperature rise in the receiving waters. The reference station will be quantitatively established from the many years of temperature data recorded in the region. It will be located in a region unaffected by the station discharge plume or other thermal effects (such as the Hampton Harbor discharge), but in an area with similar bathymetry and response to like meteorological and hydrographical conditions, as in the discharge region.

Inside the jet mixing region, defined as "within 300 feet of the submerged diffuser in the direction of discharge", a daily (24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ) temperature average will be computed from an in situ surface (-2 feet) monitor. To

/~'N determine compliance, the daily average discharge temperature will be compared

(_,) to the daily average value, plus 5 F (the maximum permitted temperature rise), for the same location as determined from the reference station.

Similarly, for compliance outside the jet mixing region, the daily average temperature for in situ monitors at the surface (-2 feet), mid-depth (-25 feet), and bottom (+2 feet) will be compared to the daily average values, plus SO F, for the same depths determined f rom the reference station.

An annual report tabulating monitoring results for each month will be prepared and forwarded to appropriate regulatory agencies.

6.2.2.2 Backflush Operation Monitoring Thermal monitoring during backflush operations will be directed at the periodic surveillance of temperatures in the region of the Sunk Rocks. The objective will be to demonstrate that the backflush plume flows offshore and/or temperature increases are minimized at the Sunk Rocks, a condition proposed by the U.S. EPA Region I. Since the " worse case" conditions for causing increased temperatures at the Sunk Rocks are during a flood tide or

" northeaster" storm, backflush operations will not commence at the beginning of a flood tide nor during northeast storm wind conditions.

To determine compliance, a large-area synoptic field measurement survey will be performed over no more than two complete backflush cycles each year,

,_s provided that backflushing is implemented by the station in that year.

I ; Differential surface isothermal contours will be constructed for the region at

various phases of the backflush cycle, depicting the spread of the backflush plume as well as naturally occurring plumes, such as the Hampton Harbor discharge.

1 6.2-3

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Results will be submitted with the annual report (see Section 6.2.2.1).

6.2.3 Meteorological Monitoring It is currently planned that the existing meteorological tower and instrumentation will be used during the operational phase of the Seabrook Station. In addition, a 10m backup tower instrumented with wind speed and direction is planned to be located approximately 300 feet SSE of the existing tower prior to station operation. The meteorological data from both the primary and backup towers will be scanned and recorded as 15-minute averages by the plant's process computer. Strip chart recorders will continue to serve as a backup source of data.

A Class A dispersion model will be available on a plant computer to produce initial transport and diffusion estimates for the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone. The model shall use automatically supplied meteorological data from the primary monitoring system to produce plume dimensions and position, 1c:ation and magnitude of the peak relative concentration, and relative cor:centrations at several downwind locations. Using effluent release infermation and a finite cloud external gamma dose model, estimates of near-real-time dose rates and accumulative sector average doses will also be available. The model will have the graphics capability of drawing relative concentrations and dose isopleths over a background map of the site.

6.2.4 Other Programs 1 No other environmental monitoring programs are planned at this time. If future circumstances indicate a need for additional investigation, details will be provided as supplementary information to the ER-OLS.

O 6.2-4

i SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS d.- Anticipated transients

{ .Also, the containment failure mode of the RSS was retained as is. The LOCA

- event trees were subdivided _into five, as compared to three in the RSS).

This was due to the additional capabilities and combinations of successful pump outputs for the Emergency Core Cooling System.

7.3.3.1 Large LOCA Event Tree The large LOCA event tree is shown in Figure 7.3-1. Comparing it to the equivalent event tree in the RSS, the major differences are no electric power system and sodium hydroxide system failures. Electric power failures were modeled in the system fault trees as-failure modes for the components requiring electrical power. As mentioned previously, sodium hydroxide did not affect the outcome of the accident sequences in the RSS. The-only other difference is that the RSS considered Emergency Core Recirculation (ECR) and containment heat removal as separate systems. This was unique to the Surry design. In the Seabrook event tree, heat removal from the containment 1

is carried out by either ECR or CSR. Throughout the event trees developed for the Seabrook station, the system successes are carried through the

{ accident sequences and are noted by the dash over the letter.

In Sequences 5 and 6 on the event tree,'it has been assumed that failure

,-- - of the emergency core functionability will induce failure of the ECR. There i is no reason to believe that if the core was disrupted, preventing successful

\' emergency core injection (ECI), that it would not also affect the 3' ' recirculation mode. Similarly, in~ Sequences 7 and 8, failure of ECI'will cause failure of ECR because the same basic systems are involved with the 4 exception of the source of water. Sequences 13, 14, and 15 reflect'the same assumptions.

7.3.3.2 Medium LOCA Event Trees Figure'7.3-2 shows the event tree developed for the M ,y M2 and M3 sized

- LOCA's. The difference between these three event trees is the success criteria for.the ECI and ECR. This criteria is shown in Table 7.3-1. The medium-sized LOCA event trees show the addition of the reactor protection system (RPS) and dropping of the ECF, as compared to the large LOCA tree.

This is consistent with the RSS small LOCA event tree.

The ECI/ECR dependency discussed for the large LOCA event tree is reflected 1

in Sequences 5 and 6. Sequence 11 reflects the assumption'that if both

, the CSIS and ECI fail, there will be inadequate water ' collected in the containment sump for the SCRS or ECR to function. Sequences 12 through 15 reflect the' assumption that failure of the RPS causes failure of the ECI and subsequent failure of the ECR. If SCRAM does not occur, pressure of the primary system will be too great foe successful operation of the ECI. This assumption is based on a study performed by Westinghouse (Reference 4).

(m ,- 7.3-9 1

4 4

m . _ . _ ___.E_.____ - ,.,. ..c...,- m mv'n-,--,~,-w, , -r , . , - , . ,-

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 7.3.3.3 Small LOCA Event Tree The small LOCA event tree is shown in Figure 7.3-3. Compared to the medium LOCA event tree, it has the addition of the Emergency Feedwater System (EFWS), j which is required to remove decay heat from the primary system in order to 2 maintain a low enough pressure of the primary system for successful ECI.

Again, Sequences 5 and 6 reflect the dependency of ECR on a successful ECI.

Sequence 11 reflects the need for CSIS and ECI before CSRS and ECR can be considered. Sequences 12 through 17 indicate that the primary system pressure must be controlled for successful ECI. If RPS fails, the primary system pressure will be too great for ECI to be successful. If the EFWS fails, the l

primary system pressure will increase due to decay heat and ECI cannot be i successful. These assumptions are based on the Westinghouse study mentioned earlier.

Section 7.5 contains a glossary of terms for the LOCA event trees.

7.3.3.4 Anticipated Transient Event Tree Figure 7.3-4 shows the transient event tree for Seabrook. It is identical to the transient event tree developed in the RSS.

Section 7.5 contains a glossary of terms for the transient event tree.

7.3.3.5 Reactor Vessel Rupture Event Tree The Reactor Vessel Rupture event tree is shown in Figure 7.3-5. The equivalent event tree in the RSS had just the CSIS and CSRS. The Seabrook Station has the RHRS added. At Seabrook, both the CSRS and RHRS are capable l of removing containnent heat. At the Surry plant analyzed in the RSS, the j CSRS was the only system with heat exchangers.

A glossary of terms for thic event tree also appears in Section 7.5.

7.3.3.6 Interfacing LOCA Event Tree The interfacing LOCA event tree is shown in Figure 7.3-6. It should be noted that the Seabrook design includes one of the three Standard Review Plan designs suggested for the check valves between the primary system cold legs and the low pressure injection system. this improved design, as compared to the Surry design at the time of the RSS, will be reflected in the probability of the interfacing LOCA initiator discussed later in this section. The Seabrook RHR design allows for circulation of hot leg water through the heat exchangers and back to the cold legs. This mode is used to go from hot shutdown to cold shutdown, once the primary system pressure is adequately reduced. To accomplish this, two motor-operated valves in series must be opened. This requires operator action and satisfaction of the pressure interlock. Failure modes allowing the opening of these valves at primary system pressure will result in an interfacing LOCA.

O 7.3-10

4 l i l I

l DOCU,- i-

' _ t i

PUl ANO. -~ l NO. OF PAGES _

REASON O PAGE ILLEGIBl.

PDR CF O HARD COW FILED AT. I OTHER J J__ ,

i I C BETER COW REQUESTED ON CF Ett MMDCOPY FILED A kFILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO k ,

4 SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OL February 1982 n

U NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This section of the Seabrook Station ER-OL contains formal Nuclear Regulatory Commission requests for additional information, resulting from the Commission's review of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire Application for an Operating License for Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.

i Two indices are provided for ease of reference. The first index lists

, the RAIs by applicable FSAR section number; the second lists RAIs

numerically.

1 J

I O

1 R-i

SB 1 & 2 Ravicion 1 ER-OL February 1982 INDEX GROUPING OF RESPONSES TO RAIs BY ER-OL SECTION NUMBERS ER-OL ER-OL ER-OL SECTION RAI SECTION RAI SECTION RAI NO. NO. PAGE NO. NO. PAGE NO. NO. PAGE 1.0 320.1 R-36 3.4 240.15 R-10 8.0 310.3 R-35 320.2 R-36 240.16 R-10 310.4 R-35 320.3 R-36 240.17 R-11 310.5 R-35 320.4 R-37 240.18 R-11 320.5 R-37 240.19 R-11 10.3 240.27 R-18 291.9 R-27 2.1 291.1 R-22 291.10 R-28 12.0 240.28 R-18 291.2 R-23 291.12 R-29 291.3 R-24 3.6 291.16 R-30 291.13 R-29 291.14 R-30 291.17 R-31 310.1 R-32 3.7 240.20 R-11 470.2 R-48 470.3 R-50 3.9 310.2 R-32 470.4 R-53 4.1 290.1 R-18 2.2 291.4 R-26 291.5 R-26 4.5 291.18 R-31 291.6 R-26 291.7 R-26 5.1 240.21 R-12 291.8 R-27 240.22 R-12 240.23 R-12 2.3 451.01 R-40 451.04 R-44 451.02 R-40 451.03 R-42 5.2 470.1 R-48 2.4 240.1 R-1 5.3 240.24 R-12 240.2 R-1 240.3 R-3 5.5 290.2 R-18 240.4 R-3 290.4 R-22 240.5 2-4 240.6 R-4 6.1 290.3 R-21 240.7 R-4 451.05 R-45 240.8 R-5 451.06 R-45 240.9 R-5 451.07 R-45 240.10 R-6 470.5 R-54 240.11 R-8 6.2 240.26 R-18 3.3 240.12 R-9 291.11 R-29 240.13 R-10 451.08 R-47 240.14 R-10 240.15 R-30 7.0 240.25 R-12 O

R-ii

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 }

ER-OL February 1982 INDEX NUMERICAL LISTING OF RAIs AND RESPONSES RAI RAI NO. PAGE NO. PAGE 240.1 R-1 291.13 R-29 240.2 R-1 291.14 R-30 240.3 R-3 291.15 R-30 240.4 R-3 291.16 R-30 240.5 R-4 291.17 R-31 240.6 R-4 291.18 R-31 240.7 R-4 310.1 R-32 240.8 R-5 310.2 R-32 240.9 R-5 310.3 R-35 240.10 R-6 310.4 R-35 .

240.11 R-8 310.5 R-35 240.12 R-9 320.1 R-36 240.13 R-10 320.2 R-36 240.14 R-10 320.3 R-36 240.15 R-10 320.4 R-37 4 240.16 R-10 320.5 R-37 O 240.17 240.18 240.19 R-11 R-11 R-11 451.01 451.02 451.03 R-40 R-40 R-42 240.20 R-11 451.04 R-44 240.21 R-12 451.05 R-45 I 240.22 R-12 451.06 R-45 ;

240.23 R-12 451.07 R-45 i 240.24 R-12 451.08 R-47 j 240.25 R-12 470.1 R-48 ;

240.26 R-18 470.2 R-48 i 240.27 R-18 470.3 R-50 !

240.28 R-18 470.4 R-53 290.1 470.5

(

R-18 R-54 !

i 290.2 R-18 4

290.3 R-21 i 290.4 R-22 291.1 R-22 291.2 R-23 291.3 R-24 291.4 R-26 291.5 R-26

{

291.6 R-26 291.7 R-26 291.8 R-27 291.9 E -27 ;

fm 291.10 R-28

\, 291.11 R-29 291.12 R-29 '

l i

R-iii !

~ _ _

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O) t 240.1 The Summary and Conclusions section of the CP FES, numbers 7b and (ER) 7c, respectivelf , stipulated that a description and results of analyses or studies, and additional current and wind studies, be provided so that the staff could confirm the adequacy o? the final design of the discharge diffuser, and that a study be undertaken (and provided) with the objective of determining means to minimize the discharge of total residual chlorine. Please provide the information in the appropriate sections of the ER and cross reference the FES. l RESPONSE: Since publication of the CP FES in late 1974, numerous studies and l data collection efforts have been conducted. ER-OLS Sections 2.3 and 6.1.3 describe the meteorological programs, whereas ER-OLS Sections 2.4.1 and 6.1.1.1 describe the hydrographic programs.

This information in turn was used to design the heat dissipation system (described in ER-OLS Section 3.4) af ter extensive hydrothermal model testing (outlined in ER-OLS Section 5.1.2).

The respective reference subsections to these ER sections lists the documents detailing the studies.

Likewise, the plant has been designed to limit total residual chlorine. As described in ER-OLS Section 3.6.1, injection concentrations will be managed to meet EPA effluent guidelines of 0.2 mg/l for the average level of free residual chlorine at the 7-ss

( unit discharge conduit prior to mixing at the entrance to the

\- ') discharge tunnels. Chlorine residuals in the immediate vicinity of diffuser, however, will be substantially lower because of mixing with non-cb1orinated water within the discharge tunnel and the rapid mixing with ambient receiving waters promoted by the i diffuser design (refer to ER-OLS Section 5.3.1).

Other techniques to minimize the discharge of total residual ;

chlorine-heat treatment, antifouling paint, etc., will also be employed. These alternate techniques are also described in ER-OLS Section 3.6.1.

240.2 Descriptions of floodplains, as required by Executi.e Order (2.4) 11988, Floodplain-Management, have not been provided. The (ER) definition used in the Executive Order is:

Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

a. Provide descriptions of the floodplains adjacent to the site. 1hi a suitable map (s) provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent (100-year) l

(}

v flood, both before and af ter plant construction or operation. '

b. Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to a. above. Include your assumptions of, and basis for, the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the flood flows and water. elevations.

R-1

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 If studies approved by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) are available for the site and .other affected areas, the details of the analysis used in the reports need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.

c. Identify, locate on a map and describe all plant structures and topographic alterations in the floodplains.

d. Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in response to c. above. Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, offsite. Discuss the effects on offsite areas of debris generated from the alte during flood events.

e. Provide the details of your analysis used in response to d.

above. The level of detail is similar to that identified in item b. above.

RESPONSE: a. The floodplains adjacent to the site consist of the low lying areas surrounding the tidal zone in the estuary of Hampton Harbor. This broad, flat salt marsh zone adjoins the site to the north, east and south of the site and is identified as Hampton Flats. The western shore of Hampton Harbor lies approximately one mile east of the site.

l The areas that will be flooded by the one percent (100-year) flood are delineated on ER-OLS Figure 240.2-1. Specific areas where this boundary differs for before and after plant construction are also depicted on the figure.

b. To determine the 100-year flood elevation for the site, use was made of the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) approved study for Salisbury, Massachusetts (a copy of this report has been provided to the NRC). This study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers includes a set of i

frequency - tide elevation curves for a coastal reach along the Atlantic Ocean from Ipswich, Massachusetts north to Portsmouth, New Hampshire (refer to Figure 2 of the FIA study). Using this figure, the 100-year tidal flood l

elevation for Seabrook, located approximately 14 miles north from Essex Bay, is 10-feet mean sea level (MSL). As a check on this value a comparison was made between 10-feet MSL and various storms of record along the New Hampshire coastal area.

The " northeast" storms of January and February 1978 are recorded as the worst storms of record for the New 'lampshire coastal area. Tide elevations during the February storm reached unusually high levels as a result of exceptionally high winds measured in excess of 100 MPH offshore of the site and monthly spring tide. Wind and wave damage along the New Hampshire sea coast was substantial and resulted in the designation of several communities as natural disaster areas. The predicted astronomical tide maximum was 6.3-feet R-2

i SB 1 & 2 Rtvision 1 ,

ER-OLS February 1982

+

k.

.(s,/ MSL combined with a surge height of 2.5 feet, resulting in a tidal elevation of 8.8-feet.MSL.

Since the 100-year flood level of 10-feet MSL exceeds all recorded storm levels for Hampton Harbor and exceeds the storm of record (8.8-feet MSL) by 1.2 feet, the 10-foot MSL estimate of the 100-year flood is conservative. A FIA study for the town of Seabrook is presently underway, but will not be complete for approximately one year.

E

c. Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.2-1 which depicts the location of r all plant structures and all topographic alterations in the floodplain. - <

d. There are no hydrologic effects on the floodplain brought .'

about by construction of the station. There is no potential 4

for altered flood flows and levels offsite. There will be no debris generated from the site which would effect offsite 3

areas during flood events.

e. The 100 year flood event for the site is caused by tidal flooding in the Hampton Harbor estuary and the adjoining salt

.j - marsh. Since the amount of encroachment by the station on the floodplain is negligible (refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.2-1) f- the effect-on the flood level is also negligible.

2 I /

' \#

The site drainage system was designed to accommodate the localized probable maximum precipitation without any i significant ponding resulting within the plant area. Site e

grading is 0.5% minimum to encourage runof f. Since the site drainage system can handle precipitation up to and including the probable maximum, there will be no debris generated from ,

the site which will affect offsite areas during flood events.

4 i

240.3. Surface Waters 1 (2.4.1)

(ER) Provide a narrative description of the ocean areas, Hampton Harbor ,

and nearby streams with respect to the site.

RESPONSE: Both the ER-CPS, Section 2.5 and the " Summary Document Assessment 4

of Anticipated Impacts of Construction and Operation of Seabrook l J- Station..." prepared by Normandeau Associates in 1977 (Reference 1 in ER-OLS Section 2.4.1.8) and provided to the NRC (see Response ;

j to RAI 291.4), provide a detailed description of.the Hampton J Harbor vicinity and ocean area.

240.4 Principal Flow Patterns (2.4.1.1.a)

(ER) a. Provide the period of record used tc estimate seasonal

[~')

N_- effects of different flow types, and discuss the extent to which conditions can be different.

R-3 I

SB 1 & 2 R;vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982

b. (Para. 2) What are the units for stated flows in other O j directions?

c. (Para. 2) Are flows at depth in a shorevard direction, or do they have a shoreward component?

