ML20078D464
| ML20078D464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1983 |
| From: | NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078D449 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-830923, NUDOCS 8310040527 | |
| Download: ML20078D464 (79) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:O September 23,1983 TO: Addressee
SUBJECT:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Transmittal of Amendment to FSAR/ER Docket No. 50-423 Enclosed is Amendment to Copy No. of the Millstone m Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Final Safety Analysis Report / Environmental] (ReporD Please complete and return the attached form acknowledging mat have received and incorporated this amendment into your copy of the FSAR . The insertion instructions enclosed should be used to assist you in incorporating the revisions, and as such should be retained until the Effective Page Listing is again updated. if you have any questions, please contact me at (203) 666-6911 ext. 3285. Sincerely, Carol J. Shafyr ' FV Generation Facilities Licensing l Northeast Utilities Service Company I O 0310040527 830927 PDR ADOCK 05000 C
gg Generri Offices e Selden Street, Bertin. Connecticut
,, ecme,ce se.n me.o== wa=
win. - asemc w"" P.O. BOX 270
. ser ==na sowa""" HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 666-6911
/^) L L J C '",*,,ff'J O "w "" V September 27,1983 Docket No. 50-423 B10905 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Attn: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
References:
(1) W. G. Counsil letter to B. J. Youngblood, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, Responses Related to the Operating License Application Review, dated June 30,1983.
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Transmittal of Amendment 4 (n) v to the Environmental Report As committed in Reference (1) and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.30 (c)(1)(iv), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, herewith submits Amendment 4 of the Environmental Report (ER). Enclosed are the following documents and the number of each: o Environmental Report 41 copies Amendment. 4 (pages for ihsertion into the ER and Acceptance Review questions / responses) o Environmental Report 41 copies Volume 4 (Volume 4 is dedicated to questions / responses) This amendment is being submitted in orcer to: o Amend the ER to include responses to the requests for additional ,em information that resulted from NRC's review of our operating license application. Questions / Responses are provided in a (
)
i dedicated Volume 4. All resultant changes to the ER are being incorporated throughout the text. o Correct typographical errors. o Provide updated information. If you have any concerns related to commitments contained herein or any questions related to our responses, please contact our licensing representative directly. Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL By: NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, Their Agen O & =d W. G. Counsil Senior Vice President STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF. HARTFORD )
Then personally appeared before me W. G. Counsil, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, applicant herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name ,and on behalf of the applicants herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. l % (/'
^
y 9, y[ , ( Rotar.y j' l My Comm%n Errdrei M3 ch 31,1985 I e 4 - 1
General Offices e Seiden Street. Berlin Connecticut v.e ca cta,v to., .owse co .,, P O. BOX 270 9 .asvi sseusivesstaevacco=* a (m\
.<== ..rs .om. co"'*"'
. mar .svovute:um.ccow-asosteeage.WCLE.8E8dAGVCow sse HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 666-6911 Mail to: Carol J. Shaf fer Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06101
SUBJECT:
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Acknowledgement of Distribution of NRC Questions and Responses and Amendment 4 of the ER NRC Questions and Responses and Amendment 4 of the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Environmental Report to Copy No. 7/ have been received. O G Organization Name Copy Holder's Name Signature Date O V
1 MNPS-3 EROLS
. INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS FOR AMENDMENT 4 4 Remove old pages and insert Amendment 4 pages as instructed below (amendmant pages bear the amendment number and date at the foot of the page).
Vertical bars (change bars) have been placed in the outside margins of revised text pages and tables to show the' location of any technical changes originating with this amendment. -A few unrevised pages have been reprinted because they fall within a run of closely spaced revised pages. No change bars are used on figures or on new sections,
- j. appendices, questions and responses, etc.
Transmittal letters along with these insertion instructions should either be filed or entered in Volume I of Part I, in front of any existing letters, instructions, distribution lists, etc. LEGEND Remove / Insert Columns Entries beginning with "T" or "F" designate table or figure numbers, respectively. All other entries are page numbers: 7 T2.3-14 = Table 2.3-14 F2.3-14 = Figure 2.3-14 2.1-9 = Page 2.1-9. EP2-1 = Page EP2-1 vii = Page vii Pages printed back to back are indicated by a "/": 1.2-5/6 = Page 1.2-5 backed by Page 1.2-6 T2.3-14(5 of 5)/15(1 of 3) = Table 2.3-14, sheet 5 of 5, backed by Table 2.3-15, sheet 1 of 3 Location Column Ch = Chapter, S = Section, Ap = Appendix Remove Insert Location VOLUME 1 EP2-1 thru EP2-8 EP2-1 thru EP2-8 After Ch. 2 Tab VOLUME 3
' 2.1-7/2.1-8 2.1-7/2.1-8 After S2.1 Tab 2.1-11/2.1-12 2.1-11/2.1-12 Amendment 4 1 of 2 September 1983
- - .__ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ ~ . . _ . __ . _.. ,. _ ._,_... .___ _ ._ ._. _. .,.- . -- _._,, .. _.... _ , ~ _ _ _ . _ ,
MNPS-3 EROLS INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS FOR AMENDMENT 4 (Cont) Remove Insert Location T2.1-25 (1 of 3)/ T2.1-25 (1 of 3)/ T2.1-25 (2 of 3) T2.1-25 (2 of 3) F2.1-34 F2.1-34 2.3-1/2.3-2 2.3-1/2.3-? EP7-1/ Blank EP7-1/ Blank After Ch.7 Tab 7-iii/ Blank 7-iii/ Blank 7-v/ Blank 7-v/ Blank 7-vii/ Blank --- EP8-1/ Blank EP8-1/ Blank After Ch. 8 Tab T8.2-1 (1 of 2)/ T8.2-1 (1 of 1)/ After S8.2 Tab T8.2-1 (2 of 2) T8.2-1 (2 of 2) VOLUME 4 The tab NRC Questions and Responses, the tab January 31, 1983 and the material following it, are to be removed from Volume 3 and placed in the enclosed Volume 4. The following material is to be placed in Volume 4 after January 31, 1983 tab. EPQ-1/EPQ-2 EPQ-1/EPQ-2 Q231.1-1/Q240.1-1 QE100.2-1/ Blank TQE100.2-1 (1 of 9) thru TQE100.2-1 (9 of 9) Q231.1-1/ Blank Q240.1-1/Q240.1-2 FQ240.1-1 thru FQ240.1-5 Exhibit 240.1 Cover Page/ Blank i/ii 1 thru 22 Q240.2-1/QE100.2 Q240.2-1/ Blank Amendment 4 2 of 2 September 1983
- _ .. ._. _ _ ~ . . . __m . . . _ . ..-. . _ _ . _ _
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES-Page, Table (T), or Amendment Figure (F) Number 2-i thru 2-xvii 0 2.1-1 thru 2.1-6 0 2.1-7 1 2.1-8 4 2.1-9 thru 2.1-10 0 I 2.1-11 4 2.1-12 thru 2.1-30 0 T2.1-1 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-2 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-3 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-4 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-5 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-6 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-7 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-8 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-9 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-10 (1 of 1) 0
. [/I-
\-- T2.1-11 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-12 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-13 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-14 (1 of 1) 0 i T2.1-15 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-16 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-17 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-18 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-19.(1 of 1) 0 T2.1-20 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-21 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.1-22 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-23 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-24 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 L - T2.1-25 (1 of 3) 4
- T2.1-25 (2 thru 3 of 3) 0 T2.1-26 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-27 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 T2.1-28 (1 of 1) 0 ~ T2.1-29 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-30 (1 of 1) 0 i ' T2.1-31 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-32 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 T2.1-33 (1 of 1) 0 T2.1-34 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0
s T2.2-6 (1 of 1) 0 , () T2.2-7 (1 thru 2 of 2) O t
T2.2-8 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-9 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-10 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-11 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-12 (1 of 1) 0 . . T2.2-13 (1 of.1) 0 l- T2.2-14 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-15 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-16 (1 thru 7 of 7) 0 , T2.2-17 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 ' l T2.2-18 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-19-(1 of 1) 0 3 T2.2-20 (1 of 1) 0 l- T2.2-21 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-22 (1 thru 4 of 4) 0 T2.2-23 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 i T2.2-24 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-25 (1 thru 4 of 4) 0 T2.2-26 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-27 (1 of 1) 0 r T2.2-28 (1 of 1) 0
- T2.2-29 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 i T2.2-30 (1 thru 10 of 10) 0 i T2.2-31 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 fT T2.2-32 (1 of 1) 0
', ( _) T2.2-33 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-34 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 Amendment 4 EP2-3 September 1983
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont) Page. Table (T), or Amendment Figure (F) Number T2.2-35 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-36 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-37 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-38 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-39 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-40 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-41 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-42 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-43 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-44 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-45 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-46 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 T2.2-47 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-48 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-49 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-50 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-51 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-52 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.2-53 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-54 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-55 (1 of 1) 0 T2.2-56 (1 of 1) 0 F2.2-1 0 F2.2-2 0 F2.2-3 0 F2.2-4 0 F2.2-5 0 F2.2-6 0 F2.2-7 0 F2.2-8 0 F2.2-9 0 F2.2-10 0 F2.2-11 0 F2.2-12 (3 sheets) 0 F2.2-13 0 F2.2-14 0 F2.2-15 0 F2.2-16 (3 sheets) 0 F2.2-17 0 F2.2-18 0 F2.2-19 0 F2.2-20 0 F2.2-21 0 F2.2-22 0 Amendment 4 EP2-4 September 1983
- - - - . - . .. - . - . - ~ . . - . -. . - . . . . - . . -..
4 'MNPS-3 EROLS I'
'[ LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont)
! ( l t 4 4 , i f Page, Table (T), or Amendment Figure (F) Number
- F2.2-23 0 F2.2-24 (3 sheets) -0 F2.2-25 0 F2.2-26 0' l F2.2-27 0 [
~ F2.2-28 (2 sheets) 0 i F2.2-29 0 ,
i F2.2-30 0 f F2.2-31 0 F2.2-32 0 ; F2.2-33 0 F2.2-34 0 . F2.2-35 0 t F2.2-36 0 I I. F2.2-37 0 '
- j. F2.2-38 0
- F2.2-39 0 F2.2-40 0 F2.2-41 0
!- F2.2-42 0 i F2.2-43 0
- F2.2-44 0 F2.2-45 0
- F2.2-46 0 ,
! F2.2-47 0 t F2.2-48 0 f' F2.2-49 0
- j. - F2.2-50 0
. F2.2-51 0 i
' Summary TC i thru ii 0 2.3-1 0
, 2.3-2 4 2.3-3 thru 2.3-6 0 j 2.3-7 1 4 2.3-8 1 2.3-9 1 l' ., 2.3-10 1 I 2.3-11 0 I' 2.3-12 1
- 2.3-13 thru 2.3-24 0 j T2.3-1 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-2 (1 of 1) 0 i i .
i Amendment 4 EP2-5 September 1983 r-+= w ,g - - p k - m m e -mr-- m , v-r ,w w .< 4m e.. w e,w , e e., e , w ,,,- _ . - . . . __, __ ,-- _ _ we s , = w nei__. *-m* Tite *=*'ns- rw .. __ erE
IINPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont) Page, Table (T), or Amendment Figure (F) Number T2.3-3 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-4 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-5 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-6 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-7 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-8 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-9 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-10 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-11 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3 ,12 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-13 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-14 (1 thru 13 of 13) 1 T2.3-15 (1 thru 13 of 13) 0 T2.3-16 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-17 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-18 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-19 (1 thru 2 of 2) 1 T2.3-20 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-21 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-22 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-23 (1 thru 8 of 8) 0 l T2.3-24 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 l T2.3-25 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-26 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-27 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-28 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-29 (1 thru 12 of 12) 0 T2.3-30 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3.31 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-32 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-33 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-34 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-35 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-36 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-37 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-38 (1 of 1) 2 T2.3-39 (1 thru 3 of 3) 1 T2.3-40 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-41 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-42 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-43 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-44 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-45 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-46 (1 cf 1) 0 Amendment 4 EP2-6 September 1983
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE'PAGES (Cont) d
; Page,' Table (T), or ' Amendment l Figure (F) Number T2.3-47 (1 of 1). 1 T2.3-48 (1 of 1) 1 T2.3-49 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-50 (1 of 1) C
- -T2.3-51 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-52 (1 of 1)- 0 T2.3-53 (1 of 1) 1-
.T2.3-54 (1 of 1) 0
, T2.3-55 (l'of 1) 0 i T2.3-56 (1 of 1) 1 r T2.3-57 (1 of 1)- 1 T2.3-58 (1 of 1) 1
'T2.3-59 (1 of 1) 0 ; T2.3-60 (l'of 1). O
- T2.3-61 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-62-(1 ef 1) 0 O T2.3-63 (1 of 1)
T2.3-64 (1 of 1) T2.3-65 (1 of 1) 0 0 0 . T2.3-66 (1 of 1) 1 , T2.'3-67 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-68 (1 of 1) 0 T2.3-69 (1 of 1) 0 F2.3 0 F2.3-2 0 F2.3-3 0 F2.3-4 (2 sheets) 0 F2.3-5 (2 sheets) 0 , F2.3-6 (2 sheets) 0 i F2.3-7 0 2.4-1 thru 2.4-12 0 2.4-13 2 2.4-14 thru 2.4-17 0 T2.4-1 (1 thru 3 of 3) 0 T2.4-2 (1 of 1) 0 T2.4-3 (1 of 1) 0 , T2.4-4 (1 of 1) 0 , T2.4-5 (1 of 1) 0 i F2.4-1 0 F2.4-2 0 F2.4-3 0 1 4 F2.4-4 0 F2.4-5 0 Amendment 4 EP2-7 September 1983 i sya *, - r -r-~ .-. ,cww,,, , , - -.-en ,. ,,. er---,v.e, , pe #w-+. r -- %, y--,gey---m , --4------. -. ,- nw.,-,,4--ww,w+,c.,- w.~-,w-,-wwww - - --e-i..--.,w--,w<--.------m.,e
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont) Page, Table (T), or Amendment Figure (F) !! umber F2.4-6 0 F2.4-7 0 F2.4-8 0 F2.4-9 0 F2.4-10 0 F2.4-11 0 F2.4-12 0 F2.4-13 0 2.5-1 thru 2.5-2 2 F2.5-1 0 F2.5-2 0 2.6-1 thru 2.6-3 0 T2.6-1 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 T2.6-2 (1 of 1) 0 Attachment 2.6A (Cover) - 1 page 0 Attachment 2.6A - 1 page 0 Attachment 2.6A (letter) - 3 pages 0 Attachment 2.6A (list) - 15 pages O Attachment 2.6B (cover) - 1 page 0 Attachment 2.6B - 1 page O Attachment 2.6B (letter) - 2 pages 0 2.7-1 2 2.7-2 thru 2.7-3 0 T2.7-1 (1 of 1) 0 T2.7-2 (1 of 1) 0 T2.7-3 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 1 F2.7-1 0 F2.7-2 2 l f Amendment 4 EP2-S September 1983
E MNPS-3 EROLS. A -
.I utilities .are shown at New London (Waterford) and Croton/New London.
CJ .(Trumbull)l Airports, the Port of New London,..and the Millstone ' site. 1 Commercial development is scattered along major roads. Growth is occurring throughout the 10-km (6-mile)- region, particularly the expansion of suburban development. Growth of mixed urban uses is taking place adjacent to the town centers of New London and Groton. It is expected ~ that Waterford' will experience some multi-family development along Boston Post Road and Rope Ferry Road in response to new sewer lines. Approximately 200 new elderly housing and condominium units have been approved for development north and north-northeast of the site, between 4 and 8 km (2.5 and 5 miles). A major shopping mall has been approved for development on Route 85 between Interstate 95 and Route 52 (Connecticut Turnpike) near the area targeted for industrial ^ development by town zoning (Telecon, Ellis 1981o; Waterford Planning and Zoning Commission 1977). Suburban residential development in Old Lyme is expected to continue in the 10-km. (6-mile) region. Land- south of Interstate 95 at Interchange.71 has been designated for industrial development (Town of-Old Lyme, Conn. 1975). The town garage and some small firms with two to three employees are located in this area. Zoning maps for the six zoning jurisdictions within the 10-km p}- g-(6-mile) region are shown on Figures 2.1-25 are presently no moritoriums on growth in any of the towns within the tnrough 2.1-30. There 10-km region. Transportation The area within 10 km (6-miles) of Millstone 3 is served -by interstate, state, and local roads.. These and other transportation facilities are shown on Figure 2.1-31. Average daily traffic counts (ADT) in the vicinity of Hillstone 3 ranged from 2,300 on Route 213 near Goshen Road, to 30,100 on I-95, east of the junction-with Route 52 (Telecon,- Ellis 1981f). Several ADT counts for the 10-km region are provided in Table 2.1-23. Two major highway improvements are presently planned for the 10-km (6-mile) region. The section of Route 85 between I-95 and Route 52 will be widened in connection with the new shcpping mall to be built on Route 85 (Telecon, Ellis'1981e). A n'ew bridge between Waterford and East Lyme is currently in design by the Connecticut Department of Transportation and will replace the Niantic River Bridge with a high-rise . bridge one mile long (Telecon, Ellis 1981o: Telecon, Ellis 1981e).
. Major local roads in Waterford include Rope Ferry Road (Route 156),
Great Neck Road (Route 213), Boston Post Road (U.S. Highway 1), Niantic River Road, and Spithead Road. Amendment 1 2.1-7 February 1983
11NPS-3 EROLS Two airports are located within the 10-km (6-mile) region. The 4l Groton/New London Airport (Trumbull) is located in Groton, approximately 10 km (6 miles) east-northeast of Millstone 3. In addition to charter, private , rental. and instructional activities, 4I Groton/New London has commercial service by Pilgrim Airlines (for which it is a base of operations) and U.S. Air. There were a total of 125,000 operations in 1980 (Telecon, Ellis 1981n). The New London (Waterford) Airport has charter service and private planes. No data are available on use, and there are currently no plans to expand the facilities or services. New London Airport is located approximately 7 km (4.3 miles) north-northeast of Millstone 3. The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), Providence and Worcester Co., and Central Vermont Railway operate freight trains within the 10-km region. Amtrak owns the trackage of the Shore Line, which crosses the Millstone site. Amtrak provides passenger service, and Conrail provides freight service on that line. As discussed in Section 2.1.3.1.2, the Northeast Corridor Rail Improvement Plan is expected to make improved rail service possible between Boston and Washington, D.C. Improvements to trackage in Massachusetts and Cor.necticut are nearly complete, and all other improvements are expected to be complete by 1985 (Telecon, Ellis 1981k). Major Industries Major industries (companies with 50 or more employees) are listed in Table 2.1-24 and on Figure 2.1-32. The largest employer, with 20,600 employees, is General Dynamics Corporation - Electric Boat Division, located on the Thames River in Groton, approximately S.2 km (5 miles) east-northeast of Millstone 3 (Southeastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce 1977). Electric Boat Division is involved in the design and construction of nuclear submarines. The largest manufacturing employer in Waterford is the Bureau of Business Practices, which employs 315 people in publishing training materials (Southeastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce 1977). The Bureau of Business Practices is located approximately 4.5 km (2.8 miles) northeast of Millstone 3. Educational Facilities Schools and colleges in the 10-km (6-mile) region are listed in Table 2.1-25, which includes the town or city where the school is located, its distance and direction frem the site, grades taught, and student enrollment. Programs for children with special needs are located in Waterford and New London. Several colleges and graduate programs are located in New London and Groton. The U.S. Coast Guard Academy, with 987 boarding students, is located approximately 9 km (5.6 miles) northeast of the site. The Connecticut College Campus 9 km (5.6 miles) north-northeast of the site is also the location of the Connecticut College Program for Children with Special Needs and the Williams School, a private school Amendment 4 2.1-8 September 1983
HNPS-3 EROLS ,' j ' Several state-owned areas offer access to lakes and streams for fresh '_/ water fishing in the 10-km (6-mile) region. These facilities are shoun in Table 2.1-28. Those on Pataguanset Lake, Dodge Pend, and Gorton Pond have boat launches. The boat launch site on the Niantic River and all other salt water based recreational facilities are discussed in Section 2.1.3.2. Additional state boat launch access points are planned for the Thames River, under the Gold Star Memorial Bridge in Groton and in New London. Sites of historic, scenic, or cultural significance in the 10-km (6-mile) region are discussed in Section 2.6.1. Other Major Institutions Lawrence and Memorial Hospital in New London is the only hospital in the 10-km (6-mile) region. With 325 beds and 1,200 staff (Telecon, Ellis 1981r), it serves Waterford, New London, and surrounding communities. Five nursing homes licensed for 50 or more beds are located in the 10-km (6-mile) region. These major medical facilities are shown on Figure 2.1-32 and in Table 2.1-29. Seaside Regional Center provides training and housing for handicapped citizens. There are 185 residents, 100 day students, and 260 full-and part-time staff on the Waterford Campus (Telecon, Ellis 1981q), located approximately 3 km (1.9 miies) east-southeast of the site.