RESPONSE: a. ER-OLS Table 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4-1, which were compiled from the six-year period of record 1973-1978, summarize the annual current flow pattern. The seasonal ef fects can be clearly seen by reviewing the dif ferences between the monthly values presented.

b. The unit for all measurements of flow is the knot (kn), which is 1.69 ft/sec (51.5 cm/sec).

c. Shoreward direction flows at depth were Eulerian measured values and not the shoreward component of a vector.

240.5 Tides (2.4.1.2)

(ER) Where were tides measured? Were they open coast measurements, or were measurements made in protected areas?

RESPONSE: Tides were measured in a protected area at the Hampton Harbor Marina, latitude 42 54'08"N, longitude 70 49'06"W. Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1.

240.6 Water Temperature (2.4.1.3)

(ER) Where were and are temperature measurements nade? Provide information for both coastal and harbor areas.

RESPONSE: Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1. Although there have been other monitoring sites, this figure represents data collected from 1975 through most of 1979, at which time a single mooring unit was established along the 50-foot contour midway between the intake and the diffuser sites. The single mooring has been maintained continuously to date.

240.7 Salinity (2.4.1.4)

(ER) a. Where were the data collected?

b. What were the ranges in salinity noted in Hampton Harbor, and what ditferences between seasons were noted?

c. To what extent was salinity stratification in Hampton Harbor noted?

RESPONSE: a. Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1. Salinities were measured at both the Plankton Cruise and Slackwater stations depicted on the figure.

R-4

l Rsvision 1

,,,. 47 9:g. 43- tome Fet'usry 1982 i i I i .

S7' i M 'h O V-1(Ml?) ~ 57'

, 6 l' 2" [

[,j 9 INTAKE SITE ,

GCOFREYS '

\, '

= .= CIFFUSER $1TE ggoog

p. ..

I /

4 2* 56* - .-

/ - 42'56' I s a '

l j

/

_; Q 775 a $fCET7(H7)

Y f . . .

O[77$

g

. p. . . "

> I ~

ss. _

i /

i

,- ; ~l - ss' GREAT BOAR $'

)

HEAD l j ,'

(:: '

k} .

/

olt 5.8..!

/

g145.M.8 BROWT45

. / T INTAKE $1TE Tdt . Ost100R5(M5) {j

~

42 S4' ri 3-5.t:

. IBRJCG(M14)DI 5.8,, pggg ggygg

'MA' .'1PTON O HAMPTON K5(M12) /

MOR (MMIP. HARBOR f't 5POR12(M12)

." I. ,- s "",

' 5160hGlM 5 s f

,?" i 058tR8tn16) ,/ ,

53'- .; \ / t - 33 I { / '7 C

/

s

\ l /

s' a o

/

i f%

s i /a ., i

! /

s_, ,y /

.1 j NO5rc0R9(ns)! !

's, 's \, 'w'

+

t 4 2'52' -

8 / ,/

\ - 42*S2' l 05M00R8(H8) s .

, )'

4 l r a t,

'k \i l' i

sr- .j{ \ \ -S'

'(j

. [ k' O - Plankton Cruise Station

.g \ , O - Slackwater Station 1 \ ! O - Carrent tieter i '\ l e - Temperature Monitor 4 2 so'- lt ! 5 S - Near surface - 42*'

j i, ) H - liid water sauseuRv s

\ B - Near bottom s,

WERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY g 4 9'- , \ - 4 9'

(

'~. l

\*\ g I \

s. .

j

' ' .j.f ,

f[

a s'o 05t2(x2) s y l *#

43'

e- u,

, , i .

70 48' 70'46' 70*44' O

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOCATION MAP OF HYDROGRAPHIC SAMPLING SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 STATIONS OFF HAMPTON BEACH, NEW HAMPSHIRE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 240.6 -1

SB 1 & 2 R2 vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

'<x

)

r

b. The range of salinity values in Hampton Harbor depends on the tide stage and location of measurement (ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1). Measurements at the harbor entrance, for example, can differ significantly from measurements observed at Browns River. Likewise, tidal variation can be large.

In general, Hampton Harbor salinities during high tide average between 30-32 ppt, with the lowest values occurring during the time of spring. runoff (29-30 ppt). At low tide, values average about 28 ppt, but can be as low as 10-15 ppt during the spring. At Browns River, high tide salinity values do not vary greatly and are similar to those recorded at the harbor (30-32 ppt). Values observed during the spring, however, decrease to 10-15 ppt. Low tide salinities, by contrast, vary considerably. Values during most of the year range from 25-29 ppt. During spring runoff conditions, salinities dip to around 15-20 ppt, but may be as low as 5 ppt.

c. Little vertical stratification, if any, occurs in Hampton Harbor.

240.8 Dissolved Oxygen (N- (2.4.1.5)

(ER) Where along the coast, and in Hampton Harbor were data collected?

RESPONSE: Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1. Dissolved oxygen measurements were made at both the Plankton Cruise and Slackwater stations shown on the figure.

240.9 Sedimentological Conditions (2.4.1.6)

(ER) a. Where were the eight stake locations?

b. What has been the experience with shoreline changes along the i coast and in Hampton Harbor?

c. What has been the experience with sediment deposition in ;

Hampton Harbor?

l

d. Have there been any projections of shoreline changes along the open coast, or in Hampton ' Harbor; or of deposition near the intake, discharge or Hampton Harbor? If so, what do they indicate?

RESPONSE: a. Refer to ER-OLS Figure 240.9-1 for the location of the eight pairs of sediment stakes.

s

. . , b. Records from 1776 to 1935 when the Hampton Harbor entrance was stabilized by the construction of two jetties, show that the principal changes at Hampton and Seabrook Beaches were caused by migration of the Hampton Harbor entrance. This migration reversed itself periodically. For example, during

- R-5

i SB 1 & 2 Rivicicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 northward migrations, the south end of Hampton Beach was rapidly eroded while sand spits and bars trailed northward from Seabrook Beach. During southward migrations, the north end of Seabrook Beach eroded while sand spits and bars trailed southward from Hampton Beach. The harbor, likewise, exhibited considerable shoreline meanders during this period, with no predominant trend. Subsequent to 1935, the shoreline along Hampton and Seabrook beaches has shown areas of both erosion and accretion. In general, the area north of Hampton Beach to roughly its middle point has experienced erosion and recession of the high water line. A number of shore protection projects, accordingly, have been undertaken in this area, including the present sea wall and riprap revetment constructed in 1947. The area south of Hampton Beach, including Hampton Harbor and Seabrook Beach, usually undergoes accretion, with some occurrence of erosion.

Since the harbor entrance was successfully stabilized in 1935 Hampton Harbor has generally experienced sediment deposition, resulting in the need for periodic dredgir.g.

Listed below is the amount of material dredged since 1965.

Hampton Harbor Dredging Year Cubic Yards 1965 31,000 O 1968 '17,400 1971 15,000 1973 15,000 1974 17,500 Hampton Harbor Dredging (Continued)

Year Cubic Yards 1976 14,000 1977 7,000 1981 30,000 (estimated)

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981

d. There have been no projections of shoreline changes other than the general trends mentioned in Item b above, and the apparent state of dynamic equilibrium of the sea floor near the intake and discharge areas as stated in ER-OLS Section 2.4.1.6.

240.10 Utilization of Groundwater (2.4.2.1)

(ER) a. How many wells have been developed, or are you intending to develop, onsite? Where are or will they be located, from which hydrologic formation will they draw water and at what elevat, ions?

R-6

i R:: vision 1 '

February 1982 ,

SEABROOK PLANT C00RDINATE 85,000El 90,000E 95,000E 100,000E 7Cf50, 48, 70*46' g g i I l/ \ )

42*5S*- b iY . ! - 42*55' O 5 i NAUTIC AL MILES . . '-

25,000N p O I

2 KILOMETERS IB 30

. ii -

60 f ;

30,000N ' e INTAKE SITE "? e' I 9'.tW

== DIFFUSER SITE .

=; /.

'q M d7 } j " d .. 1 ,,J = -

. u- _-

20,0001 55 - ~'

' , , - ' - ~ ~ . W' '

/ 3,4 + f ' ' , ,[.

x ;/!

25,000N ' j% W z. ; ;

/

).. [! * - _ .

g

.f ff . / \ ,...

?

y 'h ^ .l . N ~ '. h HAMPTON RIVER ' . g'. \ $ I

' IllTAKE SITE .;

,. s 's E - -

?, (

15,16 khA d; ,1, 't l

f*

',l h 3

y l

/ SEDIMENT TRAP 7'g f:

.' ;. M ,000N

\.s-8,..\ ~ ,6.5 .

vO '

,y f \i 5 l -

/,

54'- ,.-1 3 ff ._, \ .

( l .2 ' .i : 54 20,000N f -

5.I, 's, [ "'

k, . ,* : g

.11,12 DIFFUSER

%s - ... h .

o SITE

, -:l , Zl- - - ~,

l o .

,s. g%,

_ ; **' e a *' , s.. sa e.* . + .

e:

/ / o e .

13,14

\ .

? i!

o /

$r so p o, u x

-/

. . ..e,.:: . .

_ jj

y 10,000N

,- eyl/> 9,10 ;- ,

p 53,_

'. (h t' Y {t g .> l

\

- 53' 15,000N y .,5/*

I,

-(s .

\

p : i

.'?s ,$ ! s' 4

.r l i s * - ~~. -

. . . , l !

: .-s [-

y P '; i. .

t :

j - '

\, e

?

- ! :) -

10,000N '

i M

42*52' - A -

, SEDIt!ENT STAKES - 42*52'

[

7Cf50 l

85,000E

/ l 48' \

90,000E

\

95,000E 70*46']

(

\

ln

,v PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOCATION MAP FOR SEDIMENT STAKES SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 OFF HAMPTON BEACH, NEW HAMPSHIRE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 240.9 -1

SB 1 & 2 R3visicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 V b. Where does the Town of Seabrook obtain its water?

~

c. During the CP no mention was made of obtaining fresh water from onsite wells. What is the reason for not supplying all the plant's freshwater needs from the Town of Seabrook and why does the change not constitute a significant environment ;

impact? ,

RESPONSE: a. When it became apparent that the municipal water system would "

not supply all the water needs for the construction, an exploratory program for groundwater was begun on the project property. Four wells were drilled in the Hampton Falls part of.the site and six more in the Seabrook part. Of these >

wells, three in each town were deemed capable of development and pumps were installed. The wells in Hampton Falls are located in schistose rocks of the Merrimack group and those in Seabrook lie in plutonic rocks of the Newburyport formation. In these wells, water-bearing fractures have been intercepted at depths of 130 to 170 feet. -The static water level is about 10-feet below ground level.

b. The Town of Seabrook obtains its water f rom six wells located t in the western part of town. These wells are all in glacial deposits. The town is presently developing a major new !

p source of water from a bedrock structure on the western !

Q border of the town. :

c. The Town of Seabrook unilaterally attempted to cut off all municipal water to the project in 1977. Negotations with the town which were embraced by court order, required the town to supply 50,000 gallons per day to the project. With that restriction on project use imposed at a level that would not support construction, an investigation into alternative sources was done. Sources evaluated included: trucking from several locations, piping water from other systems outside of ;

town, saltwater and sewage effluent treatment and onsite -

groundwater. Test wells were drilled and proved feasible to ;

meet the needs of construction.

The use of the groundwater does not constitute a significant impact since what impact may result from pumping will be more l than offset by corrective measures. The only impact which :

could be considered significant in this case would be one in which another user's quantity or quality of water was i l- degraded. Near the Seabrook portion of the site there are no l 1 other users of groundwater who could be influenced. In l Hampton Falls, an extensive test program was conducted in +

cooperation with the town. .During the test, one nearby I residential dug well went dry. The Applicant installed a f.,y bedrock well and pump which has functioned since then. Two }

( other nearby residences have the option to have wells drilled for them also if the need or desire arises.

Monitoring of groundwater levels and quality are required 4

under an order from the N.H. Public Utility Commission. t R-7

l SB 1 & 2 Rivicien 1 ER-OLS February 1982 l i

Considering the care taken to insure water is available to nearby residents and the comprehensive monitoring program to insure quality is not degraded, the Applicant believes no significant impact will result.

240.11 Tables and Figures (2.4)

(ER) a. What are the titles for columns 2 and 3 of Table 2.4-37

b. Where do the data presented on Figure 2.4-1 apply?

c. Where do the data presented on Figure 2.4-2 apply?

d. On Figure 2.4-3 : -

1. What is true north; plant north?

2. Does the grid system correspond with Table 2.4-3?

3. What are the contour intervals, and to what datum?

4. Where are adjacent water bodies (i.e., Hampton Harbor) located with respect to the plant?

RESPONSE: a. Column 2 shows the north coordinates fer both the magnetic h grid (MG) and the plant grid (PG) in feet. Column 3 shows the east coordinates for both the magnetic grid (MG) and the plant grid (PG) in feet.

To convert from plant grid to magnetic grid and vice versa use the following equations with N and E for the magnetic and N' and E' for the plant grid.

Converting PG to MG:

N = 9055.44 + N' (0.9533664) + E' (0.301815.3)

E = 76975.95 - N' (0.3018153) + E' (0.9533664)

Converting MG to PG:

N' = 14599.36 + N (0.9533664) - E (0.3018153)

E' = -76119.36 + N (0.3018153) + E (0.9533664)

b. The data presented apply for the vicinity of the intakes and the diffuser and are a composite from records collected at stations located at these sites (see ER-OLS Figure 240.6-1).

c. Refer to the response for item b above.

d.1 True north is labeled as north in the lower right hand corner of the figure. Magnetic north has a 160 counterclockwise declination from true north. Plant north has a further R-8

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 (3l 17036' counterclockwise declination from magnetic north.

(._

Therefore, plant north has a 33 34' counterclockwise declination from true north, d.2 Yes, both magnetic and plant grid coordinates are listed in the ER-OLS Table 2.4-3 whereas; only plant grid is shown on ER-OLS Figure 2.4-3.

d.3 The contour interval is 20 feet and the datum is mean sea level.

d.4 The Browns River flows in an easterly direction north of the plant and discharges into Hampton Harbor approximately 1 mile east of the plant.

Also on ER-OLS Figure 2.4-3 note that the scale of 1" = 1000' does not apply due to shrinkage in reproduction. For scaling purposes use the 1000' grid spacing.

ER-OLS Figure 2.4-3 will be updated to incorporate these responses.

240.12 Plant Water Use (3.3)

(,)

f-~s (ER) a. The text indicates onsite wells and the Town of Seabrook are the two sources of freshwater. Figure 3.3-1, however, indicates Hampton Falls wells. Please explain this discrepancy.

b. Is the 120,000 gpm consumptive freshwater usage for one unit, or two?

c. Table 3.3-1 and numbers in the text do not appear to agree; please verify?

d. Will the emergency towers be operated at low flow rates in the winter to prevent freezing? If so, will blowdown be significant during such periods?

RESPONSE: a. Figure 3.3-1 identifies onsite wells in the Town of Seabrook (circle 5) and onsite wells in the Town of Hampton Falle (circle 6).

b. The use of 120,000 gallons per day during construction is an average demand for the work on both units.

c. To the best of our ability to estimate average numbers, the numbers in Section 3.3 are consistent.

A t j d. Occasionally the cooling tower may require de-icing. Since

'~' the Applicant currently plans to use freshwater for makeup, blowdown will be infrequent and minimal.

R-9

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 240.13 Table 3.3-1 (ER)

a. Item 9 appears too high for the limited testing and use contemplated for the emergency cooling towers. Please verify.

b. Does the note for item 10 apply to one unit or two?

RESPONSE: a. Current estimates have been revised to 20 days use per year assuming a nominal possible use of cooling towers during thermal backflushing operations of every two weeks during the biofouling season and once monthly during the other portion of the year. Current FSAR Technical Specifications require operation of each cooling tower fan for at least once every 31 days; this will contribute negligible water use.

b. Two 500,000 gallon capacity storage tanks serve the station.

Connections to the tanks reserve at least 300,000 gallons in each for fire fighting.

240.14 Figure 3.3-1 (ER)

a. The text indicates cooling tower blowdown will be routed to the settling basin. If so, please amend the figure accordingly.

b. Please indicate the discharge from the settling basin into Ebmpton Harbor.

RESPONSE: a. The cooling tower blowdown will be routed to the circulating water system. ER-OLS Figure 3.3-1 has been revised accordingly.

I

b. ER-OLS Figure 3.3-1 will be amended to indicate the discharge from the settling basin into Hampton Harbor.

240.15 Description of Heat Dissipation System (3.4.2)

(ER) Please include a brief description of the emergency standby system, or cross-reference applicable text in other sections.

RESPONSE: For a description of the shutdown cooling system (cooling tower) see ER-OLS Section 5.3.2 and FSAR Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.5.

240.16 --Intake System (3.4.2.2)

(ER) Please clarify the number of intake structures; 1, 2 or 3.

RESPONSE: Refer to ER-OLS Section 3.4.2.2 and ER-OLS Figure 3.4-3. '?here.

l are three (3) intake structures, each of which is connected to the intake tunnel by a 10-foot ID riser shaft.

B-10

SB 1 & 2 Ravision I ER-OLS February 1982 A

240.17 Discharge System (3.4.2.3)

, (ER) (Para. 2) Either the discharge flow rate or the numerical value given and its units are not correct. Please correct.

RESPONSE: ' Change " discharge flow rate" to " discharge velocity".

i 240.18 Figure 3.4-1 (ER)

a. What are contour interval units, and to what datum?

b. Where is the diffuser?

c. Where are the three 3 (?) intakes? :

RESPONSE: a. The contour interval units are feet relative to MSL (Mean Sea Level) .

b. The diffuser is located in the area marked " Discharge Site",

which is approximately latitude 42053'35"N, longitude

< 70047'55"W.

4

! c. The three intakes are located in the area marked " Intake 4 Site", which is approximately latitude 42054'20"N, l

N - longitude 70047 ' 10"W .

240.19 Figure 3.4-3 (ER)

Why has the design of the intake structure (s) been altered over that presented in the CP ER?

RESPONSE: The intake design was changed from one intake structure to three intake structures to allow better construction techniques to be used.

240.20 Sanitary and Other Waste Systems ,

(3.7)'

(ER) What limitations have been imposed, or will you impose, on ,

dissolved solids and temperature in settling basin effluents?

RESPONSE: No dissolved solid limitations have been imposed on the settling basin effluent. A maximum discharge temperature of 83 F during cooling tower operations is mandated by the NPDES Permit. f However, during normal operation of the plant, only the storm I water runoff and secondary floor drainage will pass through the basin. The cooling tower blowdown will be routed to the ,

circulating water system. I !