,m
( ) The Connecticut Correctional Institute at Niantic and the J.B. Gates 'N / Correctional Unit occupy 341 hectares (843 acres) in East Lyme, 6.2 km (3.9 miles) west-northwest of the site. The facility contains a total of 307 inmates and 171 full-time and 7 part-time staff (Cerino 1981). Also in East Lyme, the Connecticut National Guard runs Camp O'Neill and Stones Ranch Military Reservation. Camp O'Neill (named for the 4 present governor, identified in earlier reports as Camp Grasso or 4 Meskill) is the barracks area. Stones Ranch is the training ground for between 500 and 600 National Guard Troops from the end of May to mid-August. Camp barracks have a capacity for 800 people and, with tents, can accommodate up to 1,000 (Telecon, Ellis 1981i). Camp O'Neill includes 31 hectares (76 acres) and is 3.2 km (2 miles) northwest of Hillstone 3. Stones Ranch (with 366 hectares or 904 acres) is turned over to the Connecticut Department of 4 Environmental' Protection from November 15 to December 31 for hunting. 2.1.3.1.2 Land Use Within 80 km The 80-km region surrounding Millstone 3 includes portions of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Suffolk County, New York. Major features of the region are identified on Figure 2.1-35. Surface water bodies within 80 km (50 miles) it.clude : Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound, the Atlantic Ocean south of Long Island, and w Rhode Island Sound. The Connecticut River and Thames River in j Connecticut, Narragansett Bay and the Providence River in Rhode Amendment 4 2.1-11 September 1983
liNPS-3 EROLS Island, and the bays of eastern Long Island (Gardner's, Great Peconic, Shinnecock, and 11oriches) are also shown en Figure 2.1-35. The cities and towns within the 80-km (50-mile) region are major . locations for industrial and commercial development, and educational, recreational and cultural facilities. Hartford, the capital cf Connecticut, is located on the Connecticut River, approximately 63 km (39 miles) northwest of the !!illetone site. Providence, Rhode Island, is located northeast of !!illstone at the boundary of the 80-km region, at the head of Narragansett Bay. Development in 'Suffolk County, New York, in the 80-km (50-mile) region is mainly residential, with most towns oriented to seasonal use. Urban and suburban areas in the 80-km (50-mile) region are located along major rivers, transportation routes, and the seacoast. The extensive shoreline created by bays, barrier beaches, and islands is an important resource throughout the region. Most of the coastline is characterized by seasonal developments which contain many recreational, cultural and tourist facilities. Land use, as it appeared in 1970, is shown on Figure 2.1.-36. As shown on the generalized land use map, the 80-km (50-mile) region is characterized by extensive areas of forest and agricultural lands and numerous lakes and ponds (U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey 1972-78). Built-up lands (commercial, industrial, and mixed urban uses) and suburban development (residential use) aredominate in the Hartford-Bridgeport corridor, northwest and west of the site. Cities and towns such as New Britain, Meriden, Wallingford, Hamden, New Haven, and !!ilford comprise the corridor which follows major highway and rail lines between Hartford and New York City. Bristol and Waterbury are additional locations of urban and suburban development west of the Hartford-Bridgeport corridor in the 80-km (50-mile) region. New London, Groton, and Norwich, Connecticut form a secondary corridor of development along the Thames River. Figure 2.1-36 also shows small areas of mixed urban development at Putnam and Danielson and primarily resiJential land use along the shore of Long Island Sound in Connecticut (The Continuing Committee on State Planning and Development, State of Connecticut 1979). The second major area of built-up land and residential development is 70 km (43.5 miles) northeast of liillstone 3 at Providence,- Cranston, and Warwick, Rhode Island. Newport, Kingston, and Westerly, Rhode Island are also centers for mixed urban and residential land uses. The most extensive areas of agriculture in the 80-km (50-mile) region are located in Suffolk County, New York (U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey 1972-73). As indicated on Figure 2.1-36, residential development with scattered occurrences of mixed urban uses characterize the towns along the Atlantic coast. Riverhead and Brookhaven also contain some mixed urban use. i 2.1-12
,n ,. ,m I
,a ) I I
~
v MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE 2.1-25 SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES WITHlfi 10 km App rox i ma to fla p Distance and 1980 - 1981 Code
- School o r Co l l eJg Location Direction from Site G ra de s Enrollment 1 Cohansie Elementa ry Wa te rfo rd 7.8 km flNE K-6 369 2 Creat Neck Elementa ry Wa te rfo rd 2.8 km ENE K-6 293 3 Quaker Hill E l emen ta ry Wa te rfo rd 11 km NNE K-6 203 4 Southwest E lemen ta ry Waterford 2.7 km N K-6 384 5 Oswegatchie Elementary Waterford . 5.0 km N K-6 271 6 Clark L ane Junior High Waterford 5.8 km NE 7-8 572 7 Waterford liigh School Wa te rfo rd 4.6 km NE 9-12 1,073 8 New London County Seventh Day Adventist School Waterford 9 km NE 1-8 11 (h) 4 9 Seaside Regional Center Wa te r fo rd 3.4 km ESE Vocational 12 ( k) t ra i n i ng 10 ilanders School East Lyme 7.5 km NNW k-5 and 496 Special ed 11 Niantic School East Lyme 3.4 km WNW K-5 381 12 Lillie B. Haynes School East Lyme 5.8 km NW K-5 372 13 East Lyme Junior High East Lyme 6.1 km NW 6-8 and 785 Special ed 14 fast Lyme liigh School East Lyme 7.5 km NNW 9-12 1,220 15 Edgerton School New London 7.0 km NE K-6 390 16 Harbor School New London 6.2 km ENE K-6 366 17 Jennings Schoni New London 7.5 km NE K-6 357 18 Nathan Ita le School New London 5.8 km ENE K-6 434 19 Winthrop School New London 8.6 km NE K-6 375 20 Littie Red SchooIhouse New London 8.2 km NE T ra i n i ng 21 (r) classes 21 New London Junior High New London 7.3 km NE 7-8 562 Amendment 4 1003 September 1983
1 8t 9n ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 e 0o 8r l l m 1 8 4 ( 5 c m n i o a ( 3 8 2 ( 0 5 2 2 ( 3 ( 0 2 2 7 ( ( 4 1 g p 9 9 ( 7 8 ( 0 5 4 q b ( 5 6 9 6 5 2 0 2 7 7 4 4 2 3 3 j ( 5 2 1 ( 5 d ( 0 5 5 8 3 ( 2 3 e 5 2 O 9n 1 1 9, 1 1 3 6 1E 1 1 l l o o o o h h c c d S S e e o e eg e e l 3 6 8 e t t s g g g a - - - g a a e e e e e i k K K e u u d 2 2 2 2 l l l l c l d d a 1 1 8 1 1 l l l l e o e 6 6 9 o l a a 6 r - - - - - o o o o p r r - - - r o r r - G 9 h - 1 7 7 C C C C S P P 4 K 7 P C G G K e t i S d onm E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E tao N N N N N N N N E N N N a r N N N E N N N E N E N E E N E E E E E mef m W ic xnn m mk m k m km mk m k m km m m mk m km k m mk m mk m k k k k k k k k k m oao 1 k rti 7 9 4 4 4 1 1 0 5 5 5 . 9 8 5 5 5 pst . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 0 pic 6 7 6 7 7 9 9 6 9 6 9 8 8 9 1 8 8 8 8 8 1
) ADe t r n i S o D L C O (
R 3 E 5 n 3 S P N 2 1 2. n d n n n n n n n n n o o o o o o o o o d d d d n o n o t G o o r e f o 2 O d d d d d d M E o n n n n n n n n n n n r m L i o oL o Lo oL o Lo oL o o o n n o n n n n n n y B t L L L L L L o o y o o o o o o L A a t t t t t t t t T c o w w w w w w w w w e o e e e e o e e w e w e or o r i t o o o r r r o o o d r r r l l N N N N N N N N N N N G C L G C G G G G O s n e o c l i n o s r e o n o i h e f c c h t s S S g x Id . i E) oe t o 3 n i l y s oe u n r 3 a m nu ep c hN c i o - l i t e l i r t 1 o t n d vm Sl o l h t a n . o s e a aa a o l o l g .c M o 2 h i l d l e c HC ei h o o o i l he C c r o n o g A gc c o h o i o cn l f e e S h o l e o e we ee S p h c h o nn o e l r a C h o p h l e d eg l c S c r h ao t o ug e h c o e c l g r Ne lS d S S o c rC l a o l g e S h d S o e a l o r s i S B o u h i l i g c n C l u fl Ch a t t y n f o d c f o i a s S l I s l G oo t y n h l u t no h a S C t m t o C ti d i g e J r r c r n n i 'hp s r. a u C t y uw e o i Pe a ey S G k o r o r 'y do i c s tl c L c S o ic tt e o d e e l i l a il in i l d l si e d e n l n o H s r n o a o i c e C l t l o se rh t e cr e l n r n a S m i d as er t a o r C r wo o o L e c J M L W en c h ec ed vt nl n e o i o t t l t r e he tv d u f t l h s h c w a e r t t
. w e h e no i t
S. ii nM ni oh l o a s o r l s c e a on r ui a r a i l e S N G S S N T C M U U( CC C E G i W W S SU C t I M r a s n o O i t a pe
- c o
ad L Mo 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
- m .
I 1 I i
'% s
\
N p' 4
#TLFCHA%E c
\ WATgg
*Y
% 52 x c
T
\
'NIEPCNANGE7c \ .
b?E AC H AN c.g 75 95 5; 8 NEW LON O WArenrc
' AIRPOR T /7h"CH4%Eat o, STONE 5
EAST ML Agy RE' ~Rvaric LYME $ if l 40 g . g (* 0 p'iracNdut P j 3i15 t% 4 9 x ( #gs , i- 4 '. y *~. g
' '""' \, G, O 904 'y:, t.:
o S 2 l I Q S TATE
\s 'NTER>r.yg LI TARv
.(
E
!?
E a 8a "0 s STREET G Mn 4 (
"#'~' Niin rv:.. ~ '
x* "y' *f '
'56 :ntvcn i
D ansoce; ,
- o+ '
.h 9 OLO s
g y E* LYME - nacxy
/ ' N / A y y./ C -
N#p e, O, tecx y
/l D ., is /dr$ - SITE S' o rc
'k <5 10
*p*
o e p ' ; ,- - ., % "
+ 'C**ee ., . , EO ;'
r 4I l ria *' j, '{, , g' - 3)1 o
~ ..
- a. 7
/ ,S 4" Q g-
~
.[ g
, :y .;
c.* U L v-u. 5 l. (4 D u m "hm:n,..
"%. #lq "Np,,e .s . f.' '
~ .. + g
y aR0 A?ER'UR5 x - 0 A R J, ' 8 x i- o A E z ,
+ 1r
- n' g Q- Gh a 32 .-.y yy , -
33
- 5 pon- N V(LdM00 35- v. -0' \ m RD r i N 34 -)":
s NOTE l s 25 M Y' OF M .',
, MAP NUMBERS ARE IDENTIFIED IN
* "dd TABLES 2.1-26 AND 2.1-27 AND
)g si 32 d: p$4 as ROTOh K',M LETTERS IN TABLE 2.1-28
. '\ ' o as i
yo G TO,N
,I ;
Q , r 5 y 40 M 29
\ ong 6
'ffAE80P
' 3
'k%,4-p#i f UMtfull "0"I 2 43 ,
5
\
y e l ' I dt i Also Available On Aperture Card I n q ,e :; l . ., I:m. ~ @ c
" bj-
. .. .. y I.; 37 FAvEnv [- <
> go %. o - POINT
;p.
213 8 l . j ;-;( p- O 1, 2 E
- HARKNESS 4- I D Y ,iU SCALE-MILES I wop i[#, h MEMO L'- a g, e.[l { '
STA PARK 6'; , q;
,,}
O I 2 sn :, s . e ' 4, - i e i
.[ ,-
- -( ,
S - e m.,by,( n % . i SCALE - KILOMETERS c W m Q 4 [ .c
% .y '
,4-W
, d, A NLg -
FIGU R E 2.1-34
^
~
PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS rbsNo ' ' WITHIN 10 km T ' MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT x f '
. f UNIT 3
. Si -i ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 3
f k;; o OPERATING LICENSE STAGE t
^ h EI ' " % eO A- 04
- i 'N M N% *M5 E
- 8310040527-o(
i MNPS-3 EROLS
/~~N .(ss ) 2.3 METEOROLOGY This section provides a meteorological description of the site and its surrounding areas, along with supporting data.
2.3.1 Regional Climatology 2.3.1.1 Data Sources The climatology of the Millstone site region may be reasonably described by data collected by the National Weather Service at Bridgeport, Connecticut. The National Weather Service Station for
.y Bridgeport is located at the Sikorsky Memorial (Bridgeport Municipal)
. Airport, approximately 80 km (50 miles) west-southwest of the site.
The airport is located on a peninsula which protrudes into Long Island Sound in a similar manner to the Millstone site peninsula and thus provides a better representation to the site data than other slightly nearer stations. The Bridgeport meteorological data are reasonably representative of the climate at the Millstone site since both Bridgeport and the site are influenced by similar synoptic scale and mesoscale meteorological conditions. All data were collected at Bridgeport Municipal Airport locations. From May 16, 1953 to February 29, 1960 and June 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982, the Bridgeport Weather Station was closed between jNg - the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Hourly data were recorded 16 hours s,,/ per day by the National Weather Service. For climatological purposes , data during these time periods were not used with the exception of precipitation and the 1981 Local Climatological Annual Summary. 2.3.1.2 General Climate The general climate of the region is described with respect to types of air masses, synoptic features, general airilow patterns,
/ temperature, humidity, precipitation, and relationships between synoptic-scale atmospheric processes and local meteorological conditions.
The Millstone site region has a continental climate, modified by the maritime influence of Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean, immediately to the south and southeast. The general eastward movement of air encircling the globe at middle latitudes transports large air masses into the region. Four types of air masses usually produce the meteorology in the region of the Millstone siter cold, dry continental polar air originating in Canada; warm, moist tropical air originating over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean; cool, damp maritime air originating over the North Atlantic; and modified maritime air originating over the Pacific Ocean. Constant interaction of these air masses produces a large number of migratory 7_s cyclones and accompanying weather fronts, passing near or over the t j A"';, site region throughout the year. These weather systems are strongest
\/ during the winter and decrease in intensity during the summer.
,, 2.3-1 13 w Ia
MNPS-3 EROLS Infrequently, a storm of tropical origin affects the Millstone site region. 2.3.1.3 Prevailing Winds The weather pattern in the site region is controlled by the global band of prevailing westerly winds throughout most of the year. These winds provide a steering current for synoptic scale weather systems which produce day-to-day weather changes. During the winter months, the predominating northwesterly winds transport cold, dry air from the northern United States and Canada into the region. From April through September, warm and often humid southwesterly winds occur most frequently. Winds from the south through the west-southwest sectors occur nearly 42 percent of the time during the summer months, indicative of the increased activity of a sea breeze during these months. Table 2.3-1 presents monthly, seasonal, and annual frequency distributions of wind direction at Bridgeport, while Table 2.3-2 (NOAA 1949-1980) shows directional persistence. Winds were assumed to persist if they remained in the same 22.5-degree sector for at least 5 consecutive hours. The annual frequency of calm winde (less than 3.2 km/hr (2 mph)) is 4 2.9 percent. The highest frequency of calm and light wir4 (less than or equal to 4.8 km/hr (3 mph)) occurs during the summer season. Higher wind speeds commonly occur from November through April when weather systems of synoptic scale are strongest. Wind speeds greater than 40 km/hr (25 mph) occur 6.2 percent of the time during the months of January through March. Frequency distributions of wind speed at Bridgeport are presented in Table 2.3-3 (NOAA 1949-1980). 2.3.1.4 Strong Winds Strong winds, usually caused by intense low-pressure systems, tropical cyclones, or passages of strong winter cold frontal zor.e s , occasionally affect the region. For the 1961 through 1981 period, the fastest-mile wind speed recorded at Bridgeport was 107 km/hr (67 mph) occurring with a north-northwest wind in January 1964. Table 2.3-4 lists extreme wind speeds on a monthly, seasonal, and annual basis (NOAA 1970, 1974, 1978, 1981). Fastest-mile wind speeds of 80, 96, 112, 120, and 144 km/hr (50, 60, 70, 75, and 90 mph) are expected to recur at the site in intervals of approximately 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years, respectively, according to a study by Thom (1968). Based on observations from Montauk Point (located about 37 km (23 miles) southeast of Millstone Point on the eastern tip of Long Island), the maximum reported wind speed in the region was associated with the passage of a hurricane during which sustained winds of 184 km/hr (115 mph), with short-term gusts up to 140 mph (Dunn and Miller 1960) were observed. j O Amendment 4 2.3-2 September 1983
. ..- ... . -. . . . . = . . . . - . . . - . . . - . - . _ . . . . . . _ - . . - . . . - . . . - . . - - . . . - - .
i.
~
I t MNPS-3 EROLS ' 1 !
- l. LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES I
i Page, Table (T), or Amendment j Figure (F) Number l I 7-i 0 l 7-iii thru 7-v 4 ! ! 7-1-1 thru 7.1-13 0 l l 7.1-14 thru 7.1-28 3 l l T7.1-1 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 i i T7.1-2 (1.thru 2 of 2) 0 I T7.1-3 (1 of 1) 0 ! ! T7.1-4 (1 of 1) 0 ! ! T7.1-5 (1 of 1) 3 l T7.1-6 (1 of 1) 3 ; ! F7.1-1 3 l
- - F7.1-2 3 i F7.1-3 3 ,
= F7.1-4 3 j } F7.1-5 3 ; ! F7.1-6. 3 t 4 7.2-1 0 7.3-1 0 t i i i , I l i I
- - i a
t I i Amendment 4 EP7-1 September 1983 j i.