Os- :

R-il ,

. . - - - - ~ , _ - . . . , _ _ , _- w w ,.

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 240.21 Federal Thermal Criteria (5.1.1.1)

(ER) Discuss any consequences of mechanical draf t tower blowdown through the settling basin.

RESPONSE: The cooling tower blowdown, if any, will be discharged to the circulating water system. Therefore, there will be no impact to the settling basin or Brown's River.

1 240.22 New Hampshire Thermal Criteria (5.1.1.2)

(ER) a. Under no. 2, where are the points established?

i

b. Under no. 3, what is the delineated mixing zone?

RESPONSE: a. To date, the New Hampshire Water Supply Commission and Pollution Control Commission (NHWSPCC) has neither established temperature measurement points nor a mixing zone.

b. Refer to Item a. above.

240.23 Physical Effects (5.1.2)

(ER) a. Describe what , if any, activities will be undertaken to confirm the thermal design studies?

b. Reference 90 is wrong. Please correct.

RESPONSE: a. The Applicant intends to conduct various hydrothermal discharge tests after station completion. These tests will be designed to verify that the discharge system will meet the requirements established by the EPA. Details of the type of tests or their scope, however, have not been finalized.

b. The correct reference number should be "9," not "90."

240.24 Cooling Tower Discharge (5.3.2)

(ER) See Question 240.12, para. d.

RESPONSE: Refer to response to RAI 240.12, para. d.

240.25 Environmental Ef fects of Accidents (7)

(ER) Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accilent. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and lh that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, R-12

i' L

t-SB 1 & 2 Rsvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

\_- 1978). Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations affected, water use). It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic Engineering Section be arranged so that we' may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this' analysis.

RESPONSE: The Liquid Pathway Generic Study (LPGS)(1) calculated the population doses from accidents involving liquid ~ pathways for design basis events and for events greater than the design basis.

One of the conclusions reached by this study was that doses from design basis events were much lower (in the order of several hundred man-rem to the thyroid) than from events involving core melt. This analysis for Seabrook has therefore concentrated on core melt events in determining the relative risk of Seabrook from .

accidents involving liquid pathways.

This determination of relative risk was made by identifying thost parameters used in the LPGS analysis to calculate population doses and comparing their values at the LPGS ocean site with that at the ,

Seabrook Station site. The ratio of each parameter is the '

" multiplier" relating population doses between- the two sites (see ER-OLS Table 240.25-1). Multipliers were determined for the following parts of the liquid pathways:

A. Source term B. Groundwater transport

1. Travel time of groundwater

2. Source availability 1 3. Retardation by sorption C. Surface water transport D. Usage of the water bodies

1. Aquatic food

2. Shoreline usage The foundations of the Seabrook Station reactors are located in

the bedrock of the site. A large portion of the site, including i

Unit 1, is founded on a gneissoid phase of the Newburyport quartz diorite intrusive; a hard,' durable crystalline igneous rock consisting of medium-to-course-grained quartz diorite matrix

' intimately enclosing inclusions of dark gray, fine-grained i diorite. A small portion of the site, including much of Unit 2, l

is founded on Merrimack Group metaquartzite and granulite which ;

occurs as a large relict inclusion welded into the enclosing Newburyport igneous mass along a broad, transitional-intrusive contact zone. The physical, chemical and mechanical qualities of A- the rock 11n the Merrimack Group metamorphic inclusion are comparable to those of the Newburyport igneous rock.

1 R-13

--c-- . , - - -,n 4, - , , - , - - - - . _ - - ,, . . .-. -- , . , - - - - , , . - .

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Croundwater at the site generally occurs between 10 and 15 feet mean sea level (MSL). The basemats of the reactors, approximately

-70 feet MSL, are below the water table.

The groundwater gradient in the region is clearly toward the ocean. There are no wells between the site and the ocean, so no drinking water pathway could be af fected by an accidental contamination of the groundwater. There is virtually no possibility of a reversal of the groundwater gradient due to heavy pumping inland, particularly because such a reversal would, at the same time, cause an unacceptable intrusion of saltwater into the aquifer. Therefore, liquid radioactivity released from a core melt accident could only cause contamination by being transported through the groundwater and subsequently released to the Atlantic Ocean.

A conservative estimate of the shortest groundwater path to the nearest down-gradient water body, the Browns River, is estimated to be 1,000 feet through the bedrock followed by approximately 110 feet through marine and swamp deposits. A conservative estimate of the groundwater travel time would be 48 years, 10.3 years through the bedrock portion and 37.7 years through the soil portion. Groundwater travel time in the bedrock was estimated by applying Darcy's Law and checked using dewatering information from the major excavations on site. To estimate the groundwater travel time through the soil portion of the pathway, Darcy's Law was applied using the most conservative measured or estimated parameters.

Conservative values of the retardation factors, which reflect the effects of sorption on geologic materials, were estimated for the bedrock and soil, for the two radionuclides that were *mportant contributors to the population dose in the LPGS, i.e. , Sr-90 and Cs-137. In the bedrock, retardation f actors of 8.6 for Sr-90 and 154 for Cs-137 were used for the fractured crystalline bedrock (3). In the soil underlying the marsh, the retardation factors were conservatively estimated to be 15 for Sr-90 and 141 for Cs-137. These retardation f actors were estimated using Equation B-35 of the LPCS study. The equilibrium distribution coefficients for Sr and Cs were conservatively chosen as 2 and 20, respectively. The mean transport times from the Unit 1 reactor building to the Atlantic Ocean is, therefore, conservatively estimated to be about 650 years for Sr-90 and about 6,900 years for Cs-137. When these travel times are compared to 5.7 years for Sr-90 and 51 years for Cs-137 in the LPGS land-based ocean site case, virtually all of the Sr-90 and Cs-137 would have decayed before reaching the surface water. Parameters used to calculate radionuclide travel times and relative doses are listed in ER-OLS Table 240.25-2.

Contaminants released from the shoreline would disperse in the oceanic turbulence. The LPGS made no distinction between the turbulence that would be found in the east, Gulf, or west coasts of the United States. Tne only assumption which can be made R-14 1

- , ~ .- . .- . . - . - - - . . _ _ - . . - -

l i SB 1 & 2 Rsvision 1 i

.ER-OLS February 1982 ;

i

,C (N

\s,) . without site-specific data is that the mixing at the Seabrook '

Station and LPGS sites is similar.

4 ,

- The two major liquid exposure pathways for an ocean site without a '

4 drinking water pathway, are aquatic food consumption and direct shoreline exposure. The commercial and recreational finfish and-shellfish harvest for a-rectangular block 80 km alongshore and

stretching 40 km offshore from Seabrook Station has been estimated l to be about 24.0 x 106 kg. This estimate is based on information and data obtained from the National Marine Fisheries i I Service. For comparison, the same size block using the LPGS ocean !

-site fish catch densities would yield about 5.8 x 10 6 kg of finfish. .,

i' . -

Therefore, fish production from the ocean in the vicinity of the I Seabrook Station has been estimated to be approximately four times !

{ the generic ocean site in the LPGS. Most of the dose from fish

consumption resulted from the two radionuclides discussed above however, and, since these will effectively decay the dose from this pathway will be much lower for Seabrook than for the LPGS i

site.

i The annual population beach usage factor within the 50-mile radius-of Seabrook was estimated in two parts. For the O to 10-mile j, radius of beach, the summer (June-August) transient population in r the NNE through south sectors, with respect to the site, were [

derived from the seasonal resident, hotel / motel, campground and

,' daily transient population groups as given on Figures 2.1-10, 2.1-11, 2.1-12, 2.1-13, 2.1-15 and 2.1-19 of the SB-FSAR. In the !

case of daily transients associated with beach parking lots and

} on-street parking, the maximum capacity figures given-on FSAR :

Figures 2.1-15 and .2.1-19 were multiplied by 0.79 to represent the maximum observed population associated with these two categories '

in three years of observation. . This single day (Sunday) peak !

observed beach population was then adjusted by applying the ;

average observed daily population loading factor as derived from

, Figure 2.1-17 of the SB-FSAR. For weekdays, this factor l

represented 46% of the single day peak observed values, while the l Sa turdays' loading factor was estimated to be 66% of the Sunday i observed peak. These results were then added to the other '

seasonal transient groups noted above. These daily population i 4

beach area inventories were then multiplied by the number of weekdays (64) or weekend days (13 Saturdays, 13 Sundays) assumed i to represent the summer beach season. These values were then i

multiplied by a daily average beach population loading factor (0.27) which corrected the peak observed population values that relate to the maximum number of people on the beach during the height of the beach day to an hourly average value over an entire i

j 24-hour period. This hourly loading factor was derived from the time-of-day vehicle distribution data in SB-FSAR Figure. 2.1.16.

4

()

( ,/

Finally, a multiplier of 0.25 is used to estimate the fraction of time that beach users, while on the beach, are in the active . area f

of radioactivity deposition at the ocean-shoreline interface. The ;

resulting multiplication of peak observed population, times daily ' i usage factor, times hourly average loading factor, times shoreline {

R-15 I

.__ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ __ . _ . ~ _ - _, ~ ._ _ J

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 exposure period gives an estimate of the number of person-hours / year of beach use. The total 0-10 mile population 6

occupancy factor is estimated to be 9.8 x 10 person-hours / year.

The second part of the estimate involves the beach usage between 10 and 50 miles from the site. For beaches north of the site, an estimate of beach capacity of 33,148 persons (FSAR-Section 2.1.3.3.f.l.a.) was multiplied by 90 days per year summer season, the 0.27 average hourly loading factor per day, plus the 0.25 shoreline exposure fraction. For beaches south of the site, no specific beach capacity estimates were identified. Therefore for the 40 miles of beach area assumed to be south of the site, an average capacity loading of 1 person per 2 feet of beach was used to estimate the beach capacity, and this then corrected as noted above.

The beach usage factor for the 10-50 mile radius was estimated to be 2.0 x 107 person-hour per year. Thetotal0-50mileradiu9 beach usage population value is thus estimated to be 3.0 x 10 person-hours / year.

The shoreline usage factors discussed above show that the total man-hours may be slightly higher than was assumed in the LPGS.

Essentially, all of the shoreline and swimming exposure in the LPGS ocean site came from Cs-137. However, since decay will remove Cs-137 before it reaches the ocean at Seabrook, this pathway can be eliminated.

The LPCS determined that accidents involving liquid pathways did not contribute significantly to public risk. This analysis has shown that liquid pathway accidents involving the Seabrook Station would be of much lower consequence than was reported for the LPGS site. Therefore these types of accidents are not expected to significantly increase the risk from the operation of Seabrook.

Mitigating actions which could be undertaken to decrease liquid pathway impacts following a core-melt accident include the following:

1. Injection or withdrawal of water;

2. Lowering of the watertable;

3. Installation of a grout curtain.

For Seabrook Station; the third method, installation of a grout curtain, would be the most reasonable approach to source interdiction. The first two methods would probably not be feasible due to the local topography, location of the melt debris, and proximity of the site to the ocean.

Injection of a chemical grout slurry curtain through holes slant-drilled to a depth belew the core debris could be engineered to form an effective waterproof seal around the debris creating a permanent isolation barrier.

1 R-16

4 i SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 l ER-OLS February 1982 i.

I

References to 240.25 i 1. U.S. huclear Regulatory Commission,1978, " Liquid Pathway Generic Study",

NUREG-0440, February 1978.

l

2. FSAR Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.

} 3. Draft Environmental Statement, V.C. Summet' Station / Unit No. 1, NUREG-0534 ;

l Supplement, USNRC, November 1980.

.i 1

A i

i I

}

i l

O e-l 1

I l !

J I

1 R-17

-- , . - - - .-,, ..,------~.-c,---- , , . - - - - - - - , . - , - - - - . . - - . . . - - - , - - - - . . . ----.---,---n..-,.-en--

SB 1 & 2 R:vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 240.26 Environmental Radiological Monitering (6.2.1.2)

(ER) Will settling pond effluents be monitored?

RESPONSE: Since there are no potential pathways for any liquid radioactive material in the settling pond during the preoperational phase of Seabrook, the effluents from the settling pond will not be monitored for radioactivity. During the operational phase, discharges of potentially radioactive effluent will be to the circulating water system. Seabrook Station will monitor all ef fluent pathways in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.21.

240.27 Discharge ~ System (10.3)

(ER) See question 240.12, part d.

RESPONSE: Refer to resporse to RAI 240.12, part d.

240.28 Environmental Approvals and Consultations (12)

(ER) What permits are required, and what is their status, for settling basin effluents?

RESPONSE: The settling basin discharges into the Browns River and therefore, a NPDES permit is required. Currently, this discharge is permitted under permit No. NH0020338. Application for renewal of this permit was made to EPA Region I on January 30, 1981, but because of delay in issuance of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category performance standards, the permit processing is stalled. The applicant is covered by the old permit under Administrative Procedures Act wording that allows an expired NPDES permit to remain in ef fect if reapplication has been made and if the permit is not reissued due to factors beyond the permittees control.

290.1 Terrestrial Resources (ER Sec.

4.1) Provide a site map indicating location of additional space cleared for equipment laydown and construction facilities, and provide an estimate of the amount of upland woods cleared.

RESPONSE: ER-OLS Figure 290.1-1 is an aerial black and white photograph of the site and its immediate environs. The areas cleared for construction and permanent plant structures are visible except for 9.2 acres cleared since the photograph was taken in June, 1981.

In total,193.5 acres have been cleared since the start of construction.

290.2 Provide a description of the grounding systems and line clearances (ER Sec. which will be used to reduce operating induced voltages and 5.5) currents in conducting objects such as fences and large vehicles, R-18

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 (

c TABLE 240.25-1 ,

Summary of Factors in Seabrook and LPCS Ocean Site Comparison Factor LPGS Seabrook Multiplier A. Source Term 3411 Mwth 3411 Mwth Equal to unity B. Groundwater Transport

1. Travel time 6.7 ft/ day 0.26 ft/ day Much less than of water in bedrock unity 0.008 ft/ day .i in soil

2. Source Source directly Source directly Equal to unity availability immersed in immersed in flowing flowing groundwater groundwater

3. Retardation 9.2 for Sr 8.6 for Sr, Less than unity .

coefficients bedrock

('~'

83 for Cs +

154 for Cs, '

bedrock 15 for Sr, soil 141 for Cs, soil C. Surface' Water - -

Assumed equal to Transport unity I

D. Usage

1. Aquatic food .5.8 x 106 kg 24.0 x 106 kg Approximately finfish finfish and equal to 4

' shellfish 4

2. Shoreline 1.1 x 107 3 x 107 Approximately ;

usage man-hrs /yr man-hrs /yr equal to 3 O .

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 240.25-2 Parameters Used for Seabrook Station Parameter Value Permeabilities Kbedrock = 2.1 gpd/ft 2 Ksoil = 0.6 gpd/ft 2 Groundwater gradients Ibedrock = 0.014 ft/ft Isoil = 0.02 ft/ft Distance from reactor to nearest Lbedrock = 1,000 ft surface water leading to ocean Lsoil = 110 ft

= 1,110 ft Ltotal Retardation factors for ion exchange Sr - 8.6 bedrock, 15 soil in soil Cs - 154 bedrock, 141 soil Porosity Bedrock = 0.015 Soil = 0.2 Fish harvest statistics Commercial 0-3 miles 214 kg/ha/yr 3-12 uiles 42 kg/ha/yr 12-200 miles 17.3 kg/ha/yr Recreational 0-3 miles 87 kg/ha/yr 3-12 miles 26.5 kg/ha/yr 12-25 miles 7.6 kg/ha/yr Shoreline usage beach season duration weekdays 64 days Saturdays 13 days Sundays 13 days beach population (daily weekdays 59,216 persons peak values) (0-10 miles)

Saturdays 78,601 persons (0-10 miles) 1

- . . . . . .= . . - . - _ _ . . - - ., .- -.-. .. . - -

I I

i SB 1 & 2 R* vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 4 4 l .

TABLE 240.25-2 1 Parameters Used for Seabrook Station (Continued)

[ Sundays 93,799 persons

(0-10 miles) ,

l All days. 138,748 persons l (10-50 miles) i Shoreline usage average daily population .27 beach loading factor I fraction of time persons .25

on beach are in active land-ocean interface zone 1

}

)

i i

4 i

w 4

k l

l l

i 1 -' . i i I 4

i I

I

, - - - - ~ . - , , , - - - - - , , , -._,---,.,v-,, . . , , . .n,, . , . , a .,

, , , , , - , , - , , , ,gnm,,.,4,, m ,,m.w,,,-wn,-.---,-n-,,,..m,,, ..n-,-vv

Revision 1 February 1982 O g,W ,

i'Ts U.

.. cw sj ~- i q.: ,-.

,; y.$' ,

, e:_ .. - y;k ,jg,.

M,[+g /,

3 /

'g fil;g4 p/

pih. .bf

. / '

[ t [ y hf o x,v;&M bfa:.

' T aq e

't.

, t s,. 1;F .

ftf ,

l'

~~

=. ' s i ;

_g,

, 3 p* *}*-~ ;f p.fE+g{* y

_ ,. ;m

~;-

r ,

,gu , _,w_ '

Q\ '. i ^

,;f W

A . . . ,

jQ' 4 4l w{,

b kh . , .,- s)*#

at-p, j ):'y f ^ !. s

/gp 7'7" . .; ,, ,

b Q. s b

.)D(

lM -: ,h kh*

.5 .

.-. . ... S1 ?..

l lO AERI AL PHOTOGRAPH (JUNE 1981) OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK SITE AND ITS IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 SHOWING AREAS CLEARED FOR CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND PERMANENT PLANT STRUCTURE CPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 290.1-1

SB 1 & 2 R;visien 1 ER-OLS February 1982 c

's / in the vicinity of the right-of-way. Provide an estimation of the maximum electrical fields (in kilovolts per meter) at a one-meter height beneath the proposed transmission lines and at the edge of the right-of-way. Provide an assessment of the biological significance of the electric fields to be generated by operation of the Seabrook transmission facilities.

RESPONSE: The 345 kV transmission lines from Seabrook have local grounds at each structure with two overhead statics and a counterpoise. It is the intent to have the equivalent of a continuous counterpoise along the various routes.

These lines are designed for a minimum ground clearance of 35 feet with the conductor temperature of 100 C0 in New Hampshire, and a minimum of 30 feet ground clearance at 140 C conductor temperature in Massachusetts. Ground clearance over parking lots where vehicles could be parked ie designed for a minimum of 50-foot with a conductor temperature of 100 0 C.

All fences in or along the right-of-way, regardless of orientation to the centerline of the transmission line, are grounded at 50 feet intervals. All gates are also grounded.