>.-,--n,-.-n,,,.,..n--n-n._, .m- , - we ~ r .
. . _ . . _ . _ _ _. . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ - . ~ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ __ _ _ . ._ _ _ _. ! I l
HNPS-3 EROLS l 1 I \ LIST OF TABLES 1 l Table Title l 7.1-1 Individual Integrated Radiation Doses from Various Postulated Accidents l j 7.1-2 Total Population Radiation Dose within 80-km (50-mile) Radius 7.1-3 Core Radioactivity
]
j 7.1-4 Fifty percent X/Q Values (sec/m3 ) for Exclusion Area Boundary 1 7.1-5 Internal Initiating Event categories 7.1-6 Release Categories I i I e 5 a i b 4 e .I 5 i: j o .i r o d i i Amendment 4 7-iii September 1983 1 . 1 i
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , . _ , _ . - . . _ . __ ~.... , _ , _ . , . - _ , . - _
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF FIGURES i b ! Figure Title . i 7.1-1 !!illstone Wind Rose Probability of Wind Directions I 7.1-2 Millstone Wind Rose Joint Probability of Rain and Wind Rose 7.1-3 Risk Diagram for Early Fatalities Due to Internal Events l
- 7.1-4 Risk Diagram for Latent Cancer Fatalities Due to Internal '
j Events I 7.1-5 Risk Diagram for Early Fatalities Due to External Events 7.1-6 Risk Diagram for Latent- Cancer Fatalities Due to External Events ' i 1 l I i e i t r 4 i i i i P i f
- O Amendment 4 7-v September 1983 4
_ _. _ _ , . ._,,_ ...,__,_ ,_. ,.....,..,,-,,,_-__,.,.._,,___....___._.,_..,m,_._,_..____.~.....,.. . _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ .
M 1 a ,'. MNPS-3 EROLS l 4 . d LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES t-i d ! Page, Table (T), or Ammendment ! ! Figure (F) Number ! 8-i thru 8-iii 0 8.1-1 thru 8.1-2 0
- T8.1-1 (1 thru 2 of 2) 0
! r l 8.2-1 thru 8.2-2 0 t T8.2-1 (1 of 2) 4 ! T8.2-1 (2 of 2) 0 .' , T8.2-2 (1 of 1) 0 i I I f I i i I L } 1 i f 1 i 1 1 l i r
- 9 t
Amendment 4 EP8-1 September 1983 l- r 4 i nu.-,.n.,n.,-,,-.y.,,,...,,,__m,-,,__. .n,-,,__,_ ,_nn,,,,____ _ _ , _ . . ._ , - , - - -
MNPS-3 EROLS. TABLE 8.2-1 STATION COST INFORMATION Direct Costs Land and land rights $ 122,000 Structures and site facilities $ 268,592,000 Reactor (boiler) plant equipment- $ 263,257,000 , Turbine plant equipment, not in- $ 65,946,000 cluding heat rejection systems
- Heat rejection system $ 31,499,000 Electric plant equipment $' 94,484,000 Miscellaneous equipment $ 25,993,000
- Spare parts and allowance $ 24,700,000 Contingency allowance $ -289,061,000 Subtotal $1,063,654,000 Indirect Costs Construction facilities, equipment, $ 407,177,000 and services Engineering and construction $ 356,977,000 management services Interest during construction! $1,180,000,000 other. costs 346,100,000 l4 Subtotal S2,290,254,000 Escalation During Construction 2 10 percent / year = $ 186,092,000 Total cost at st=rt of commercial $3,540,000,000 i
- operation l
^ l 4 l l
<-~s l
. Amendment 4 1 of 2 September 1983
HNPS-3 EROLS TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) NOTES:
- 1. AFUDC calculated using the " net of tax" philosophy under the method of FPC order number 561. The rate for 1982 is estimated at 9.0% per annum compounded semi-annually. Future rates are estimated at 9.25% per annum.
- 2. Escalation is computed at 10.0 percent per annum compottnded from a present day of March 31, 1982.
O l 2 of 2
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page, Table (T), or Revision i Figure (F) Number EROLS Questions (Index) (1 thru 2 of 2) 0 QE100.2-1 1 TQE100.2-1 (1 of 9 thru 9 of 9) 1 Q231.1-) 0 Q240.1-1 1 FQ240.1-1 1 FQ240.1-2 ? FQ240.1-3 1 FQ240.1-4 1 FQ240.1-5 1 Exhibit 240.1-1 0 Q240.2-1 0 QE290.1-1 0 QE291.1-1 thru QE291.1-2 0 QE291.2-1 0 TQE291.2-1 (1 thru 2 of 2) O TQE291.2-2 (1 of 1) 0 TQE291.2-3 (1 of 1). O [s i TQE291.2-4 (1 of 1) 0 QE291.3-1 thru QE291.3-2 0 QE291.4-1 0 QE291.5-1 0 QE291.6-1 0 QE291.7-1 0 QE291.8-1 0 QE291.1-1 0 QE291.10-1 0 QE291.11-1 0 QE291.12-1 0 FQE291.12-1 0 QE291.13-1 0 QE291.14-1 0 QE291.15-1 0 QE291.16-1 0 QE291.17-1 0 QE291.18-1 0 QE311.5-1 0 TQE311.5-1 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-2 (I of 1) 0 TQE311.5-3 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-4 (1 of 1) 0
- TQE311.5-5 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-6 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-7 (1 of 1) 0 Revision 1 EPQ-1 September 1983
MNPS-3 EROLS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont) Page, Table (T), or Revision Figure (F) Number TQE311.5-8 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-9 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-10 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-11 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-12 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-16 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-17 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-13 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-14 (1 of 1) 0 TQE311.5-15 (1 of 1) 0 QE320.1-1 thru QE320.1-2 0 QE320.2-1 0 Q470.1-1 0 TQ470.1-1 (1 of 1) 0 TQ470.1-2 (1 of 1) 0 TQ470.1-3 (1 of 1) 0 Q470.2-1 0 Q470.3-1 0 Q470.4-1 0 O l 1 l l l l Revision 1 EPQ-2 September 1983
MNPS-3 EROLS g ( j NRC Letter: January 31, 1983
% ./
Question No. QE100.2 In addition to other requested information, provide a summary and brief discussisn, in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects (including those that would degrade and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report and environmental hearings associated with the construction permit review. On a similar basis, indicate changes in plant or plant component design, location or operation that have been made or planned since the construction permit review.
Response
Projects undergo many alterations prior to arriving at a final design. These typically result from regulatory changes, design review, improved construction techniques, research an'd operational experience, regional and national economic conditions, and updated monitoring data. A review of the Environmental Report Construction Permit Stage (ERCPS) and corresponding sections of the Environmental Report Operating License Stage (EROLS) was performed to delineate differences between environmental effects predicted in the ERCPS with those currently
,-s projected in the EROLS. Hearing Testimony, Final Environmental
( ) Statement and Audit Program for the Environmental Protection Commitments \- ' During Construction were also reviewed. Table E100.2-1 lists and evaluates the changes from the conceptual design stage. For the most part, predicted environmental impacts have not changed from the ERCPS to the EROLS, however, new information from ongoing studies and research efforts have allowed for more detailed and refined asessments. In some areas, impacts are addressed for the first time in the EROLS. Only those plant design changes having an environmental effect are listed in Table E100.2-1. .hanges in plant component design, location, or operation that have be-a made since the issuance of the construction permit are described in detail in the !!illstone 3 FSAR Table 1.3-16. Chapters 6 through 12 of the EROLS do not correspond to Sections 6 through 11 of the ERCPS. Thus, direct comparison of sections is not meaningful. Additionally, with the exception of Chapter 7, this material does not relate to environmental effects, and therefore has not been included in the table. ,\
\_/
Revision 1 QE100.2-1 September 1983
. . . . - . - . . . . ._ - - _ . - . . .-~ .- - - . . = . . ~. - - ~ . - - - - _. -. . .
~ .
. . .m p ^
, MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1 Informationa l Changes f rom Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report ? EROLS Section Present Status Discussion. Chance in Impact Predicted in ERCPS l 2.2 Ecological field studies To provide data to comply with No change in site / environs but' conducted since 1973 -Reg. Guides 4.2, Rev. 2, NPDES refinement or assossments due. and commitments. . to enlarged data base 3.0 (3.1-3.9) Plant design Numerous. changes to plant design Refer to FSAR Table 1,3-16 l and components resulting from review, re sea rch, NUREG s, TMI's, for details etc. 5.1 Pages 3-15 Additional hyd rog ra ph ic Temperature measurements, dye Results are not comparable and i' a nd hyd ro the rma l studies plumes, and inf ra red survey differences cannot be detailed conducted since 1973 results confirmed each other
- and described extent or plume.