The electric field strength on the H-Frame portion of the lines is

() estimated to be a maximum 5.7 kV/ meter at one-meter height beneath

(_,/ the proposed transmission lines at minimum design clearances noted above. At the edge of the right-of-way with the narrowest right-of-way, the estimated field strength will not be over 2.2 kV/ meter. For most of the line, the estimated field strength at the edge of the right-of-way will not exceed 1.6 kV/ meter.

The electric field strength for the single pole portion of the Seabrook-Newington line in Portsmouth is estimated to 3.8 kV/ meter beneath the line and not over 0.9 kV/ meter at the edge of the right-o f-way. The field strength for the portion of line along the railroad right-of-way north from Seabrook, will be less than the Portsmouth area because the clearance above ground is greater due to required railroad clearances.

The maximum electrical fields at various points within and at the edge of the right-of-way are given above. Based on previous assessments of extra high voltage (EHV) transmission line health and environmental effects that have considered a wide range of potential problems, the applicant believes the 345 kV Seabrook lines will not produce any significant health or environmental risks.

This Seabrook transmission f acility assessment relies heavily on two sources - a New York Public Service Commission (PSC) hearing x on 765 kV power lines and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

( ) (EPA) document (ORP/SEPD 80-13). Both informational sources are

-' comprehensive in their review of EHV environmental effects. The New York 765 kV hearings lasted nearly three years; considered the expert testimony of 31 witnesses; and yielded a record that runs over 17,000 pages. The EPA document is based on an agency review R-19

SB 1 & 2 Revicicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 of over 150 technical papers. Although dif ferent in some ways, the purpose of the two evaluations was essentially similar - each was evalusting the potential health risks associated with operation of EHV transmission lines. To do this, both considered the following subjects:

1. Ozone - Ozone is a gas produced by the conductors of a transmission line whenever those conductors are in a corona stage, i.e., the effect produced from the attachment of foreign aubstances such as ice or raindrops. Ozone is produced largely under adverse weather conditions. In large amounts, ozone can produce adverse effects in both animals and plants.

2. Pacemakers - Implanted cardiac pacemakers may be adversely af fected by electric or magnetic fields. Since high 5.oltage transmission lines create such fields, the possible effect on pacemakers has received careful attention.

3. Electric Shock and Operating Experience - Electric fields surrounding transmission lines will induce an electric charge in conducting objects within the right-of-way. Persons who are partially or fully grounded and touch such objecta may receive a spark discharge or be shocked by a steady current.

4. Noise - The corona stage for transmission line conductors produces a noise that is audible to the human ear at various distances. This noise is a wet conductor phenomenon which occurs during conditions of rain, fog, or snow. The effect of noise on persons and dwellings on or near the right-of-way has been the subject of some investigatica.

5. Biological Ef fects of Magnetic and Electrical Fields - This area of inquiry is one that draws much attention. This category covers long-term ef fects due to the direct interaction of EHV fields with the body of the exposed o rganism. Effects evaluated are typically subtle and may involve investigation of behavioral, endocrinal, neurological, hematological, or epidemiological data.

Neither the New York PSC nor the EPA found EHV fields to pose a risk to human health. The recommended decision of the two administrative law judges who heard the New York case reads as follows on the specific concerns mentioned above:

Ozone - No substantial hazard f rom ozone is posed by EHV transmission lines.

Pacemakers - No substantial hazard to wearers of pacemakers is expected from EHV transmission lines.

Electric Shock - For EHV lines designed as proposed in this case, there is no risk of serious electric shock.

R-20

SB 1 & 2 Rivision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

, I s- / Audible Noise - No serious condition of audible noise will be caused by EHV lines constructed as proposed in this case.

Effects on Wildlife - No adverse effects upon wildlife will be caused by operation of the EHV lines proposed in this case.

Ef fects on Humans - Occasional exposure to the electric and magnetic fields of the EHV lines proposed in this case does not present a hazard to human health.

One further conclusion by these judges is pertinent. They state that, "None of the evidence in this proceeding indicates a need for the Commission to take any action with respect to transmission lines operating at voltages lower than the 765 kV." One should be reminded that at Seabrook we are talking about 345 kV lines with maximum field strengths that are substantially lower than the 765 kV field strengths evaluated by New York PSC.

The EPA evaluation of EHV fields contains the conclusory statement, "it also appears to be reasonably well-established that the normal environment produced by such transmission lines does not produce any significant health or environmental risk."

One final point, Public Service Company of New Hampshire has

'~~") operated about 175 miles of 345 kV line for over 11 years. The q_,/ design of this line is similar to that approved for Seabrook transmission facilities. Over this time, there have not been customer complaints associated with perceived electric field health impairments.

290.3 (ER Sec.

6.1.4.3) Provide the list of federal and state endangered and threatened plant and animal species referred to in ER Section 6.1.4.3.

RESPONSE: The list of New Hampshire endangered and threatened species is as follows:

Endangered Atlantic Salmon Sunapee Trout Shortnose Sturgeon Atlantic Sturgeon Timber Rattlesnake

Bald Eagle

Peregrine Lynx s'

Indiana Bat

( )

Threatened Common Loon Cooper's Hawk R-21

SB 1 & 2 R:vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Marsh Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Golden Eagle Osprey Upland Sandpiper Common Tern Arctic Tern Whip poor-will Purple Martin Eastern Bluebird Pine Marten Bobcat American Shad A list of the federal endangered and threatened plant and animal species can be found in 50CFR17.ll and 50CFR17.12.

Also appears on the Federal Endangered Species List 290.4 There is no discussion of audible noise in ER-OLS Section 3.9 (ER) as stated in ER-OLS Section 5.5.

RESPONSE: ER-OLS Section 5.5 incorrectly referenced ER-OLS Section 3.9 for a discussion of audible noise. The discussion of audible noise from the transmission lines remains unchanged from that presented in Section 5.6 of the Seabrook Station ER-CPS.

291.0 Aquatic Resources Section 2.1.3.4 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries This section states that anglers catch greater than one million pounds of striped bass anually from the marine waters within a 50-mile radius of Seabrook.

291.1 a. Provide similar estimates of annual angler harvests for the (ER) other major recreational finfish species noted in ER.

RESPONSE: a. Available estimates and most current data for major marine recreational finfish are presented in Table 291.1-1.

Estimates for marine species listed in the ER-OLS and not in the table were not available.

The number of freshwater species stocked and described in Table 2.1-32 of the ER-OLS are assumed to be roughly the number harvested as this is a "put and take" fishery.

Estimates for other freshwater species are not available.

R-22

SB 1 & 2 Rsvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 291.1-1 Estimated Total Number of Fish Caught by Marine Recreational Fishermen, By Species atd State Jan. 197 v - De c . 1979 l Species Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts .

Thousands ,

Basses Sea *

330 Bluefish 969 Bonito, Atlantic Catfishes, Sea *

l

* ~*

Catfishes, Freshwater (

Cod, Atlantic 396 99 1,835 {

Cunner ~

57 914 .

L Eel, American

73 Flounders, Summer

378 i Flounders, Winter 179_ 252 10,249 -

Flounders 148 !

Hakes 57 475 :

Herrings Mackerel, Atlantic 373 334 1,093 -

Mackerels and Tunas *

Perch, White

103

, Pinfish ~* * ,

Pollock 276 419 1,510 l Porgies *

Puffers * * ~* '

Scup *

949 '

Sea Robins 118

Sharks ~* ~*

a Sharks, Dogfish 87 Skates and Rays 130 Smelts _

120 521 Striped Bass

59 Tautog *

54 ;

Toadfishes * *

Tomcod, Atlantic 698 i Trigger and Filefishes * *

Weakfish * *

Windowpane

Other Fish 232_ 58 1,886_

TOTALS 1,688 1,375 22,554 I NOTE: An asterisk (*) denotes none reported. ;

NOTE: An underscore (_) denotes less than thirty thousand reported.

However, the figure is included in column totals.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service,1980, Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coast, 1979. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8063, December 1980.

SB 1 & 2 R2 vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

\' 291.2 b) Provide estimates of annual recreational harvests of sof t (ER) clam (Mya) and lobster within the 50-mile radius; RESPONSE: b) Estimates of sof t-shell clam recreational harvests have been obtained f rom the most reliable sources available (ER-OLS

< Table 291.2-1). South of Portland, the recreational fishery in the State of Maine is limited, as is commercial harvesting, due to pollution. Almost two-thirds of the recreational harvest within the 50-mile radius occurs in northern Massachusetts. In contrast, the commercial harvest 1

from Boston Harbor northwards is on the order of 200,000 '

bushels; thus, the recreational harvest is less than 6% of the total.

Lobster landings within a 50-mile radius are estimated at approximately 170,000 pounds annually (ER-OLS Table 291.2-2). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts each year publishes a booklet on coastal lobster fishery statistics ,

, (e.g., Anderson and Nash, 1980) which includes landings for "other" (i.e. , non-commercial) license holders. The landings are itemized by county, and the three northernmost Massachusetts counties have been taken to represent the i Massachusetts portion of the 50-mile radius area. In the State of Maine, no non-commercial licenses are issued.

g Non-commercial harvests in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

' s s/

comprise 0.75% and 4.5% of the total catch, respectively (see footnotes, ER-OLS Table 291.2-2).

References to 291.2 Anderson, C. O. and G. M. Nash (1980). 1979 Massachusetts Coastal Lobster Fishery Statistics. Mass. Div. of Marine Fisheries, Publ. #12199-24-200-11/80 C. R. ,

i J

h 1

O i

R-23

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 291.3 Provide estimates of finfish and shellfish harvests within (ER) Hampton-Seabrook estuary.

RESPONSE: The principal finfish species taken in Hampton-Scabrook estuary are winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, and pollock, Pollachius virens (ER-OLS Table 291.3-1); while sof t-shell clams (Mya arenaria) constitute the only substantial shell fishery (ER-OLS Table 291.3-2) .

Angler harvest estimates for the estuary were obtained by: 1) adjusting downwards, the New Hampshire statewide marine recreational fishing survey catch estimates (N.H. Fish and Game De pa rtment , 1980, 1981) by the proportion of census coverage given to Hampton-Scabrook estuary relative to total coverage statewide (Bob Fawcett , N.H. Fish & Game Dept. , pers. comm.); and 2) multiplying the adjusted total catch figures by the fraction of total catch representing each species reported caught. Species composition data were derived f rom the original field census forms filled out during fishermen interviews in Hampton-Seabrook estuary during 1979 and 1980 (provided by the N.H. Fish and Game De pa rtment) . Winter flounder and pollock accounted for almost 90%

of the total catch in both years (ER-OLS Table 291.3-1). Striped bass, Morone saxatilis, constituted a substantial proportion of the catch in the early 1970's (approximately 20% in 1973; NAI, 1974) but have declined in relative importance in recent years.

In Hampton-Seabrook estuary, as in the rest of New Hampshire, the sof t-shell harvest season runs from early September through late May; the flats being closed to digging from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Only recreational digging is permitted and is restricted to Fridays and Saturdays. The limit is ten quarts (1.25 pecks) per day. Due to an abundance of clams seeded in 1976 and 1977, the harvest is presently at, or near, peak level (ER-OLS Table 291.3-2) . As recently as 1977, the annual harvest was estimated to be below 1,000 bushels (NAI, 1978). While sales of clamming licenses are far from an all time high, the number of license holders has increased dramatically in the past few years, from 2,215 in 1979 to 5,062 in 1980; as of September, 7,780 licenses had been sold in 1980 with the number eventually expected to top 10,000 (Lee Welcome, N.H. Fish and Game Department, pers.

comm.).

References to 291.3 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (1980). Table 3. Marine Recreational Fishing Survey,1979. IN: Annual Report of the Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries.

(1981). Table 3. Marine Recreational Fishing Survey,1980. IN:

Annual Report of the Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1974. Finfish ecology investigations at the Hampton-Seabrook Estuary, NH and adjoining coastal waters, 1973-74. Technical Report V-3.

R-24

(mv) .)

I i

TABLE 291.2-1 SOFT SHELL CLAM ANNUAL RECREATIONAL HARVESTS WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF SEABROOK STATION.

NO. OF BUSHELS AREAS SOURCE (S) 700 Kennebunkport, ME Warden - Kim Johnson (1980) 170 York, ME -Warden - Morris Payne (1980) 280 Wells, ME Warden - Bert Perkins (1980) f 350 Ogunquit, ME DMR Regional Biologist, Brad Sterl (1980) 5,000 Hampton-Seabrook Estuary (NH) NAI Clammer Census (a) data m$

(Fall '80 - Spring '81) 7-I Oe 1,000 Remainder of NH waters Based on assumption of U-S w estuary representing 80%

of fishery (Ted Spurr, pers. '

comm., N.H. Fish & Game Dept.)

500-1,000 ( 750) Essex, MA DMF Marine Biologist, Pat Rule ,

1979-1980 harvests from ledger representing town records entries 600-800 ( 700) Gloucester, MA

. 6,000-9,000 ( 7,500) Ipswich, MA N

1,300 Newbury, MA ![ ,

EE 700-1,000 ( 850) ' Rowley, MA Q ll*

(a)NAI unpublished data

{0

"~

l i

i

TABLE 291.2-2 LOBSTER,110MARUS AMERICANUS TALLY OF 1979 NON-COMMERCIA1.

IIARVESTS WITIIIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF SEABROOK, N.II.

l NO. OF LBS. AREA SOURCE (S)

O(a) All Maine Walter Foster, Maine DMR 5,200(b) All New Ilampshire Ted Spurr, N.H. Fish & Came Dept.

tn $

108,157(C) Essex Co., MA Table 7, MA Coastal Lobster l' ~

Fishery Statistics, Anderson @p and Nash (1980) "w 24,075 Suffolk Co., MA 31,059 Norfolk Co., MA 170,000 (a) Fishery restricted to commercial harvesting only.

I (b)NII non-commercial harvest represents 0.75% of total catch. m (c)MA non-commercial harvest represents 4.5% of total catch. k, E$

4 j-5-

O O O

a i

l SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 1.

i i . 1978. Studies on the sof t-shelled clam, Mya arenaria, in the vicinity j l of Hampton-Seabrook Estuary, NH. Technical Report VIII-2. l i

i .

[ . 1981. Soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria study. Technical Report XI-1. ;

l I

J 4

I 1

e i

i i

I t

1.

, i 1 !

t I

b e

i I

I s i !

1 i &

j' .

e

. R-25 i 4 '

)

l SB 1 & 2 R;visicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 '

Section 2.2.2 Aquatic Ecology This section provides summary discussions on biota and studies since 1975, and references several documents. Provide copies of the following:

291.4 a. " Summary Document: Assessment of Anticipated Impact of (ER) Construction and Operation of Seabrook Station on the Estuarine, Coastal, and Off-shore Waters, Hampton-Seabrook, New Hampshire". Normandeau Associates, Inc., 1977.

RESPONSE: A copy of the " Summary Document" has been provided to the NRC.

291.5 b. Copies of environmental monitoring reports covering the (ER) period between that considered in the " Summary Document" and the present time.

RESPONSE: Single copies of all technical reports that have been produced following the preparation of the " Summary Document" have been provided to the NRC.

291.6 c. An updated and current revision of the March 1977 "Index to (ER) Environmental and Related Information (Biological, Hydrographic, Hydrothermal, Hydraulic, and Archaeological)

Seabrook Nuclear Station".

RESPONSE: There has been no update or revision of this document.

291.7 Provide data on the occurrence (known or expected) of endangered (ER) marine animals (federal and state) in the Seabrook site vicinity.

RESPONSE: The shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum) appears on both federal and state of New Hampshire endangered species list.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire's consultant has a National Marine Fisheries Permit (#213) which covers the incidental capture of this species; none have been captured in the study area to date and considering its scarcity in the Gulf of Maine, none are expected.

Both Atlantic sturgeon ( A,. oxyrhynchus) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are listed as endangered species by the State of New Hampshire. One Atlantic sturgeon was captured in a gill net near the intake site in November of 1973, but none have been captured since that time in continued monthly gill netting and otter trawling at three offshore sites. Although quite uncommon, their incidental cdpture in the study area could occur in the future.

No Atlantic salmon have been captured in the study area to date.

Their incidental capture could occur in the future depending on the success of a restoration program in the Merrimack River by a cooperative effort of the N.H. Fish & Game Department, R-26

SB 1 & 2 Rsvisicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O TABLE 291.3-1 ESTIMATES OF HAMPTON-SEABROOK ANGLER LANDINGS BY SPECIES FOR THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD OF JUNE THROUGH SEPTEMBER IN 1979 AND 1980 SPECIES 19791 %2 1980 %

Winter Flounder 8,000 (34) 13,000 (33)

Pollock 13,000 (55) 22,000 (55)

Cunner 800 (3) 700 (2)

Hakes 70 ( 1) 1,200 (3)

(red, white, silver)

Cod 300 (1) 1,000 (2)

Sculpin 700 (3) 900 (2)

Other Flounder 70 ( 1) 300 (1)

' - (windowpane, smooth, etc. )

e Sea Ravens 70 ( 1) 60 ( 1)

Coho Salmon 70 ( 1) 300 (1)

Mackerel 30 ( 1) 60 ( 1) 4 Smelt 400 (2)

Skate 30 ( 1)

Striped Bass 60 ( 1)

Silversides 300 (1) 1 approximate number of fish caught.

2 approximate percentage of total catch.

()

\~- ,

I I

)

l

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 O

TABLE 291.3-2 ESTIMATION OF SOFT-SHELL CLAM ANNUAL HARIEST IN HAMPTON-SEABROOK ESTUARY, SEPTEMBER 1980 THROUGH MAY 1981a, MONTHS NO. OF CLAMMING AVERAGE NO. OF TOTAL PECKS d l DAYS IN MONTH PECKS PER DAYc l l

Sep '80 8 (3)b 190 1520 Oct '80 9 (3) 190 1710 Nov '80 9 (0) 140 (assumed) 1260 l l

Dec '80 8 (0) 110 (assumed) 880 1

Jan '81 10 (1) 40 400 Feb '81 8 (2) 250 2000 Mar '81 8 (2) 300 2400 Apr '81 8 (4) 340 2720 Ma y ' 81 10 (3) 380 3800 20000 pecks e

= 5000 bushels Represents single harvest season; fishery is non-commercial only and isa closed from Memorial Day through Labor Day.

b( ) days number of diggers were counted.

cBased on number of diggers observed on flats; assumes each digger takes legal limit of one peck.

d Column 2 times column 3.

cAdjusted upward by 20% to account for diggers leaving early and replaced by latecomers.

O

SB 1 & 2 Rzvisicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 (3

V Nbssachusetts Division of Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

291.8 Provide a bibliographic listing, and reprint copies of all (ER) journals and professional conference proceedings publications (by applicant and applicant's consultants) that have resulted from studies and monitoring of the coastal, estuarine, and freshwaters associated with Seabrook Station.

EESPONSE: Journal and professional conference proceedings publications that have resulted from Seabrook studies:

Coffin, k. L., 1978-1979. A list of harpacticoid copepods from Northern New England , U.S. A. Vie Milieu. 28-20 (Se'r AB):

589-595.

Hartwell, A. D., 1975. Hydrographic factors affecting the distribution and movement of toxic dinoflagellates in western Gulf of Maine. pp. 47-68 JLjl Proceed. 1st Int'l Conf. on Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms. MA Sci. and Tech. Found. 1975.

Wakefield, MA. 541 pp.

x . 1976. Effects of storms on coastal currents of the western Gulf of Maine. E.O.S. Trans. A.G.U. 57(4):261.

Lindsay, J. A., and N. B. Savage. 1978. Northern New England's threatened soft-shell clam populations. Environ. Man.

2(5):443-452.

Savage, N. B., and R. Goldberg. 1976. Investigation of practical means of distinguishing Mya arenaria and Hiatella sp. larvae in plankton samples. Proceed. Nat'l. Shellf. Assoc. 66:42-53.

Copies of these publications have been provided to the NRC.

291.9 Section 3.4 Heat Dissipation System (ER)

Provide, in table form, a comparison of all system specifications 4

as they now exist with those that were evaluated in the 1974 AEC FES-CP stage.

I

RESPONSE: A comparison of all heat dissipation system specifications as they now exist with those that were evaluated in the 1974 AEC FES-CP stage is provided below.

s_-)

R-27

SB 1 & 2 Rivieion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 1974 1981 FES-CP ER-OL Heat Discharge Rate (Btu /hr)** 16x109 16x109 Flow Rate (gpm)** 824,000 824,000 Delta T (OF) 38 38

?hmber of Intake Structures 1 3 Intake Structure Depth, MLW (ft) 30 50 Intake Structure Diameter (f t) 64 30.5 )

8.4 7.0 Intake Structure Height (ft)

Length of Intake Tunnel (f t) 13,000 17,160 Diameter of Intake Tunnel (ft) 18 19 Length of Discharge Tunnel (f t) 15,000 16,500 Diameter of Discharge Tunnel (f t) 18 19 Diffuser Depth, MLW (f t) 40 50 to 60 Length of Dif fuser (f t) 550-1100*** 1000 Number of Discharge Nozzles 22 Discharge Velocity (f ps)** 12 to 15 15'

EPA approval August 4,1978

- Values given are for 2-unit operation

- - Design length of diffuser had not been finalized 291.10 Provide a brief historical discussion of the regulatory (ER) requirements that resulted in the present system specifications.

RESPONSE : The heat dissipation system design has been influenced by the regulations of state and federal agencies. Under New Hampshire law, approval for the system discharge conditions is granted by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission acting with the N.H. Fish and Game Department and other governmental agencies, boards and commissions whose chairmen form the N.H. Bulk Power Site Evaluation Committee.

The state review and hearing process investigated all aspects of the cooling system design and resulted in approval of the system as proposed by the Applicant. The state initially approved a once-through system having a single intake 3,000-feet offshore.

Iater when the EPA required that the intake be extended 4,000-feet further, the state reluctantly gave its approval to the extension. The state also concurred in a modification suggested by the Applicant to use three intakes rather than one to reduce cost and improve performance.

The EPA approval was not applied for until the state approval was granted and it was apparent that NRC approval of the basic design would be obtainable. The EPA requirements and procedures were the least defined of all agencies. However, approval of the once-through system proposed by the Applicant was obtained; but only after a somewhat arbitrary extension of the intake location R-28

l SB 1 & 2 Rtvisica 1 ER-OLS February 1982 g

( ) i

\~ ' 4,000 feet eastward. That approval was reversed, challenged and j i

re-reversed over a lengthy period. However, no changes to the system design resulted from the legal process.

The cooling tower was added to the ultimate heat sink portion of the cooling system when the Applicant was unable to convince the NRC staff of the seismic capability of the bedrock tunnels.

Together, the tunnel and cooling tower portions of the system qualify as the heat sink.

The chlorine minimization program of the EPA appears to be evolving to allow use of continuous low-level chlorination to control biofouling. State and EPA regional officials are aware that the cooling system has been designed and is being built to capitalize on the advantages of low-level chlorination as well as thermal backflushing.

A chronology of licensing events is provided in ER-OLS Table 291.10-1. Many issues intertwined and resulted in rehearing of previously disposed of issues. So it is only in the total context of the entire process that the impact on design can be understood. In conclusion, the hearing process had no effect on system design - only schedule and cost.

\s_- 291.11 Provide the details of the proposed plan of study for 316(a) and (ER) 316(b) monitoring under the NPDES Permit.

RESPONSE: Section 6.2.2 indicates that the comprehensive preoperational monitoring program will continue af ter start-up, thereby providing the bases for assessment of plant operational ef fects. This information should meet, in large measure, the monitoring needs of 316(a).

In addition to the extensive program conducted in the receiving waters, there will be analysis of entrained plankton from samples collected twice each week with special attention to commercially valuable forms. Extrapolative estimates of Mya arenaria, lobster, and finfish larvae that are entrained by the circulating water system will result. Furthermore, a weekly assessment of intake entrapment of finfish and other nektonic marine organisms will be accomplished. Both the entrainment and entrapment monitoring are required by a State of New Hampshire permit.

291.12 Provide a copy of the NPDES Permit for plant operation submitted (ER) to EPA (as indicated in ER-OL Section 12).

RESPONSE: A copy of the January 30, 1981 application to the EPA for renewal f'~g of NPDES Permit NH0020338 has been provided to the NRC.

Q) 291.13 Provide a copy of the 401 Certification issued by the State (ER) of New Hampshire (as per Section 12).

R-29

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 RESPONSE: A copy of the Certification of Seabrook Station Discharge Systems under applicable state and federal requirements has been provided to the NRC.

291.14 Discuss any new information (i.e., since the publication of the (ER) FES-CP) on the existing water quality stresses in the Browns River or in the Gulf of Maine near the station intake and discharge structures.

RESPONSE: Additional information on possible water quality stresses in the Browns River can be found in the report, "A Survey of Possible Sources of Contamination into the Upper Reaches of the Browns River". A copy of this report has been provided to the NRC.

There are no new point source pollutants in the Gulf of Maine near the station intake and discharge structures.

291.15 Quantitatively discuss the ability of the municipal water supply (ER) of the Town of Seabrook to supply the station with freshwater.

The discussion should address normal and drought periods.

RESPONSE: The Town of Seabrook operates a municipal water system including six wells which have an aggregate rating of 1,300 gallons per minute. In 1981, the town system pumped 347,127,690 gallons. By court order, the town is obligated to supply Seabrook Station 50,000 gallons per day. In 1980, the station obtained 15,400,600 gallons or an average of 42,770 gallons per day. This was 4% of the total town system sent out. In 1981 through August, station use has averaged 47,513 gallons per day. Both 1980 and 1981 have been years of lower-than-average groundwater table elevation.

When the water table is low the wells' total capacity drops. At present (Fall,1981), the system can develop 980 gpm. During the summer of 1981, deep-rock exploration by the town indicates a new source of water in the western part of town capable of producing over 1,000,000 gallons per day. Work is underway now to develop this source and connect it to the system.

If the new-found capacity is developed as expected, the municipal system should be able to satisfy the normal station requirements.

Higher than normal demands or temporary reductions in the municipal supply will be accommodated by the station wells.

291.16 Indicate the expected frequency and duration of the circulating (ER) water system backflush operations. Characterize the effluent (e.g., cycles of concentration, physical and chemical characteristics) of the service water system discharged to the Browns River during this time.

RESPONSE: See ER-OLS Section 3.6.1 for the expected frequency of the circulating water system backflushing operation.

R-30

l

, SB 1 & 2 Rtvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 During the backflushing operation, which is infrequent and only takes 6 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months to complete, no blowdown to the settling basin will take place. Cooling tower blowdown, if any, will be discharged to the circulating water system.

1 291.17 Provide copies of NPDES Permits NH0020330 and NH0020338.

(ER) i .

RESPONSE: A copy of NPDES Permit NH 0020338 has been provided to the NRC. f There is no permit number NH0020330 applicable to Seabrook Station.

291.18 Provide a copy of the February 1977 noise survey by New England (ER) Power Service Company.

RESPONSE: The Construction Machinery Noise at the Seabrook Nuclear Site survey, dated March 23, 1977,- was conducted at Seabrook Station

- entirely by New England Power Service Company personnel to determine the typical construction noises that would be generated at the construction of their proposed NEP 1 & 2 project,

Charlestown, RI. While a copy of this report has been provided to

the NRC, it should be emphasized that the results from this New England Power Service Company noise survey were for a construction site only, and are not applicable to an operating plant.

i lO R-31 l

l , ._. - _ _

SB 1 & 2 R;vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 310.1 Section 2.1.2.3 notes four surveys (seasonal resident population, (2.1.2.3) overnight accommodations, campgrounds, and parking lot capacities)

(ER) which are neither described in terms of methodology or in terms of a reference citation. The Applicant should provide copies of these surveya to the NRC.

RESPONSE: Seabrook ER-OLS Section 6.1.4.2 outlines the methodology and general sources of information used in estimating size and distribution of the transient population as described in ER-OLS Section 2.1.2.3. Section 2.1.3.3 of the Seabroek FSAR describes in detail the surveys conducted by the Applicant, or reference citations, which provided the information which was used to assess the nature of the transient population in the site area. Unless otherwise referenced in Section 2.1.3.3 of the FSAR, the four surveys noted above are comprised of extensive data collection and field survey work conducted by the Applicant specifically for, and summarized in, the Seabrook Station FSAR and ER-OLS, and as such, no independent reference reports outside these licensing documents exist.

310.2 Section 3.9 indicates that transmission line facilities remain (3.9) unchanged from that presented in Section 3.9 of the Seabrook (ER) Station ER-CPS "except as noted below". In fact, Sections 2.6 and 4.2.1 indicate changes. The Applicant should reconsider the statement in Section 3.9 of the ER-OL and develop a full discussion which indicates the following: (1) all lines and corridors associated with Seabrook Station; (2) status of construction and planning; (3) potential visual and physical impact on historical and archeological resources which are either on or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; (4) the status of hearings on transmission line planning and construction before state hearing bodies; and (5) the consistency of the Applicant's plans for transmission lines with the NRC's consideration of transmission line routes in the Seabrook FES-CP (12/74).

RESPONSE: 1. a. Seabrook-Newington - As noted in the hearings and the Construction Permit, Seabrook-Newington was relocated from filed route to cross Packer Bog away from a stand of Atlantic cedar. South of this point and on the west side of I-95, the route was relocated to more nearly parallel I-95 at some distance away from the highway to accommodate the wishes of local property owners. The same environmental considerations were maintained on this relocated portion as on the remainder of the section paralleling I-95. The corridor for this line remains essentially the same as that proposed during the ER-C PS .

b. Seabrook-Tewksbury and Seabrook-Scobie have a common corridor westerly from Seabrook for approximately 5 lh miles. About 2.5 miles of this corridor has been the subject of intense negotiation with property owners to determine an acceptable deviation from the approved !

1 R-32

SB 1 & 2 Revinien 1 ER-OLS February 1982 m

( )

\' # route. The problem has arisen because of homes which have been constructed very close.to or within the proposed route. What appeared to be an acceptable solution has been recently negated by the Site Evaluation Committee of the State of New Hampshire. At ,

the present time, PSNH is awaiting decision by the courts to determine the next course of action.

c. Seabrook-Tewksbury - The portion of this line south from the common corridor within New Hampshire has not been a part of the negotiation. However, local residents have been attempting to delay and possibly prohibit construction along the right-of-way presently owned by PSNH. In Massachusetts, hearings have been progressing before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities on the suitability of the route from Amesbury at the New Hampshire-Massachusetts state line to Tewksbury. One more public meeting in the Amesbury area is scheduled.

Following this, a decision is expected from the MDPU.

d. Seabrook-Scobie - From the end of the joint corridor in Keasington, the only change in location on this line involves the Cedar Swamp dog-leg which was ordered when the Construction Permit was granted to PSNH. The

/~'T remainder of this line is where the company proposed it

(,,) would be.

One of the environmental considerations involved the type of structure to be used that would be compatible 4

with the terrain and cover in the area. The type of structure chosen was the H-Frame, which allowed for flat construction with minimum height to present minimum visibility. Wood was discussed as being the support members which would be most compatible with the wooded areas through which the lines were passing.

When it came time to make the final design decisionc, it became apparent that weathering steel should be considered for the support members in place of wood.

Because the color was similar to wood and the members were of smaller dimension than wood, it was concluded that the environmental effects were equal or better than using wood. .

After an evaluation which involved the consideration of the esthetics of the structure as well as the total owning costs, it was determined the direct embedded, weathering steel H-Frame structures would be used for the tangent structures on these lines.

O) g x/

2. Status of the three lines.

a. Seabrook-Newington line has been constructed and ene rgized.

R-33

SB 1 & 2 Revisicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982

b. Seabrook-Tewksbury and Seabrook-Scobie, both lines are awaiting resolution of hearings and/or court cases, before final alignment can be determined. The tangent structures for the New Hampshire portion of these lines have been designed and purchased subject to a full size test by the supplier to be witnessed by PSNH personnel.

At this time, the schedule of completion of Seabrook-Tewksbury is August 1983, and Seabrook-Scobie is November 1985.

3. Review of State of New Hampshire Inventory of Natural Scenic and Historical Areas revealed six locations near the corridors. This was followed by a ground inspection to ascertain the possible visual and physical impact that the transmission line might have on each specific historical feature. In all cases it was determined that the transmission line and its attendent structures would be imperceptible from the historic sites. No designated archeological resources were identified on or close to the transmission corridors.

In order for historical and archeological resources to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, they must be nominated by the state agency. A recent check with the State of New Hampshire Historic Prc servation Otfice shows the Applicant that no pending nominations exist near the Seabrook corridors. There has, however, been several suggestions by citizens in the South Hampton area concerning features they believe are worthy of racognition because of their perceived historical significance. At this point, the State of New Hampshire Historic Preservation Office is reviewing the suggested locations.

4. Discussed in (1) above along with the relocations noted.

5. PSNH believes the routes for the three 345 kV lines as considered by the NRC are essentially the same as those planned or in the case of the Seabrook-Newington line, constructed.

O R-34 l

1

SB 1 & 2 a2vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 m

_,) 310.3 The Applicant should indicate the estimated property t'?xes to (ER) be paid during the first year of opertion by special district, local jurisdiction and state.

RESPONSE: Under current New Hampshire law, property taxes are levied only by towns and districts within a town. By the time Unit 1 goes into commercial operation it is expected that the laws will change and that generation facilities will be taxed by the state. On that basis, it is estimated that the taxes on Unit I will be

$42,575,000. Unit 2, still under construction, would pay an estimated $3,900,000 to the Town of Seabrook.

310.4 Section 8.1.6 indicates employment of 450 at the site. Does (8.1.6) this figure include security, janitorial, and maintenance (ER) personnel? If not, these figures should be provided. How many existing residents does the Applicant estimate will be employed at the site? The Applicant should indicate the basis for the response.

RESPONSE: Please refer to FSAR Figure 13.1-3 which shows the station table of organization. The positions identified in the figure total 224. Not shown in the figure are additional projected positions totaling approximately 200 personnel. These additional positions fulfill needs in the areas of clerical, security supervision, 7 -)

( j janitorial, maintenance, and various technical support services.

In addition, it is expected that there will be approximately 100 guards employed from the coatract service.

It has been the Applicant's axperience through construction that about 5% of the work force has come from the Town of Seabrook. On that basis, it is estimated that between three and five percent of the Operation's staff will be town residents.

310.5 The Applicant should indicate the types of goods and services that (ER) will be purchased locally. The Applicant's response should indicate the dollar value of such purchases and the market area of f purchase.

RESPONSE: The Applicant's policy is to purchase goods and services from the lowest qualified bidder. Purchase orders, either blanket or -

specific, are issued af ter bids are obtained f rom bidders who have been determined qualified to supply the items on the inquiry. It is also the Applicant's desire to place as much business locally as possible. However, the requirements of qualification and ,

pricing are not set aside to favor local vendors. They must !

obtain their business based on qualification and competition in '

the marketplace.

t All of that is a prelude to saying that a prediction now about how !

(s)N

_, much business will be placed locally when production begins is ',

subject to a great deal of variability. Within 15 miles of the site, what we would call the local area, .there are a very limited ,

number of suppliers for items, mostly consumables, which the plant R-35 i

SB 1 & 2 R; vision 1 ER-OLS F;bru;ry 1982 will require. Local purchases are estimated to be between

$250,000 and $500,000 ann ; ally.

320.0 UTILITY FINANCE BRANCS 320.1 Explain the basis of the statement at p. 1.2-1 that "The production (ER) of electricity f' tom this plant (Seabrook) will displace approximately 23,000,000 BBLS of oil per year..."

RESPONSE: This statement is based on Seabrook Station replacing oil generation with a 11,000 BTU / KWHR heat rate, oil with a BTU content of 6.2 MBTU/ Barrel, and a Seabrook Station availability of 65%.

11,000 (BTU / KWHR) X 1000 KWHR X .65 X 2300 (MW) X 8760 (HOURS) = 23,235,194 MWHR YEAR BARRELS 6,200,000 (BTU / BARREL) YEAR 320.2 Quantify the expected ef fect, if any, of Seabrook 1 and 2 on (ER) baseload consumption of coal.

RESPONSE: The following table lists the decrease in coal consumption with Seabrook 1 and 2 online.

1984 1985 1986 _

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Decreased coal 4.6 36.4 377.9 210.6 222.1 131.4 59.7 57.1 Consunption (tons x 103 )

This is based on a NEP00L Dispatch only. It is probable that the small decrease in coal-fired generation will not occur because of economy sales to the New York Power Pool.

320.3 For the year 1980 provide (a) a breakdown of electricity (ER) generated by fuel type (coal, nuclear, etc.), and (b) the average production cost by fuel type.

RESPONSE

AVERAGE 1980 ENERGY COST TYPE (%) 0F TOTAL (MILLS / KWHR)

HYDRO 4.36 NUCLEAR 28.71 5.5 C0AL 5.80 16.9 OIL 61.13 40.8 NOTE: This response is based on composite FERC Form 1 data f sm all New England utilities.

R-36

SB 1 & 2 Ravician 1 ER-OLS February 1982 g)

,'v 320.4 Indicate the proportion of the estimated capital costs for (ER) Seabrook 1 and 2 which has already been spent.