New therma l p l ume p re- . Methods used to predict size and i diction model and results shape of thermal plume were
- was utilized reca l i b ra ted wi th new da ta .
j Results of plume predictions in
, the ERCPS are for average flood 4- and ebb conditions. EROLS plume predictions are for maximum flood '
t and ebb and slack af ter ebb and flood. 5.1 Page 17 Longer tr ans e t time or ERCPS predicted 170 minute . transit None i entra ined organisms timo for organisms passing through through quarry was qua rry during two unit operation. predicted LRotS predicts 180 minutes for , 2 unit operation. Three unit j operation transit time is 85 minutes. ! Mechanical damage des EROLS reports mortality of larval None i to entra inment fish from passage through 4 1 condenser due to mechanica l stress. ( Info. based on recent I studies that we re not ava i lable i at time of ERCPS). 1 4 1 I, Revision 1 1 of 9 September 1983 i i j l i
MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1 (Cont) EROtS Section Present Status Discussion Chance in impact Predicted in ERCPS 5.1 Page 20 Three species of 200- Based primarily on studies con- None c lankton exposed to ducted since the ERCPS, three pluine temperature which species of zooplankton; Cranqon approach levels of ther- sentem spinor,2 Cancer i r ro ra tu s mal stress and Neomysis americana, may be exposed to tempera ture levels which approach their critical the rma l maximum, floweve r, the entrainment time is expected to be much shorter than test exposure time shown to reach critical thermal maximum tempe ra t u re . 5.1 Page 21 Additional study of Since the EROLS, an exposure panel Minor changes effects on fouling and study has been completed. Results wood-boring organi sms of that study indicate ef fects of 2 unit operation on abundance and tempo ra l distribution of fouling and wood boring organisms is l imi ted to the qua rry a rea. Addi-tional changes during 3 unit oper-ation a re expected to be minor. 5.1 Page 21 Intertidal rocky shores Since the ERCPS, a rocky inter- Yes - minor change community impacts will tidas community study has been be minor conducted. Results of that study show that 2 unit operation has resulted in the exclusion of g rowth of Asc_o_phyl lum nodosum from a portion of the shore t ine withip 25 meters of the point of d i scha rge into Long Island Sound. Enhanced growth was found about 75 meter f rom the d i scha rge. Three unit ope ra t ion is expected to shift this pa ttern fur ther a long the shorel ine. The displaced Ascophyllum is expected to be replaced by F ucus vesiculosus. Revision 1 2 of 9 September 1983 O O O
- -. . . . . - ., . . - . - - - - ..~ . .- . .
< -s- -s,
- V j );
MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1'(Cont)- I EROLS Section Present Status Discussion Chance in'Imoset Predicted in ERCPS , 5.1 Page 23 Benthic infaunal Since publication of-the ERCPS, Changes are negligible or
' community study com- a benthic infauna study has been not significant
! plete - no changes completed. Two un i t ope ra t ion
- expected results in a 20.m by 200 m scour
- extending seaward f rom the quarry 1 . cut. Three unit operation is expected to increase the width of
- ' thi s . scour a rea, Community composition is expected to change f rom deposit feeders to suspension feeders in this area.
'This effect is expected-to have i a negligible'effect on the benthic-eco logy o f the M i l l stone a rea.
Intertidal benthic infauna are - - not expected to be affected by j additional the rma l stresses since i these communities are subject to . a more extreme temperature changes 3 during a i r exposure. Subtidal 4 communities are expected to be influenced only nea r the enla rged discharge cut since plume effects - are primarily a surface phenomenon. No significant changes _in the subtidal infaunal cummunities a re expected. ! 5.1 Page 25 Lobster - Sluice return The sluiceway impingement re turn Yes - beneficial effect j system should improve system for Millstone 3 and for i impingement survival backfit of Millstone 1, should j while increased discharge provide greater impingement survival
- scour area should pro- than past two unit operation. Three
- duce additional shelter unit operation is expected to in-for inshore populations crease the area of bottom scot r of lobsters. outside the quarry. This extra area is expected to provide additicnal j] exposed boulders which should pro-
- vide additional habitat for adult lobsters.
]
4 i i Revision 1 3 of 9 . September 1983 o i l'
4 MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1 (Cont) EROLS Section Present Status Discussion Chance in impact Predicted in ERCPS 5.1 Pages 26-2 Discussion u( impict The EROLS discusses impacts of The rma l effects not expected to be on macroinvertebrater entra inment and impingement to of concern. Impingement mortality is expanded mac ro i nve rteb ra te s i n mo re deta i l low for a l l major species except than i s provided in the ERCPS. long-finned squid The discussion covers historical impingement and trawl catch reco rd s, recent thermal toler-ance data, and survival estimates from the impingement sluice return system. Predicted effects of the thermal plume a re not expected to be of concern. Projected impingement mortality of all abundant macro inve rte-brates except Atlantic long-
- inned squid is expected to be low. Predicted impingement mortality to this species is only about 0.006 percent of the estimated population size.
5.1 Pages 28-30 New f i sh ba rrie r a t To mi t iga te the rma l-re la ted fish None qua rry cut ki;l in the qua rry, a fish barrier was installed i n the ex i s t i ng qua r ry cut. A second cut and fish barrier, equivalent in dimensions to the o ri g i na l , has been added such that dir. charge velocities will be no g rea ter than presently exists. 5.1 Page 30 Seconda ry ent ra inment The LROLS provides a discussion None of ichthyoplankton in of the ef fects of entrainment the thermal p i tsme is of ichthyoplankton into the discussed thermal plume. Ichthyoplankton would be subject to a tempe ra tu re range of 6 to 11'C down to 1.5*C for 6 to 14 minutes. A table of thermal tolerance data with many references post dating the ERCPS is also provided. This aspect of thermal plume mortality is small compa red to direct entrainment and impingen.ent ef fects which a t e pre-dicted not to be detrimental to finfish populations. Revision 1 4 of 9 September 1983 O O O
r t ' t' 3 8 9 1 O(i'u P S C R r b e sd m E ne e ot t n ir p i to ap e S d re e tr . t n ic en ca d nh e ot r c P s es ge t c rl a a o hy _ m cl I sl i n ia. dr eS nnP o oeC n i gR n e e t E e e a n n ae n n h o o trn o o C N N Sai N N s n , el e r s d narseut s k , e notasnti ts s cyw p d otoeooer ci sded abo. lores e e e stnltrk e teehn bbd o t v v al s c rtnsl ta eunredtet dl a a tl nell ea rnesi s l rievncg nu oh h aiobal cb eel aa r k gw n e u a nl as lyi i d dMi uii tonMud f emav o to: ef s cci , , nu d lomptpi a idr e dt ean dnn daa
) lratn aor aysa l n o gi t D eitsrcefimn r
tre
, a m am nu us adderdi me t d n
o n ed b n i qd .ditsse ecn,bnnweedi qma rrn rni otper e3 opeetdea iet uoo oau S C inotodh im d n i pl s ua ttnr l ta c r fhq ( te c ete sieuevstedo,lisnsat sd cri ti L imteec n s hl mo Ahel a es. ny aov s O R 1 d ei pgn f o d gn x n e o t udtcnrd spfgewctdn ism cn ni pe ,ii od en o r eve in erl ter. . E 2 anueai s . isafia tsfrrtodreei see r a ahos i rrel1 o receiteumnombt ett ohe. imtfy 3 0 spes esl dt streil sta aF n a gs meh o a Rb) S P
- 0 1
E emeiepuie idir hxaMn oes httec o vmUl e neinal vl ntd eoi ,i en.aou awc h sshksw,l esrnp hdr cenz itl nae btd e saeh t etdt dw N Q n vlTn ert in.doogn,defn c e pi d n t o cau ihii oia M o oa enybos si ,uaaonl p ro ht yil eivp E L i s rc. mil pi 2 e h t 2 fl l nado inanihcthiel eremssi esssent ih sus s w ttt tbo a rs B s r gtn mi ttd tsw,dri ,deaows ouw sciu rl pu 9 A u SodniedeM xnitcuoeaef mlt i roe liv a o T c Ltniwrnt eevloursl eclnnlchveee u tf een edin enne r s Osap r asr mru yo unrrpenn ms dete soes o Ri nfrdrioaeil aooouei uan orce oiea iD Eh1i oc1 sf Aopacdrl m s b pM f pd m r N gi Mpab Dtbg 5 l h 3 ad s st- ne n ttie e oz _ o ncwh n y iy in ee t os t tl to nmrsa te i ia ici t onrem s iiei ss ovt tin dn l a da da ta cfi l e te a er crteo il dcm n s re etnp s Me ean re u pp snesel r soo oe t o em se r uir fb a t d edud oo di t nt egge o fv sav se S ei dnntem i l rn ev mn niicv d at e e ta t eu a b p eil e tc dt ah n g piml sad aa oce r e in3 xrienci do mih a s ec seiv i dt et e r pr sd nennxa r tto wd ea we ern so oi P Imo f Adaoemp Nr N pi Db 6 3 2 o 3 t n - o 0 3 i 3 3 t 1 c s s e e e n S g g o a a i S P P 1 2 3 s f'G L C R E 1 5 1 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 i R v e
- l 4< ! 1 1!
HNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1 (Cont) Discussion Chance in impact Predicted in ERCPS EROLS Section Prese'.t Status Revised dose rate As a result of source term Minor changes in claculated 5.2.4 ra d i o l og i ca l doses, estimates for man changes, updated demographic data, and updates on numerous other pa rameters a ssociated with radio-logical pathways of exposure to man, projected dose rates to maxi mumly exposed indiviudals and the gene ra l population have been revised. Resul ting doses a re still in compliance with 10CFR Pa rt 50, Appendix I dose limits. Projected doses to the contiguous Not previously addressed. U.S. population have been provided. 5.3.1 to 5.3.3 Numerous changes in Quantities and concentrations of No (NPDES limitations will ma keup dom i ne ra l i ze r chemicals in steam generator blow- be met for wastes discha rged) and condensate polish- down and deminera l izer wastes ing waste discha rge d i f fer f rom the ERCPS. This flows and sodium and occurs because the s eam generator sulfate concentrations selected has di f ferent makeup water qua l i ty considerations than that planned in the ERCPS. 5.7.4 New data f rom condenser Study on condenser tube corrosion Not previously addressed tube corrosion study on trace metal concentrations in Long Island Sound has been con-ducted since ERCPS. Copper, nickel, and zinc concentrations were mea su red a t the intake outfall ano f&r field plume. Results indicated an increase in levels of metals in the discha rge, but concentrations return to ambient at a ra te s im i l a r to tempe ra tu re a long the d i scha rge p lume. Corro-sion is therefore expected to have a ininimal impact on the water qua l ity of Long Island Sound. 6 of 9 SeptemDer 1983 Revision 1
, :t " L lb c ;l I - L i
. 3 8 9 1 S r P e C b R m E e t n p i e S d e t d .d d d c e e e e i s s s s d s s s s e e e e e r r r r r P .d d d d . . d d d d t a- a a a c a p ly ly ly ly m s s s s I u u u u .- o o o o n i - i i i v iv v v e e e e . e r r r r c p p p p n e a t t n t t - h o o o o o C N N N N N _ n
, .d o e se -
e h . - ,d yrs he ethtt e si roaest o sitic s exratbbaa se - rmisl wA i o l toaia wl e rtdn n pooia a- - aicl rsdno heecui.eior cnuesn n nncnse ldoienl wi tvhel yr No e qh e o r o ui gr
~ ) u rxnouov atfcetad i.s rdte ii f annrclt o tucrt ina cndueioD . fhofnsi t
n i eyagth o o eiassoen, aa i pu s . c s s'0 0io ld o t gh as .t l n ertvcad ) etpebol lll ml td oi n e5ei C ro ryr S el ol vrecanme ss cr S ( ardoctsQd ci aocve aut tn vucoiel ceep P L ptnfnnnAe n w ti r nif o yh a at rl ud- e d 1 ia eeoAt a cc idfto p smal , pc ol a ed p R - f n ,d g ci N c neeif e nni fet foe me jicee ip akeccg froeoss E 2 o,edeocnp ernt e enffode tife nfaoawnoci ouTh li x m bxun 3 0 sedimciax nl eneainl tt (s
.tnAo se d edi
% o u rrl S
- 0 1
edive dhe tixo l et ia 'n oec B n ldl o rcn r yo ap a a sesni.N oo oil tra et P E axorder t aol ol l ml atet ir fbaom rn d.gt N M Q n o ronpnvpro. io ae ens nsrsetw mon.nrictems
/i ncii e ehcru v yd t e a c e ri l gs nin E ndme ll w d o s o e t n/ge n tfi te ian oameu L
B i s s i o rs rnarddl eoor sa iitmeuicaicrsl snotniees lebo d msol t srec ef li tte idd tgq 9 A u suo eno ld asl a ttiera eerepwe el narshne stel n e r e e gi r f T c s ilsfbsl rnio c a umhan eatn rntdmeisffem rbifrvi ict rdn ddl t gd r i r f o i muaoornust priafiaxuedn oousnno oi oiiueun 7 D EscbbComI s .Otll ofhEstaa N J pi f a C Nw Pmsthdi y g t n i . . s - i l n r i . o m ife
- u sd l c aa -
s tot i icf n a rey s de s se o yh s i ecs si u s pn eo ht p-t a i s' can no dn i f t m fei vf fo S e ots oon o - d ns r o e t se sii pni sc n ud tam nt tn e oi cms e n Sia ce es s ev Lsr Ose fe e so fda Rup fr r ar fnr Eco Ep P Cp Eat 3 n i o 5 m t 5 1 - c n e o o S t i
,- 2 s S 2 1 1 f L O
R 4 5 6 6 iv e , E 5 5 5 5 R 4 k iiiIIiIJ11j lj1!!l:i!;4 l:;$4jIlijj l 1li$j,1, iIiI i ~ ;
MNPS-3 EROLS TABLE QE100.2-1 (Cont) EROLS Section Present Status Discussion Chance in impact P red ic ted in ERCPS 5.6.3 Effects of transmission Factors affecting impact of Not previously addressed faci *.ities on birds is t ra nsmi s s ion lines on bird discussed mo rta l i ty is discussed. It is concluded that although some mortalities may occur, particu-larly during spring and fall migration periods during unfavor-able weather conditions, colli-sion with the transmissiors towers and power lines should not be appreciable. 5.7 A discussion of Millstone 3 is expected to None resources committed consume 12,650 metric tons of is provided uranium concentrate over its assumed forty-yea r economic l i fe. One-hund red and fourteen acres of land a re committed to use by Millstone 1, 2, and 3 during power production. Af ter dismantling and decommissioning, however, 3.5 acres will bo placed on permanent restricted use. An average of 144,000 gallons of city water is used per day. Millstone 3 is not expected to significantly affect aquatic ecology at the site. 5.8 Decommissioning and Removal, partial dismantlement, Not previously addressed Dismantling delayed removal and immediate d i sma nt l ement/p romp t removal a re options. The last option is presently considered the preferred a l terna tive. 7.1 Si te bounda ry thyroid, Only whole body population doses The predicted population gamma, and beta doses a re were reported in the ERCPS. Re- dose values have inc rea sed reported in Table 7.1-1, ported doses have changed due to but a re insignificant and population doses a re the changes in source terms a. compa red to annual repo rted in Table 7.1-2 me teo ro l og ica l data, contribution from back-for va rious accidents, g round da ta. Revision 1 8 of 9 September 1983 O O O
.4e! {! ! il ;{1!1
- tLI;i r . .t . i' [{; I .! l!![t,hr .7!;
3 8 9 1 . S r . P e C b R m _ E e t n p i e S' _ d . e t _ i c _
' d e
r
' P t
c a , _ p _ m . i i n _. e . a . n e e a n n . h o o 7 C N N e e rS rS pP pP _ . C C nR nR
)
t ioE ioE n te te o ah ah C mt mt S ( r r _ on on L _ O 1 fi fi R - n n . E 2 Id Id e e ~ 3 0 d d
- 0 .i .i .
_ S 1 xv. xv5 _ P E io1 io. N Q n dr . dr0 o M np5 n p1 _ E i epyn pyn . e , L s 9. B s pl o pl o A u asi asi r _ T c ut i s woc eie ut .. woc el e o D NvS NvS 9 . l s . e s _ d i . o s m ly . n a . _. s os n , in A u to t t ai a l t i t up f S lcm e u n _ t as e n cs B e a
.. s e t s
e sd - r on o P Da C n i o _ 1 t F c n e x o S i i _ . d s S n i ._ L e p v O p e _ R R E A
.,li4 ,I,! ' lil<il!i$<l. s! :' < <l]i!l 1i1!1 44I
, . - _ . . - _ .. . .- . _ . .__ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . ~ _ - . . . __ __. _
MNPS-3 EROLS 4 HRC Ietter: January 31, 1983 I Question No. Q231.1 (Section 2.5) Revise the Environmental Report to accurately reflect the results of the , i site faulting investigations as presented in the _FSAR. Page 2.5-2 (second and third paragraphs) of the ER is incorrect (based on the more detailed geologic submittal presented in the FSAR) as far as:
- 1. The number of faults mapped at the Unit 3 site, 4
- 2. The age of most recent faulting, and
- 3. The type of faulting.
Responses j EROLS Section 2.5 has been revised in Amendment 2 to reflect consistency [ with the FSAR. 4 i l i e i 1 i k Q231.1-1 i i l
,; m , ,,
,,-,-.,,n,nn,. ,,,,i,-n.,,,,.,
- , - ,w,,-,-.,v_m,,,.w,.,,.n,-,.,nne.,.n.n-._,,,- ,,,----.,,,,.,v,
KNPS-3 EROLS /'~ h NRC Letter: January 31, 1983
- t. )
v Question No. Q240.1 (Section 2.4) Description of floodplains, as requested by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain-Management, have not been provided. The 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.
On a suitable map (s) provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent (100-year) flood, both before and after plant construction or operation.
- b. Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to a. above. Include your assumption of, and basis for, the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the flood flows and water elevations. If studies approved by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) are available for the site and other affected areas, the
,_ details of the analyis used in the reports need not be
(
; supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you k/ obtained the floodplain information.
- c. Identify, locate on a map and describe all plant structures and topographic alternations 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 site 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
The !!illstene 3 station is located on Millstone Point, a peninsula that extends inte Long Island Sound.
- a. The pen nsula is flanked by Niantic Eay to the west and ;;rdan Cove to the east. both of which are extensions of Long Island Sound.
Flooding at the plant site is caused by storm induced high water in Long Island Sound. The one percent chance storm-tide elevation is 10.7 ft NGVD. The coincident floodplain with this elevation prior
,s to construction is shown on Figure Q240.1-1. The floodplain is
{ ) mcstly limited to the coastal perimeter of the site. One area with N/ more extensive flooding is a icu lying neck of land just west of the Revision 1 Q24C.1-1 septemoer 1983
II!JPS-3 EROLS quarry. The floodplain also inundates large areas just to the east and west of the station. Figure Q240.1-2 shows the floodplain after plant construction.
- b. A Flood Insurance Study report was completed in 1980 by James P. Purcell, Associates, Inc. for the Federal Insurance Administration. The 1 percent chance flood elevation of 10.7 ft flGVD from that report is used for the response to these floodplain questions. The flood insurance study report is included as Exhibit 240.1-1.
- c. Figure Q240.1-2 shows the floodplain with plant structures in place.
The outfall structure, the circulating and service water pumphouse, and the new discharge canal are partially in the floodplain. Details of site grade revisions for these three facilities are given in Figures Q240.1-3, Q240.1-4, and Q240.1-5.
- d. The plant structures within the floodplain have no effect on coastal flooding generated by Long Island Sound. The large size of the Sound eliminates the possibility that water levels will change due to the presence of these structures in the floodplain. The effects of debris on downstream facilities is a factor only in riverine flooding.
- e. The response to part d is based on the physical characteristics of the site and did not require a detailed quantitative analysis.
O O Revision 1 Q240.1-2 September 1983
1 I
\L iJ u.;;
y = g
~_a___:1
~ 7 ,2 %h . J -
^
N _
'_/ .