RESPONSE

(%) EXPENDED AS AREA 0F JUNE 30, 1981 UNIT 1 63%

UNIT 2 36%

COMMON 59%

INDIRECTS 36%

320.5 Provide the following:

(ER)

A production cost analysis which shows the difference in system production costs ascociated with the availability vs.

unavailability of the proposed nuclear addition. . Note, the resulting cost differential should be limited solely to the variable _or incremental cost associated with generating electricity from the proposed nuclear addition and the sources of replacement energy. If, in your analysis, other factors influence the cost differential, explain in detail.

i a. The analysis should provide results on an annual basis covering the period from initial operation of the first unit through five full years of operation of the last unit.

b. Where more than one utility shares ownership in the proposed nuclear addition, the analysis should include rescits for the aggregate of all participants. However, given that Seabrook 1 and 2 are expected to be centrally dispatched as NEP00L units, this analysis may be performed for NEP00L as a whole.

c. The analysis should assume electrical energy requirements grow at (1) the system's latest official forecasted growth rate, and (2) zero growth from latest actual annual energy requirements.

d. All underlying assumptions should be explicitly identified and explained.

e. For each year (and for each growth rate scenario), the following results should be clearly stated: (1) system production costs with the proposed nuclear addition available as scheduled; (2) system production costs without the proposed nuclear addition available; (3) the capacity factor assumed for the nuclear addition; (4) the average fuel cost and variable 0 & M for the nuclear addition, and the sources

,y,

of replacement energy-(by fuel type) - both expressed in

\- ') mills per kWh; and (5) the proportion of replacement energy assumed to be provided by coal, oil, gas, etc.

R-37

SB 1 & 2 R7,visicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 RESPONSE: Since the ownership of Seabrook Station is split among NEPo"'

members, the production cost analysis is for NEPOOL as a whole.

The caly dif ference in input data between production cost runs on the same load forecast was Seabrook Station in or out of service and the unit maintenance schedule. Since maintenance is scheduled to levelize risk, the maintenance schedule was different with Seabrook Station in and out of service and with each load forecast. This maintenance schedule dif ference should have little ef fect on yearly production costs.

The following values were used for Seabrook 1 and 2 for all production cost runs:

Year (19)

Unit Description 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Scabrook 1 Capacity Factor (%) 59 63 64 69 68 74 73 74 Seabrook 1 Fuel Cost (MILLS / KWHR) 11 11 10 10 11 11 11 12 Seabrook 1 Fixed O&M ($M) 341 42 46 50 55 60 65 70 Seabrook 2 Capacity Factor (%) -- -- 59 63 64 69 68 74 Seabrook 2 Fuel Cost (MILLS / KWHR) -- --

12 11 11 11 11 12 Seabrook 2 Fixed O&M ($M) -- --

291 50 55 60 65 70 1

Partial Year Operation The answers for part (e) based on the system's latest official forecast are shown in Table 320.5-1, and the answers for part (e) based on zero growth from the latest actual annual energy requirements (1980) e.re shown in Table 320.5-2.

In Table 320.5-1 and Table 320.5-2, the source of replacement energy to service load is the ultimate source of the power generated, therefore, pumped hydro generation is not shown as such.

The following assumptions were made for this analysis:

1. The Pilgrim 2 1150 MW nuclear unit was to be insta.'. led in December 1991. Since this analysis was completed, Pilgrim 2 has been cancelled. However, the quantitative impact of the cancellation of Pilgrim 2 on these values is negligible.

2. The Sea.s Island 568 MW coal unit was to be installed December 1991. This unit does not have a Construction Permit.

3. Energy banking was modeled with the Hydro Quebec system between March and November beginning in 1987. This transaction was modeled as a 600 MW pumped hydro site with the savings split 60/40 (New England / Hydro Quebec) between dch system.

R-38

l' SB 1'& 2 .kevision 1 I ER-OLS February 1982

(

l

4. From January 1981 through January 1987, there were 21 units

! representing 2760 MW of capacity converted from oil to coal 4

firing.

5. No economy transactions between pools were modeled.

e i b s

1 I

! i i !

1 :

l !

oi t O i

' l l .

f

(

L I

?

? -

1 i

f i

I R-39

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982, 451.01 a. To expedite the meteorological review, provide hour-by-hour O

(2.3) meteorological data from the on-site meteorological measure-(ER) ments program for the period April 1979-March 1980, using the enclosed guidance on tape attributes.

b. One complete year (i.e. , no missing hourly data) of data is used by the staff in the calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC) computational procedure. Data recovery for the one-year period April 1979 - March 1980 was less than 100%, indicating that data needs to be substituted for the staff to perform the CRAC analysis. Provide substituted data for all missing periods, identify the source of substituted data, and provide a brief description of the bases for selecting substituted data.

RESPONSE: a. A magnetic tape containing a file of hour-by-hour meteorological data from the on-site meteorological measurements program for the period April 1979 - March 1980 has been provided to the NRC.

b. A second file of hour-by-hour meteorological data with data substituted for all missing periods was provided on the same magnetic tape. This file represents the meteorological data used as input to the CRAC analysis presented in Chapter 7 of the ER-OLS. Missing data periods were replaced with data values from the previous valid hour.

451.02 For reviews of Operating License Applications, at least two years (2.3) (preferably three or more) of on-site meteorological data are to (ER) be submitted with the Environmental Report (see Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2) . Only one year (April 1979 - March 1980) has been submitted with the Seabrook Environmental Report. Two years of data (December 1971 - November 1972 and December 1972 -

November 1973) were submitted during review of the Construction Permit Application. However, af ter each one-year period of meteorological data collected at the Seabrook Site, the measurements program has been changed, preventing combination into a multi-year period of record.

a) Provide a comparison of data from the most recent one-year period with earlier periods, contrasting wind speed distributions, wind direction frequencies, and occurrences of atmospheric stability classes by annual cycles.

b) Provide comparisons of calculated short-term X/Q values (used in Chapter 7 of the ER) and annual X/Q values (used in Chapter 5 of the ER) for each one-year period of record.

c) Provide joint frequency distributions (or hour-by-hour data on magnetic tape) of wind speed and wind direction for the 43-foot level by temperature difference between the 43-foot and 150-foot levels for period April 1980 - March 1981.

R-40

r O

( .

U V TABLE 320.5-1 PRODUCTION COST ANALYSIS FOR SEABROOK STATION APRIL 1, 1981 NEPOOL LOAD FORECAST 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 91659 93977 96472 99211 TOTAL SYSTEM NET ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 102125 105275 108526 111849 (GWH)

TOTAL SYSTEM. PRODUCTION COST ($M) 2 Seabrook Station Not in Service 4312.3 4748.3 4978.6 5664.5 6649.3 7754.9 9159.2 10349.0 3 Seabrook Station In Service 4008.0 4339.7 4230.0 4522.6 5297.8 6019.5 7158.1 8003.9 4 Cumulative Penalty with Seabrook 304.3 712.9 1461.5 2603.4 3954.9 5690.3 7691.4 10037.1 Station Not In Service 5

AVERAGE FUEL COST (MILLS / KWHR) FOR REPLACEMENT SOURCES Coal-Seabrook Station Not In 29.7 32.8 36.5 40.2 44.2 48.7 y$

53.5 57.9 4-Service 6- Coal-Seabrook Station In Service 29.7 32.8 36.5 40.2 44.2 48.6 53.5 57.9 Qe w 7- Oil-Seabrook Station Not In 76.7 85.4 95.0' 106.4 119.1 133.7 149.7 164.0 Service 8 Oil-Seabrook Station In Service 76.8 85.7 94.7 104.6 116.7 129.4 144.3 157.5 VARIABLE O&M (MILLS / KWHR) FOR REPLACEMENT SOURCES 9 Coal-Seabrook Station Not In 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.7 Service 10 Coal-Seabrook Station in Service 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.7 11 Oil-Seabrook Station Not In 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 y Service 12 Oil-Seabrook Station In Service 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.1 yy 5.

SOURCE OF REPLACEMENT ENERGY TO SERVICE LOAD (%) % ",

13 Coal 0.3 1.4 9.4 4.0 4.1 2.3 1.0 0.9 14 011 Os@

99.7 98.6 90.6 96.0 95.9 97.7 99.0 99.1 $

15 Total (13 & 14) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 320.5-2 PRODUCTION COST ANALYSIS FOR SEABROOK STATION NO LOAD CROWTH BASED ON 1980 ACTUAL LOADS 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1

TOTAL SYSTEM ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 84406 84406 84406 04406 84406 84406 84406 84406 (GWH)

TOTAL SYSTEM PRODUCTION COST ($M) 2 Seabrook Station Not In Service 3716.6 3873.8 3823.8 4070.9 4490.2 4889.6 5408 1 5701.6 3 Seabrook Station In Service 3434.3 3504.2 3216.7 3204.2 3507.5 3673.6 4078.6 4242.6 4 Cumulative Penalty With Seabrook 282.3 651.9 1259.0 2125.7 3108.4 4324.4 5653.9 7112.8 Station Not In Service AVERAGE FUEL COST (MILLS / KWHR) FOR REPLACEMENT SOURCES 5 v3 Coal-Scab' rook Station Not In 29.7 32.8 36.5 40.2 44.2 48.6 53.5 57.8 yW Service 6 Coal-Seabrook Station In Service 36.4 39.9 5 ""

29.7 32.8 43.8 48.3 53.0 57.3 G 7 Oil-Seabrook Station Not In 75.6 83.9 93.5 105.0 116.6 128.7 142.7 155'.2 Service 8 Oil-Seabrook Station In Service 76.0 85.1 94.4 106.9 117.4 128.5 143.0 156.5 VARIABLE O&M (MILLS / KWHR) FOR REPLACEMENT SOURCES 9 Coal-Seabrook Station Not In 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.7 Service 10 Coal-Seabrook Station In Service 2.1 1.9 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.8 11 Oil-Seabrook Station Not In 2.7 3.1 3.9 4.5 4.8 5.4 5.7 6.6 Service 12 Oil-Seabrook Station In Service T 3.1 3.6 5.1 6.0 6.9 7.8 8.4 9.1 g' ,

SOURCE OF REPLACEMENT ENERGY TO SERVICE LOAD (%)

EE 13 Coal Q g' 0.8 0.4 30.7 30.2 32.9 32.4 32.4 37.3 g' 14 011 69.3 99.2 99.6 69.8 67.1 67.6 67.6 62.7 gD 15 Total (13 & 14) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 " "

O O 9

SB 1 & 2 Rtvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 r3 kI RESPONSE: a) ER-OLS Tables 451.02-1 through 451.02-3 compare wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability class frequency distributions for a more recent one-year period (June 1980 -

May 1981) with the earlier one year period submitted in the Seabrook ER-OLS ( April 1979 - March 1980). Data from April 1980 and May 1980 were excluded from the more recent one-year period of record because of temperature shield aspiration motor problems which occurred during this period.

The comparison between the wind speed distributions for these two one-year periods of record (ER-OLS Table 451.02-1) indicates that wind speeds during the first period were generally slightly. lower than vind speeds during the second period. ER-OLS Table 451.02-2 indicates that the predominant wind direction continued to be from the WNW, and ER-OLS Table 451.02-3 shows that stable atmospheric conditions occurred more frequently during the first period of record when compared to the second period of record.

b) Short-term X/Q values were not used in Chapter 7 of the Seabrook ER-OLS to evaluete the potential environmental ef fects of postulated ac:idents at the Seabrook Station.

Rather, Chapter 7 presents a risk an'alysis format for evaluating environmental effects of accidents; that is, the

/~'N '

probabilities of realbting various levels of consequences (m,) from a wide spectrum of possible accidents and associated environmental conditionq are considered. Meteorological conditic}s are considered by selecting a series of start times (the time at which tae accident release is assumed to occur) and using chronological hourly weather conditions to trace the movement of the cloud away from the site. The probability of exposure in any given downwind sector is then defined by the seasonal wind direction frequency distribution.

The annual X/Q and D/Q values used in Chapter 5 of the Seabrook ER-OLS were calculated using the April 1979 - March 1980 meteorological data base. Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5 of the Seabrook ER-OLS present the X/Q and D/Q values used to determine ' the annual maximum individual doses and potential site boundary exposure rates. A comparison of these X/Q and D/Q values with X/Q and D/Q values generated using the June 1980 - May 1981 meteorological data base is provided in ER-OLS Tables 451.02-4 and 451.02-5. Ratios of the June 1980 - May 1981 X/Q and D/Q values to the' April 1979 - May 1980 X/Q and D/Q values range from 0.64 to 1.29. This range j of ratio values is not unreasonable and can be expected due l to the difference in wind speed, wind direction, and '

j atmospheric stability frequency distributions observed from l year to year.

(- c) The 43-foot wind and 43-150 foot delta-temperature three-way joint frequency distribution for the period June 1980 - May 1981 is provided in,ER-OLS Table 451.02-6.

R-41

SB 1 & 2 R vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 451.03 Section 2.3.1 of the ER provides a qualitative description of air (2.3) quality in the vicinity of the site and states that these (ER) conditions will not " adversely affect station operation."

Describe station sources of criteria air pollutants, including estimated emissions, and compare these emissions to the DeMinimus criteria established by the Environmental Protection Agency. If station emissions are in excess of the DeMinimus levels, provide a quantitative assessment of the station emissions on local air quality using current EPA guidelines on atmospheric dispersion modeling.

RESPONSE: The two auxiliary boilers for this facility are fired with No. 2, low sulphur (0.3 percent) fuel oil with a minimum heating value of 137,000 BTU per gallon. Each boiler has a maximum output capacity of 80,000 lbs of steam per hour with a maximum fuel use rate of 12 gallons per minute. Emissions from both auxiliary boilers are released through a common 142-foot AGL stack. Boiler stack exit temperature is approximately 5600F, and with one boiler operating at 100 percent capacity, stack exit velocity is approximately 840 feet per minute.

The four emergency diesel generators are designed for a continuous electrical output of 6083 kW per diesel generator. They burn the same fuel as the auxiliary boilers and each has a maximum expected fuel consumption of 7.7 gallons per minute. Each diesel generator has a separate stack 80 feet AGL. At full operating capacity, each diesel generator stack has an exit temperature of 8900F and an exit velocity of 8270 feet per minute.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emission factors for fuel oil combustion and diesel industrial engines (Reference 1) were used to derive the following hourly pollution emission rates, assuming continuous operation at full capacity:

Pollutant Each Auxiliary Boiler Each Diesel Generator Particulates 1.44 lbs/hr 15.5 lbs/hr Sulfur Dioxide 30.67 lbs/hr 14.4 lbs/hr Carbon Monoxide 3.60 lbs/hr 47.1 lbs/hr Hydrocarbons 0.72 lbs/hr 17.3 lbs/hr (total, as CH 4)

Nitrogen Oxides 15.84 lbs/hr 216.7 lbs/hr (total, as NO 2)

The auxiliary boilers and diesel generators are designed to meet applicable standards for release of gaseous effluents to the environment. ER-OLS Section 3.7 will be revised to include the above information on design of and gaseous emissions from the auxiliary boilers and emergency diesel generators.

R-42

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

-s I !

x' During operation of Unit #1 and while Unit #2 is being constructed, it is expected that steam for heat and process work will normally be supplied from the main steam system, except for Unit #1 refueling periods during which the auxiliary boilers will be used to supply heating and process steam requirements. During Unit #1 refueling, it.is expected that both single and dual auxiliary boiler operation can occur for a combined total of 80 days of boiler operation. During operation of both Unit #1 and Unit #2, steam for heat and process work will also normally be supplied from the main steam system. Use of the auxiliary boilers would be minimal, with their expected operation occurring only for maintenance purposes and for the unplanned event of having both Unit #1 and Unit #2 down simultaneously.

Operation of the diesel generators is only on an emergency and testing basis. It is expected that on-line testing will consist of operating each generator once a month for three hours.

Refueling usage is expected to consist of a total of 53 hours6.134259e-4 days 0.0147 hours 8.763227e-5 weeks 2.01665e-5 months of diesel operation per Unit refueling.

During station operation, highest annual emission levels are probable during a year when Unit #1 has a refueling outage and Unit #2 is still under construction. The estimated annual combined auxiliary boiler and diesel generator emissions during this time period are compared to the Environmental Protection

()N

(_ Agency's DeMinimis levels in ER-OLS Table 451.03-1. As can be seen from ER-OLS Table 451.03-1, the expected combined auxiliary boiler and diesel generator emissions do not exceed DeMinimis levels.

Reference to 451.03

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Eactors, Third Edition (including Supplements 1-7), AP-42, August 1977.

g"%

R-43

SB 1 & 2 R:vicion 1 ER-OLS February 1982 451.04 The discussion of the effects of operation of the heat dissipation (ER) system (Section 5.1 of the ER) states that one of the " specific determinations relevant to the discharge of cooling water" is that "backflushing operations for fouling control shall be performed only during times when meteorological and hydrological conditions are such that the plume flows of fshore and/or temperature increases are minimized at the Sunk Rocks." Furthermore, during backflushing a mechanical draft cooling tower would be used for the service water system.

a) Describe the procedure for integrating meteorological data into the procedure for initiating backflushing operations.

b) Indicate the expected frequency of operation of the mechanical draft cooling tower, and provide the basis for the statement that fogging and icing effects "would occur only in the vicinity of the cooling tower". Indicate if such fogging and icing effects would be confined to the station site.

RESPONSE: a) The EPA, in their November 7,1977 Modifications of De terminations, state that, "The Applicant shall perform backflushing only during times when meteorological and hydrological conditions are such that the plume flows offshore and/or temperature increases are minimized at the Sunk Rocks". When a backflushing procedure has been developed by the Applicant and has been approved by the EPA, the ER-OLS will be revised to include this backflushing procedure.

b) The service water mechanical draft cooling tower will be operated during backflushing operations for biofouling control on the intake tunnel. The cooling tower is expected to operate once every two weeks from March through October and once a month from November through February. Each period of operation is expected to last between six to eight hours for a total annual operating time of approximately 150 hours0.00174 days 0.0417 hours 2.480159e-4 weeks 5.7075e-5 months .

The ef fect of the service water cooling tower on the formation of fog and icing conditions is a function of the location and quantity of moisture added to the -tmosphere and existing atmospheric conditions. NUS Corporation performed an analysis in 1972 investigating potential environmental effects of alternative evaporative heat dissipation systems for Seabrook Station (Reference 1). Included in this analysis was the evaluation of a mechanical draft cooling tower system for use as the station's primary heat dissipation system. Regional meteorological data was examined to determine the probable frequency of induced fog occurrence. The study indicated that off-site induced fogging from a primary mechanical draft cooling tower system would occur less than 1% of the time annually. This frequency assumed continuous system operation at a heat load lf 35 times larger than the design heat load for the service water cooling tower.

R-44

SB 1 & 2 Rsvisien 1 ER-OLS Fabruary 1982 {

(N) g,, TABLE 451.03-1 i Comparison of Estimated Combined Auxiliary Boiler l and Diesel Generator Emissions with U.S. EPA DeMinimis Levels ;

( All Values in Tons / Year)

Estimated Maximum n

Annual Emissions Dur{ag Station Operation DeMinimis Levels (b)

Pollutant t

Particulates 2.3 25

{

r Sulfur Dioxide 30.3 40 i

Carbon Monoxide 6.3 100 Hydrocarbons 1.7 40 ;

(total, as CH 4)

Nitrogen Oxides 28.1 40 (total, as NO 2) '

(a) The estimated annual emissions were calculated using the emission rates i presented above and assuming 1920 hours0.0222 days 0.533 hours 0.00317 weeks 7.3056e-4 months (80 days) of full capacity [

boiler operation and 119 hours0.00138 days 0.0331 hours 1.967593e-4 weeks 4.52795e-5 months of 1 ,11 capacity combined diesel generator operation.

(b) Re ference: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Requirements for {

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans; Approval i and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No.

154, pp. 52676-52748, August 7, 1980. !

. I I

' "N r

~~ i .

f l

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

, 3 s-J The frequency of induced fog occurrence from the operation of the service water cooling tower will be -significantly less than the above estimate. The moisture added to the atmosphere from the service water cooling tower will be considerably less and the tower will be operated during less than 2% of the total hours during the year, most of these hours being in the warmer months when the probability of induced fogging and icing is reduced. Therefore, induced off-site fogging and icing ef fects from operation of the service water cooling tower will be negligible.

References to 451.04 '

l. Koss, T. C. , Evaluation of Environmental Ef fects from Evaporative Heat Dissipation Systems at the Seabrook Site, Environmental Safeguards Division, NUS Corporation, NUS-953, October 1972.

451.05 The descriotion of the current on-site meteorological measurements (6.1.3) program st.tas that the low-level wind speed and direction sensors (ER) and temperature dif ference sensors are located at a height of 43 feet above the surface. The standard height for low-level sensors is 10m (see Regulatory Guide 1.23, 1972, and proposed Revision 1, September 1980). Provide justification for this deviation from gs the recommended height of low-level instruments.

e

~~'

RESPONSE: The meteorological tower is located at an elevation of approximately 8 feet MSL, and as such, the low-level wind and temperature sensors are approximately 51 feet MSL. Since plant grade is 20 feet MSL, the low-level sensors are located at an elevation of approximately 10m above plant grade. The difference in values measured at the Regulatory Guide 1.23 recommended height of 33 feet (10m) AGL versus the actual 43 feet AGL height of Seabrook's sensors on the meteorological tower should not be significant.

451.06 Four 15-minute averages are stored on disc for each hour of (6.1.3) on-site data (see p. 6.1-4). Describe the procedure for (ER) determining an hourly average of each meteorological parameter (i.e. , is an hourly average determined from one 15-minute average or through averaging of four 15-minute averages?).

RESPONSE: As reported in the Data Analysis Procedures Subsection of the Seabrook ER-OLS (p. 6.1-5), the first 15-minute average collected each hour is used to compile the hourly data base used to generate the on-site data summaries and other analytical analyses presented in the ER-OLS. The one exception is the hourly precipitation totals which are compiled by summing the four 15-minute

, precipitation totals recorded each hour.

! )

451.07 The description of the atmospheric dispersion model used for (6.1.3) calculation of annual average relative concentration (X/Q) and (ER) relative deposition (D/Q) values requires additional clarification.

R-45

SB 1 & 2 Rivision 1 ER-OLS F:sbruary 1982 a) Describe how fumigation and trapping were considered (see p.

6.1-5).

b) Identify the points of release of radioactive material to the atmosphere and compare the release characteristics with the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.111 for the determination of partially elevated and partially ground level releases.

c) Discuss the appropriateness of a straight-line trajectory model for use at the Seabrook site, considering spatial and temporal variations in air flow. Provide adjustments to the straight-line model, if necessary.

RESPONSE: a) At coastal sites, a thermal internal boundary layer (TIBL) can form under certain conditions during seabreeze or onshore gradient flow. TIBLs develop when cool and stable marine air is heated from below by the land surface and becomes unstable in the lower levels. In the routine release dispersion analysis, TIBLs were assumed to occur during sunny spring and summer days when the wind was onshore between 4.5 and 22.0 mph. The height of the TIBL was estimated as a function of wind speed and the distance from the shore along the wind trajecto ry.

During hours characterized by TIBL formation, releases occurring below the TIBL were assumed to be trapped within the TIBL. As a result, ground level concentrations increase lh due to multiple eddy reflections from the marine stable layer aloft. For releases occurring above the TIBL, the plume can begin to intercept the top of the TIBL as the plume travels further inland. If this occurs, the material in the plume is assumed to be mixed rapidly downward in the unstable air within the TIBL and high ground level concentrations result.

This rapid downward mixing is referred to as fumigation.

Specific quantitative details on the annual average atmospheric dispersion model in general and on trapping and fumigation in specific are provided in Section 2.3.5 of the SB FSAR.

b) All of the exhaust air from buildings housing systems containing radioactive materials, except that due to leakage in the turbine hall, is discharged to the environment through the primary vent. The primary vent consists of a stainless steel lined exhaust stack which runs up the side of the outer containment shell. It follows the contour of the containment dome and has an elbow directed up when it reaches the top.

Because effluents are released slightly above the containment structures, releases from the priaary vent were considered mixed mode (partially elevated and partially ground level releases) as a function of vent exit velocity and vent height wind speed as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.

Gaseous waste from the turbine hall is released from wall and roof ventilators located in that building. For the purposes R-46

SB 1 & 2 R2 vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 s

-of calculating annual average doses, it is assumed that all gaseous releases from the turbine hall are from ground level.

Vent release information used in the annual average atmospheric dispersion model is outlined in Table A-6 of Appendix A of the Seabrook ER-OLS.

c) The categorization of air trajectories requires separation of those conditions where the large scale pressure grtdients over hundreds of miles determine the trajectory from those conditions where local effects predominate. At level terrain coastal sites like Seabrook, the primary local effect is the differential heating between land and water surf aces which causes a diurnal oscillation between onshore and offshore flow.

Strong large-scale pressure gradients (usually accc7panied by noderate to strong winds) do not allow localized diurnal wind direction reversals to form. Under these conditions, a straight-line trajectory assumption is a reasonable estimate since there are no local channeling ef fects such as those caused by deep canyons or mountain barriers.

Local ef fects dominate, however, when the pressure gradient

(}

( ,/

over hundreds of miles is weak. Along the east coast of the United States, localized diurnal oscillations between onshore and offshore flows are most pronounced in late spring and early summer. The localized diurnal onshore-offshore wind regimes can be described as cellular circulations from the cooler to the warmer surface in the lower portion with a return alof t. The seabreeze is characteristically a daytime flow extending generally several miles inland with an occasional inland penetration up to as much as 20 miles. The nighttime land breeze reverses the cycle but usually as a less vigorous offshore flow. Air trajectories under these conditions, when extended beyond the time period of the daily heating cycle or to distances greater than the dimensions of the localized flow, can show trajectory reversals and along-shore movement patterns. However, any plume caught in this recirculation pattern will be highly diluted when it recrosses the shoreline and, as such, the contribution to ground level concentrations due to the recirculated effluents would be very small. The effect of spatial and temporal variations in ef fluent trajectories when integrated over an annual emission period are small enough so that fixed point straight-line wind statistics can be used in a long-term diffusion model. (

Reference:

Van der Hoven, I., Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coastal Sites, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 8, No. 5, September - October 1967. )

p

' . 451.08 The existing on-site meteorological measurements program is (6.2) described in Section 6.1.3 as a pre-operational program.' The (ER) meteorological program is not described as an operational program in Section 6.2. Describe the proposed operational meteorological R-47

SB 1 & 2 R;visiin 1 ER-OLS February 1982 measurements program, and compare the program with the pre-operational program described in Section 6.1.3.

RESPONSE: It is planned that the existing meteorological tower and instrumentation will be used during the operational phase of the Seabrook Station. In addition, a 10m backup tower instrumented with wind speed and direction is planned to be located approximately 300 feet SSE of the existing tower prior to station operation. The meteorological data from both the primary and backup towers will be scanned and recorded as 15-minute averages by the plant's process computer. Strip chart recorders will continue to serve as a backup source of data.

A Class A dispersion model will be available on a plant computer to produce initial transport and diffusion estimates for the plume exposure Emergency Planning zone. The model shall use automatically supplied meteorological data from the primary monitoring system to produce plume dimensions and position, location and magnitude of the peak relative concentration, and relative concentrations at several downwind locations. Using ef fluent release information and a finite cloud external gamma dose model, estimates of near-real-time dose rates and accumulative sector average doses will also be available. The model will have the graphi:s capability of drawing relative concentrations and dose isopleths over a background map of the site.

lh Section 6.2 will be revised to include this information on the proposed operational meteorological measurements program.

470.1 In accordance with 10CFR Part, 50 Appendix I,Section II.D, (ER) specify which option has been selected for use in calculating the population dose estimates.

RESPONSE: Seabrook Station's application for a Construction Permit was docketed July 9, 1973. The requirements of 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section II.D, for a cost-benefit analysis do not apply.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Initia) Decision of June 29, 1976 for Seabrook Station Construction Permit concluded that the expected quantity of radioactive materials released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the resultant doses meet the design objectives set forth in the RM-50-2 guidelines. The board found that the proposed design of Units 1 and 2 satisfied the criteria specified in the option provided by the Comm_ssion's September 4, 1975 amendment to Appendix I and therefore, meet the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I-2,10CFR50.

470.2 Provide the dates '. hat the information contained in Tables 2.1-14 (ER) and Figures 2.1-9 through 18 are based on.

RESPONSE: ER-OLS Table 2.1-14 presents information concerning the location (in miles) of the nearest resident, garden, milk and beef animal R-48

SB 1 & 2 R1visica 1 -

ER-OLS February 1982

' (T x,,) in each of the sixteen compass sectors. The location of the nearest resident in each sector was extracted from aerial photographs of the site area taken during December,1979. For conservatism, each of the nearest residents was assumed to maintain a vegetable garden during the growing season of at least 500 square feet. Milk goats, milk cows, and beef cows were -

inventoried during September and October of 1979, and the data used to supplement and update milk animal inventories taken in 1975.

ER-OLS Figures 2.1-9 through 2.1-18 indicate the existing size and f

spacial distribution of various components of the site areas demographic makeup.

ER-OLS Figure 2.1-9 provides an estimate of the number and distribution of seasonal dwelling units based primarily on annual (1978-1979) residential electric meter use histories for towns within 5 miles, excluding North Hampton, and 1970 U.S. Census of Housing data on vacant-seasonal and migratory units for towns between 5 and 10 miles of the station site, along with North Hampton. This information was supplemented with 1978 aerial photography,1978 weekday / weekend beach housing occupancy surveys, and a 1979 telephone survey of town assessors and building inspectors. Section 2.1.3.3 of the SB-FSAR describes in greater

,~ ,s detail the assessment of seasonal dwelling units and associated (V ) population.

ER-OLS Figures 2.1-10 and' 2.1-ll indicate the estimated seasonal resident population based on the dwelling unit inventory as given in ER-OLS Figure 2.1-9. A summer 1978 beach area housing occupancy survey of the local area provided the beach housing occupancy factors used in the population estimate.

ER-OLS Figure 2.1-12, which gives the seasonal overnight population, was determined by survey work undertaken during the summer of 1978 for the O to 5 mile area. Information developed as part of survey work conducted during the summer of 1979 was used for the area from 5 to 10 miles.

The peak campground population in ER-OLS Figure 2.1-13 was assembled from several sources of information for the New Hampshire and Massachusetts portions of the 10-mile study area.

References included 1979 local telephone directories,1979 New Hampshire Camping Guide,1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan, New Hampshire Campground Owner's Association Guide - 1979, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management 's Space Inventory - 1978, and Massachusetts Outdoors - 1978, Massachusetts Department of Enviror: ental Management. Limi ted 1978 field observations (Exeter, K.*.ngston, Hampton Falls, North Hampton, and Seabrook) and telephc.. ommunications (Rye and Exeter) with local

(~') town offices provided a .itional information on camping facilities.

U ER-OLS Figure 2.1-14 indicates the maximum number of vehicles observed (July 22, 1979) in the beach area, during the summers of 1979 and 1980.

R-49

SB 1 & 2 Rivioicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 ER-OLS Figure 2.1-15 provides an estimate of the beach area population associated with the parking capacity of beach lots as determined f rom parking lot surveys conducted during the summer of 1978 and updated in the summer of 1979. The average automobile occupancy factor was determined from surveys conducted in July of 1978 at the Hampton and Salisbury beaches.

The beach area on-street vehicle parking capacity, as shown on ER-OLS Figure 2.1-16, was determined from a series of aerial photographs taken on July 8,1979. The population estimate associated with this on-street parking as given on ER-OLS Figure 2.1-17 was derived by applying the summer 1978 automobile occupancy survey results for beach area parking lots (3.2 persons / vehicle) to the car capacity figures given on ER-OLS Figure 2.1-16.

Data on ER-OLS Figure 2.1-18 indicating the population of major employers in the area was derived from two primary sources of data: (1) "Made in New Hampshire", a Directory of Manufacturers 1978-1979 (with Supplement to May 1979); and (2) " Directory of Massachusetts Manufacturers - 1979".

E) r the ar 2000 RESPONSE: ER-OLS Table 2.1-10 provides an estimate of the current peak transient population within 10 miles of Seabrook Station. The components of transient population included in this table are seasonal residents, overnight visitors and daily transients. No projections or detailed information has been identified that would provide a basis for projecting the change in the 1980 transient population out to the year 2000. This conclusion was reached based on a review of available data and telephone communications with several individuals (References 1 through 10). Review of existing data on the major transient population components suggest that the transient population in the site area may be best described as being stable.

Seasonal Residents No projections of seasonal housing units were available from the U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Cens ts) or the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts (References 1, 5, 6). Much of the existing seasonal residential development within ten miles of the site exists in the beach area and within the three communities of Ibmpton, Seabrook and Salisbury. Building inspectors in the two towns in New Hampshire (Hampton and Seabrook) were contacted to determine if substantial increases in the number of seasonal l

housing units had taken place in recent years, and to estimate the l number which were now under construction or being planned. The building inspector in the Massachusetts community of Salisbury was l similarly contacted on this subject (References 2, 3, 4).

R-50

SB 1 & 2 Revisicn 1 ER-OLS February 1982 1

\_ / It was determined that the towns did not differentiate between building permits issued to construct seasonal dwelling units and permanent or year-round dwelling units. This precludes the ability to determine the number of new seasonal dwellirg units built by using building permit data. However, the local building inspectors contacted indicated that most, if not all, new units constructed in their towns in recent years have been permanent, year-round residences. Few summer / seasonal residences are being built (i.e., estimated at less than cen per town per year).

The building inspectors also noted that a substantial number of summer seasonal housing units have in more recent years been winterized to permit year-round use and have thus reduced the total number of seasonal housing units. The local building inspectors are of the general opinion that this conversion trend is expected to continue in the future.

In summary, new construction of seasonal housing units in recent years is believed quite limited. This conclusion is based on discussions with building inspectors in Hampton, Seabrook and Salisbury in September of 1981. No new major seasonal housing development projects were identified as being planned for construction in the same communities. Construction of seasonal units is considered limited to several per year in each of these 7-'y communities, which contain the majority of existing seasonal units

\

j located within ten miles of the site. Very limited land availability and construction costs are believed reasons why substantial increases in seasonal units are not anticipated in the near term. These conclusions are similar to those reached in our 10-mile radius survey of town officials in October of 1979.

I Overnight Visitors A substantial number of o /ernight accommodations such as hotels and motel facilities exist within 10mailes of Seabrook Station.

Survey work was undertaken to identify major overnight accommodations and estimate their total capacity. This work was performed in 1978 and 1979 and involved review of available information and field observations. The results of this work, as '

indicated in the SB-FSAR, showed that the majority of the existing accommodations within approximately 5-miles of Seabrook Station are concentrated in the beach area. The greatest concentration of the overnight accommodations exists in the beach area of Hampton.

Table 2.1-5 in the SB-FSAR includes the resultant list of major overnight facilities identified in the area. Increases in the total number of overnight accommodations resulting from development of new facilities in recent years is believed to be small since few new developments have occurred recently in ihmpt on , Seabrook and Salisbury. No plans for such major new

(~') developments were identified. Likewise, projections of the number

' __f of new overnight accommodations were not identified as part of this review. This is based on discussions with the New Hampshire Of fice of Comprehensive Planning and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management staff (References 5, 6).

R-51

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Similarly no projections of growth in area camping facilities were identified. An inventory of outdoor recreation facilities is presently being updated for New Hampshire and is expected to be available in late 1981. This work, which is being done by the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning, involves updating the 1976 New Hampshire Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Facilities (Reference 9). The most recent 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan (Reference 8), indicates a possible stable or declining condition with respect to recreational activities of camping and swimming at State Parks. The plan indicates that a general downward trend in total State park attendance may be occurring (see pages 93 and 97 of the plan).

Daily Transients During the summer season a substantial influx of daily transients occurs in the coastal beach area within approximately 10-miles of the site. The influx of daily transients has been observed to be greatest on fair weather weekends and on holidays. Smaller increases in total daily transient population are believed to occur during fair weather weekday dates. The largest concentration of daily transients, as indicated by a review of beach area parking facilities available to the general public, occurs in the Hampton-Seabrook-Salisbury beach area.

ER-OLS Table 2.1-10 provides an estimate of the daily transient population for 1980 based on a capacity estimate of available fh beach area parking facilities. Observations made as part of survey work during the summer periods of 1979, 1980 and 1981 did not indicate development of major new beach area parking facilities. Plans for such major new facilities were not identified. Likewise, no projections of transient population growth related to beach area activity were identified through contact with the New Hampshire Of fice of Comprehensive Planning and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.

It is not apparent from review of data in the 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan (e.g. , Hampton Beach's annual attendance 1970 to 1976, page 88) and from observations made during summer aerial surveys that substantial increases in overall beach area attendance occurred in recent years. A somewhat stable condition may best characte tize near-term daily transient population growth.

References to 470.3

1. Telephone communication with Mr. Richard Ning, U.S. Department of Comme rce , Bureau of the Census, Boston,10 September 1981.

2. Telephone communication with Mr. Louis Janois and Mr. Ralph Eaton, Building Inspectors, Seabrook,14 September 1981.

3. Telephone communication, Mr. Raymond Hutchinson, Building Inspector, ihmpton,14 September 1981.

R-52

SB 1 & 2 R1 vision 1

~ER-OLS February 1982 l \ 4. Telephone communication, Mr. Ken Chase, Salisbury Building Inspector,17 September 1981.

5. Telephone communication, Mr. David !!artman, New Ilampshire Of fice of Comprehensive Planning, 9 September 1981.

6. Telephone communication, Mr. McLellan, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, 9 September 1981.

7. Seabrook Growth Analysis and Development Plan. The Thoresen Group, June 1981.

8. 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan. N.H. Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1976.

9. Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Facilities. N.H. Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1976. -

10. Massachusetts Outdoors, Massachusetts Department of Environmental '

Management, September 1978.

470.4 Table 2.1-17 and Tables 2.1-25 through 2.1-30 (based on 1974 and (ER) 1977 data, respectively) as well as other tables contained in the O Seabrook Nuclear Station environmental report should be updated to reflect the latest information available.

RESPONSE: ER-OLS Table 2.1-17 is based on 1978 Census of Agriculture Preliminary Report data and is the latest available ' data. Survey data will not be 're-collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census until 1982.

The latest data required to update ER-OLS Tables 2.1-25 through 2.1-30 was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NMFS and is presented in ER-OLS Tables 470.4-1 through 470.4-6.

O m

R-53

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 Ek-OLS Fsbrucry 1982 470.5 Section 6.1.5 of the Environmental Report should be updated to (ER) include tables as illustrated in USNRC Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program",

Revision 1, November 1979.

RESPONSE: ER-OLS Section 6.1.5 will be updated to include Tables 470.5-1 through 470.5-3 as illustrated in USNRC Branch Technical Position,

" An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program",

Revision 1, November 1979.

G 1

l l

l O

R-54

l- SB 1 & 2 Ravision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

+r -

TABLE 470.4-1 1979 Commercial Fisheries York County, Maine 1

^

SPECIES HARVEST (1bs) VALUE ($)

l Alewives 7,000 $ 400 i Anglerfish 169,400 97,286' Bluefish 56,500' 11,522 Cod 2,679,800 730,493 Cunner 900 155 Cusk 228,800 51,225 Flounder, Blackback 138,200 48,493 4 Flounder, Dab, Sea 1,128,600 384,062 Flounder, Fluke 1,900 348 Flounder, Gray Sole 225,300 140,734 i Flounder, Yellowtail 130,400 50,514 Haddock 1,025,800 456,763

- Hake, Red 100 10

. Hake, White 488,200 87,665 Halibut 4,600 -7,685 Herring, Sea- 100 14 s Mackerel 77,800 16,974-Ocean Perch 62,500 12,621 Pollock 3,843,200 787,381 4 Salmon, Atlantic 11 Scups or Porgies 100 5 Shad 11,000- 1,233 Sharks, Dogfish 375,900 20,059 Sharks, Unclassified 600 193 Skates 8,500 1,093 Striped Bass .100 63 Sturgeons, Common (Green and White) 800 118

Tautog 100 15 Tilefish 20 Tuna, Bluefin 23,500 29,059 l _ Whiting, Round 51,700 6,460 Wolffish 34,100 4,409 l_ Finfishes, Unclassified for Food 4,500 1,298

Lobster, American 1,042,300 1,880,784 .

Shrimp 2-Clams, Soft 32,000 47,218-i Squid, Unclassified 2,-100 '207 i

Squid, Short-Finned 400 85 Squid, Long-Finned 300 42 Seaweed, Irish Moss 300,000 17,340 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 12',157,500 $4,894,153

~/

_ Source: NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.G. Thompson, pers. comm.

s k

_- _ __ - .. -, , . - . . - - -- . , , , , ~ , , , , , - _ - - . - - _ . - - - - - - - . . _ . - - - - ,

SB 1 & 2 R: vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.4-2 1979 Commercial ", heries Rockingham County,.-v Hampshire SPECIES HARVEST (lbs) VALUE ($)

Anglerfish 56,980 $ 24,292 Bluefish 410 102 Cod 2,197,540 558,463 Cusk 196,000 41,029 Eels, Common 4,100 2,050 Flounder, Blackback 49,600 19,065 Flounder, Dab, Sea 1,409,240 505,000 Flounder, Gray Sole 246,070 148,750 Flounder, Yellowtail 28,750 10,529 Haddock 1,282,140 531,641 Hake, Red 20,800 2,080 Hake, White 515,080 77,956 Halibut 6,400 13,280 Mackerel 10,950 2,449 Ocean Perch 18,390 3,309 Pollock 1,362,810 243,906 Shad 7,310 657 Sharks, Dogfish 309,850 24,788 Sharks, Unclassified 4,180 587 Skates 36,670 4,766 Smelt 25,200 10,080 Sturgeons, Common (';reen and White) 1,500 330 Tuna, Bluefin 6,398 8,508 Whiting, Round 44,070 4,482 Wolffish 15,000 1,693 Finfishes, Unclassified for Food 16,310 2,109 Crab, Green 30,700 3,110 Cra b , At , Rock 37,800 5,934 Lobster, American 780,100 1,361,512 Scallop, Sea 61,350 196,320 Bloodworms 5,420 16,260 Sandworms 21,870 32,483 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 8,609,788 $3,857,520 Source : NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.G. Thompson, pers. comm.

O

SB 1 & 2 Rtvision 1

.ER-OLS February 1982 A

-TABLE 470.4-3 1979 Commercial Fisheries Essex County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (1bs)' VALUE ($)

Alewives 300 20 Anglerfish 799,400 353,506 Bluefish 71,400 13,022 Butterfish 2,400 693 Cod 19,877,600 6,625,110 Cusk 1,334,300 291,330 Eels, Common 43,400 26,702 Flounder, Blackback 756,500 310,472 l Flounder, Dab, Sea 7,546,100 2,855,771 Flounder, Fluke 3,700 1,229 Flounder, Gray Sole 1,720,000 1,078,364 Flounder, Lemon Sole 33,100 17,207 Flounder, Sand 14,400 2,501 Flounder, Yellowtail 2,511,600 1,147,157 Flounder, Unclassified 27,900 12,168 Gizzard Shad 12 O Haddock 12,827,400 5,615,003 V Hake, Red 1,692,700 258,682 Hak?, White 1,984,700 426,085 Halibut 79,500 110,230 Herring, Sea 43,867,300 3,047,314 Hickory Shad 3 Launces 24,000 11,000 Mackerel 204,70C 51,292 Menhaden 28,771,400 725,319 Ocean Perch 9,751,100 1,849,883-Ocean Pout 700 59 Pollock 11,490,000 2,231,755 Sea Basses 29 Shad 500 72 Sharks, Dogfish 2,815,100 204,946 Sharks, Unclassified 2,200 477 Skates 226,400 33,416 Smelt 300 25 Striped Bass 35,200 43,954 Sturgeons, Common (Green and White) 700 272 Swordfish 262,600 399,100 Tautog 200 58 Tilefish 28,800 5,937 Tuna, Bluefin 762,600 1,366,623 Whiting, Round 5,411,600 1,037,503 Wolffish 699,000 103,513

.-,j Finfishes, Unclassified for Food 1,137,500 371,577-Crab, Jonah 13,000 3,900

___ _____________________d

SB 1 & 2 Rsvision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.4-3 (Continued) 1979 Commercial Fisheries Essex County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (1bs) VALUE (8)

Crab, Rock 32,000 9,600 Lobster, American 3,279,940 6,597,405 Shrimp, Unclassified 894,900 269,525 Clams, Soft 552,110 1,061,750 Scallop , Sea 174,200 589,787 Squid, Unclassified 25,300 3,168 Squid , Short-Finned 2,501,500 238,011 Squid, Long-Finned 2 Sandworms 10,000 22,500 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 167,574,750 $39,453,084 Source: NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.O. Thompson, pers. comm.

O O

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.4-4 1979 Commercial Fisheries Suffolk County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (lbs) VALUE ($)

Anglerfish 5,200 1,847 Bluefish 8,000 1,440 Cod 9,485,300 3,069,460 Cusk 586,700 140,451

~ Eels, Common 10,000 6,300 Flounder, Blackback 258,800 130,589 Flounder, Dab, Sea 879,200 459,075 Flounder, Cray Sole 244,100 179,925 Flounder, Iemon Sole 41,400 19,217 Flounder, Yellowtail 210,600 94,738 Haddock 7,448,800 3,597,089 Hake, Red 1,400 870 Hake, White 842,300 198,865 Halibut 100 200 Mackerel 2,000 400 Ocean Perch 6,377,800 1,765,745 g Pollock 3,987,300 1,026,062 Skates 2.,500 469 Striped Eass 4,500 5,625 Wolffish 237,800 42,074 Finfishes, Unclassified for Food 700 105 Crab, Rock 15,000 4,500 Lobster, American 1,194,247 2,374,300 Clams, Soft 47,957 88,536 Scallop, Sea 11,000 41,526 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 31,902,704 $13,249,416 Source: NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.G. Thompson, pers. comm.

_____ _m.___ _ ._ --

SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.4-5 1979 Commercial Fisheries Norfolk County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (lb) VALUE ($)

Bluefish 6,000 $ 1,080 Cod 57,000 17,280 Eels, Common 8,000 4,800 Flounder, Blackback 40,000 16,800 Pollock 5,000 1,000 ,

Striped Bass 4,000 5,000 Crab, Rock 6,000 1,900 Lobster, American 467,474 959,060 Clams , Soft 81,939 157,575 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 675,413 $1,164,495 O

i l

Source: NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.G. Thompson, pers. comm.

O

SB 1 & 2 Rtvision I

,ER-OLS February 1982

' TABLE 470.4-6

, 1979 Commercial Fisheries

- Plymouth County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (lbs) VALUE ($)

Anglerfish 90,900 $ 30,717 Bluefish 23,100 4,352 Butterfish 1,200 175 Cod 1,863,600 574,160

Cusk 4,200 .653 1 Eels, Common 23,500 14,420 j

Flounder, Blackback 1,047,700 391,997 Flounder, Dab, Sea 466,100 180,084 n Flounder, Fluke 41,800 36,840 Flounder, Gray Sole 227,300 114,955 Flouader, Lemon Sole 24,500 16,176 Flounder, Sand 37,600 5,720 i

Flounder, Yellowtail 1,148,200 538,163 Haddock 162,100 67,662 Hake, Red 37,800 3,059 4

Hake, White 14,900 2,063 Halibut 1,700 2,843

( Mackerel 14,500 3,324 i

Ocean Perch 4,600 753 i Pollock 528,200 119,562 Scups or Porgies 7,200 1,714 Sea Basses 500 274 Sharks, Dogfish 300 26 Skates 33,500 3,708 Striped Bass 65,100 81,305 Sturgeons, Common (Green and White) 8 Swordfish 452,400 753,662' Tautog 18,200 2,173 Tuna, Bluefir 102,600 203,756

-Whiting, Round 237,700 20,704 Wolffish 27,700 1,828 ,

Finfishes, Unclassified for Food 42,100 4,813 Crab,_ Rock 15,000 '4,950 Lobster, American 1,603,236- 3,272,473

_ Clams , Hard 55,957 193,042 Clams, Razor 800 '300 Clams, Soft 31,512 58,176 Snails (Conchs)

+

26,775 24,990 Mussels, Sea 170,000 88,000 Oyster, Eastern 2,106 6,480 ,

Scallop, Bay 60,564 259,560 Scallop, Sea 119,700 414,170 v

s

---rr- . -, -, - - ,m-w, .--,-eev-,- , , . - - - , - - - +----.:,ee .y,.--*t 4-

SB 1 & 2 R vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.4-6 (Continued) 1979 Commercial Fisheries Plymouth County, Massachusetts SPECIES HARVEST (lbs) VALUE ($)

Squid, Unclassified 100 40 Squid, Short-Finned 20,200 1,766 Squid, long-Finned 91,000 35,295 Seaweed, Irish Moss 1,080,000 54,000 TOTAL FOR COUNTY 10,027,750 $7,594,891 O

Source : NMFS, Resource Statistics Division, Mr. B.G. Thompson, pers. coma.

O

i SB 1 & 2 Revision 1 ER-OLS February 1982

\d .Page 1 of 3 TABLE 470.5-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Number of Samples Type and i Exposure Pathway and .

Sampling and Frequency and/or Sample Sample locations Collection Frequency of Analysis

l. AIRBORNE Radioiodine

Samples from 3 of f- Continuous operation Radioiodine and site locations (in of sampler with sam- canister. Analyze i Particulates different sectors) pie collection as at least once per with the highest required by dust 7 days for I-131.

calculated annual loading but at least ground level D/Q. once per 7 days.

1 sample from the Particulate sampler.

vicinity of a popu- Analyze for gross lation center having beta radioactivity the highest calcu- > 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months following lated annual average _ filter change.

i ground level D/Q. Perform gamma iso-topic analysis on I) 1 sample from a each sample when i control location gross beta activity 15-30 km distance. is > 10 times the yearly mean of con-trol samples. Per--

) form gamma isotopic analysis on compo-site (by location) sample at least once per 92 days.

Consideration for location of air moni-toring stations was -

given to year round access to the location, availability of power, j and population in the area.

i i_)

s

--_ - - - , - - - m -&e-tv-- -- -- -- ---9-t

SB 1 & 2 R; vision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Page 2 of 3 TABLE 470.5-1 (Continued)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ' PROGRAM Number of Samples Type and Exposure Pathway and Sampling and Frequency and/or Sample Sample locations Collection Frequency of Analysis

2. DIREC'_ 32 stations with At least once per 92 Gamma dose. At RADIATION two or more dosi- days. least once per meters placed in 92 days.

two concentric rings around the plant.

8 stations with two or more dosi-meters placed at control locations, population centers and nearby residences l 3. WATERBORNE I

l

a. Surface 1 sample in the At least once per 31 Gamma isotopic area of the days, analysis of each discharge. sample.

1 sample from a Tritium analysis control location. of composite samples at least once per 92 days.

b. Ground 2 samples from At least once per 92 Gamma isotopic sources likely to days. and tritium analy-be affected. ses of each sample.

c. Sediment 3 samples from At least once per 184 Gamma isotopic beach locations days. analysis of each near the discharge sample.

area.

1 sample from a control location.

O

SB 1 & 2 R3visien 1 ER-OLS February 1982 (d \

-1 TABLE 470.5-1 (Continued)

Page 3 of 3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Number of Samples Type and Exposure Pathway and Sampling and Frequency and/or Sample Sample locations Collection Frequency of Analysis

4. INGESTION

a. Milk 3 samples from At least once per 15 Gamma isotopic locations within days when animals are and I-131 analysis' 3 miles distance on pasture; at least of each sample.

from the plant once per 31 days at having the highest other times.

dose potential.

1 sample from a _

control location.

b. Fish and 1 sample from the One sample in season, Gamma isotopic Inverte- discharge area. or at least once per analysis on brates 184 days if not sea- edible portions.

f" %, 1 sample from a sonal of 3 commer-(_,/ control location. cially and recrea-tionally important species.

c. Food 1 sample from 3 At time of harvest. Gamma isotopic farms or gardens One sample of 3 analysis on having the highest principal classes of edible' portion.

dose potential. food products grown in the area.

1 sample from a control location.

(~~)s

\__

SB 1 & 2 Revicien 1 ER-OLS February 1982 TABLE 470.5-2 REPORTING LEVELS FOR RAJIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES Reporting Levels Airborne Particulate Water or Cases Fish Milk Food Products Analysis (pCi/1) (pCi/m3 ) (pCf/Kg, wet) (pCi/1) (pCi/Kg, wet)

H-3 2 x 104 (a)

Mn-54 1 x 10 3 3 x 10 4 Fe-59 4 x 102 1 x 10 4 Co-58 1 x 103 3 x 104 Co-60 3 x 102 1 x 104 Zn-65 3 x 102 2 x 104 Zr-Nb-95 4 x 102 (b) 1-131 2 0.9 3 1 x 102 Cs-134 30 10 1 x 103 60 1 x 103 Cs-137 50 20 2 x 103 70 2 x 103 (a) For drinking water samples. This is 40 CFR Part 141 value.

(b) Total for parent and daughter.

O

SB 1 & 2 Rivision 1 ER-OLS February 1982 Nm- TABLE 470.5-3 0FFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING

SUMMARY

Name of Facility Docket No.

Location of Facility Reporting Period MEDIUM: MILK UNITS: PCI/ LITER RADIONUCLIDES INDICATOR STATIONS HIGHEST STATION CONTROL LOCATIONS (NO. ANALYSES) NOMINAL MEAN, RANGE, AND MEAN, RANGE, AND MEAN, RANGE, AND (NON-ROUTINE)* LLD*** NO. DETECTED ** STA. NO. DETECTED ** NO. DETECTED **

K-40 (48) 2.0E+02 (1.4 i .0) E 3 13 (1.4 1 0) E 3 (1.3 1 0) E 3

( 0) (1.1 - 1.6) E 3 (1.2 - 1.6)'E 3 (1.3 - 1.4) E 3

(36/36)* *(12/12)* *(12/12)*

I-131 (48) .5 (1.8 1 6) E -2 13 (2.2 + .8) E -2 (2.2 1 1.6) E -2

, ( 0) (-6.6 - 8.8) E -2 (-4.6 - 12.7) E -2

(0/36)* *(0/12)* *(0/12)*

g-'g CS-134 (48) 9. (-1.2 1 2) E O 12

(-9.7 1 3.5)E -1 (-1.3 1 3) E O

() ( 0) (-3.6 - 1.4) E O

(0/36)*

(-3.2 .3) E O

(0/12)* *(0.12)*

CS-137 (48) 9. (4.1 i .2) E O 21 (8.6 i 1.3) E O (8.6 i 1.3) E O l

( 0) (1.5 - 67.7) E -1 (9.5-189.0) E-1 (9.5-389.0) E -1

(27/36)* *(11/12)* *(11/12)*

Non-routine refers to the number of separate measurements which were greater than ten (10) times the average background for the period of the report.

- The fraction of sample analyses yielding detectable measurements (i.e. , > 3 sigma) is indicated within *( )*.

- - Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) as defined in table notation a. of ER-OLS Table 6.1-5, Specification 6.1-5.

a. Note: The example data provided in this table are for illustrative purposes only.

W -

ML20041C306

Contents

Text

References:

Subject:

Dear Sir :

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Reference:

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Reference:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20041C306

Text

References:

Subject:

Dear Sir :

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Reference:

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Reference:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search