7:_ Y "d*3[D ' n
~
l \
/ 2
- J -
- s
,_f. - - - - _ _
r,
~
l^' _,
/
// _
...._ m e m a S E nts,
_,....-..==... i QS i l .,,,,,c 'W % L
- ~R '
F eer " ~~ ~!!siis!!!!!!jylh i =g i
LEGEND
- - - ONE PERCENT CHANCE FLOOD LIMIT
//g' CN" DATUM IS NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD) EXPLAN ATION: l-OUTFALL STRUCTURE FCR MILLSTONE 1 2-OUTFALL STRUCTURE FOR MILLSTONE 2 i , T
] X _&
.MI [Q
.::. - 8 E (~h 'EIiHTr .
di F C'4 V2s 3
- 5=: c-==
3;*= '3
./
\
g
~. ..
-J =I^s:s_
illie
... 511-IEEEEEE^
~
" ~'Z~~
=
sM"~ EH AT=FlLR-L - n 7 2 N "~2*Elit=5:_
==~
- iii 2 : ,ijif53,,
f, Jgt r, g _J
- sN ..
~
=:=n
+1
=~ = 7: =[=u==-
' -)
.- / 5 L
a g( / _
# =Miifi p g ij
=~m.4 5 r- -
%~ ./ so / aiti=~=zili^ f
_ g=m=C =~= =:2 /
\{ _ =-= LONG /SLAND
.:ft2*??EdiKF ./ li 2
3gk#hff7 EL _ Md
$\ sOuNO
*!i!qi.;itify W w =8
( $h niv.-- g - i gia =w;,;g= ~ \ =ug
'T i v(.2 W
\ r _=i@i R*=~~~E!!======~_%. .;. 3 m a_=g 4 mittsu r mittsu i Di===ag!!!* gg e:-
'E~'~#
A
' ,lso Available On
. r---- -
Aperture Card
+ e d N Y A ==~
ma=== - _ aq _ +$NN =$$$? O 500 1000 Y ih SCALE: FEET
/
rN M1
- FIGURE Q240.1-1
' ~
ONE PECENT CHANCE FLOOD LIMIT Lii!.. IN THE VICINITY OF THE MILLSTONE 3 ( 7.~;; SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
~in MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION M
~~
f~2s? UNIT 3
- H ~' ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE ,
8310040527-ex .
f ! W) . iF
. w
{ - 1
}
N8ll -- : ,
\ iiie:s-:
w ---___ J(' N-4 N% d'
'~N x f
- /
~
\
bhdN6! O + '
/* '
l
> El 247
)
k37g m 3-
/ .-
f f*"" ,~~~~ "-%
~
y &y f -amm = ,5 wiau,,c fL gy? -
. m ug ,;
b s
I LEGEND l
-- - ONE PERCENT CHANCE j,,, FLOOD LIMIT
- g DATUM IS NATIONAL E D TIC VERTICAL DATUM EXPLANATION:
I -ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES BUILDING 2-FUEL BUILDING . 3-WASTE DISPOSAL BUILDING
==- 4- AUXlLIARY RUILDING g-~ 5-SERVICE BdlLDING
_ F~'M 6-CONTROL BUILDING iEEE SE=. 7-1URBINE BUILDING Ygj#g 4-WAREHOUSE
'~
g
,~ ,;15E 57=_ Q ~~M 9-EMERGENCY GENERATOR ENCLOSURE
?":M iM 10 MILLSTONE 3 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE 3! I diidh 11-MILLSTONE 3 CIRCULATING AND
/
g , :{it: @M jgE=- SERVICE WATER PUMPHOUSE
\
; ^~ i = _ . .__ fili ~~~~ 2EE: ,31 1 12-OUTFALL STRUCTURE FOR MILLSTONE 1
? kg ,J=_j;; b k 13-OUTFALL STRUCTURE FOR MILLSTONE 2
% 3C&=.,'~""~i? _ '~~"i 14-OUTFALL STRUCTURE FOR MILLSTONE 3
~
N*%) == ==gi:=
- l- /
3 n I p.57 - - - - - Q _-- _ 15 q N- 7 20 i=~55EEEiE.T / TI 6' //"
' ,_ .Eh Y
- hhi
// ~ 5Nh= = = .h -
// / - s'0UARRY.=h[ ' / s ~=
$0UNO
/ 13 I i di %E?hiEM =~ to r ' ?!Ul *55 F [N- j M- ;.
f g M. d 4 2 M5=~=W3 i
-) +11!a
, _a mt.-m.es= ) ~~21 i / p.uu:SN5I== s k9 . = .
ar- : . _=ss NI j_5
/ --
_==s=sesa= *g 13 ._ mittsat r mittstent i Also AT 8 Q ~sN s N c.r!=]j. I j i Y{ \ Vp Aperture Carg
-: -h;igs;====J!s-g;;g- ._
=;==e=s= 5 ~~~ A ? L- R _l ,tj K 'c-C9 , 3 = w e- s eu==- ~\ ; -
eae m===~~ , . ,m
.E5E=5:252=. _.fEt=E5?d=5I=55535553#' 'l ~'i 1;tg;;;;;;;;;;;m=;gg;4==-p;;cr ; !;tiit
- t. U it J O 500 1000 Y i==== SC ALE. F E ET
, g
=g
'> seli E.==3 sii j
~
l si:] FIGURE O240.1-2 ( u .- ONE PECENT CHANCE FLCOD LIMIT yi j Mh IN THE VICINITY OF THE M!LLSTONE3' SITE AFTER PLANT CONSTHUCTION - V j[f ) MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
= Ess UNIT 3
~~~~=WiHPF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT .
OPERATING LICENSE STAGE - 8310040527-03' >
r I *
- o d q
9 t aist xN I .N S
-_' e il e cowcar TE s' 3c r g
N w-c_ V w, 3_ $
-N \ N \
7,,
.h.O E 98%o x < .a smaast g% iT3 coec
% \ ;"she6*gT m Qs\?m=A 4
\> \
Q *
's \ ' N- i=>
Ns x}x, o.oo %g/ . coord w
#X lM eyw w r
sK
\'
J
\ E rist ras ava ss\ y -lf ! -/ an
\
* *** 3 %
x
\ Ti3" / \ t CD,'_ y r# \ cN
. ;. \
/\
- m. s_1
&.O x- - \ \ _
N ' ist
\ Etre - -
'f< 34.. \
,c 3Off i 'aW o ' /"d' N
( I 4, dy* y i X i
'A N
\s ' "1. o 4 Tl3rg'g};!g' s/fergf,,, \
\ \\ j' .\
/[b'
/ # XR."=? A Q; x
~-C T
\
hi ,l * **
\ , U6 arc
""N-gs ,i 1 irue. w ,
l ' 1 F\
~
, \
' y /
,N '
st%f h / r_ k>v/ -'- 2
. = . p *g4 ,J (' ,,,
= =_su -
q . . 1 J
/ F g
k h t "a
.)
i e 1 -stec
\, I A .
, p/
2 3
= '6 g f _,__ ; ( Ef
\ i -sToem Es-ia tsna,O osoo
} o PLAN 4o
?!
cfygP .- e..e s me Qtyy r. , f [ Es u uswel q SCALE-FE ru:: 4 e
.i j
"='d[ . , i ?!
-A d ), iijMrw,r iR (a: e. i o
wr.. 'i!i, a en y..,,, m .t . m c.fr-t.- rnna p a
=
s
. _v - .
, e m- - - - -
i- . tva sms suitoms , Q g,.,,,, gg g , l
.**isse r,saos, _
, y .. _ _ _ _ ...c m uns.,w
, ts ~..m .x . s<...a u . .
3 l Q~ d[ N
~ s n a ,s
' @ PROFILE O 40 E i
SCALE - FEl (HORIZONTA i
\
, i I M
%N - N /
\
s m_ _._ x ! x _W
-9 n":lkh W /[/
. a n-
. . . / . [ a Nj QUY3 q b --- "N,% %- w*/. -
l n ey#' "[.' / i
- m. - '
..o - ~~~3- / ~\x # ._~,e ...... ~ ,
x ;%_ w n , ,_
~'N $ RC N 53 N!'yp[m.Ql' $$@ _,v p, -
A1 i_ .
" gR_ND -
? <3%ae>'# QUAR RY NOTES:
CA
- 1. SCALE: AS NOTED
\ l
- 2. lN0lC ATED ROCit AN D TILL SURFACES DELINE ATE APPROXIM ATE ELEVATIONS BETWEEN BORINGS AND 00 NOT REFLECT LOCAL RISES OR v _
DEPRESSIONS OF THESE SURFACES IN AREAS OTHER TH AN THE LOCATION OF BORINGS. N ) 4
/' ([y h+
\" . .m I Also Available On ET 8 Aperture Card u o ,.
,, 9 ,.
; O $ i' w , e W ca ,
i s t , sj 3
?
y p {d ;! ;
== ' a larm mfj s e
._ 4l f T *
- k. E
+=%gip .-@y
$ _fq E g! p.... ...x [ r $
, , , 7 7 ._
l / g _ [
' um'
- \ . .reu m em Isit,v s. o 4[ ' s M (3y ,
~ ~ ~ . . ,,
\_a c e
/~ N ,,0 ,u , // _
~
N r2. - - l ,n ,< ss- m m. , ,, x . . . . . . j ta u= l N s. ,' FIGU R E O 2 4 0.1 -3 j D - - r' OUTFALL STRUCTURE SITE ALTER ATIONS
- MILLSTONE NUCLE AR POWER STATION UNIT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE y 8310040527-of
- Lv .is 45 AI~- he -'
\
r I n ,n nn , i g- g
.r7 .-.
- 7. ~< r.. oo.o , om
$_ Ji , , ', ; ' ,
, W
, , z 1.T **" -- , .. . g .
-Je Qr,. - c2 ;@'di,Tp'(
t ka'3a'3 ; $,. . .!ii It!iil! i S F % T.T. Td:7 ]MM 8 II .,> I fir 1 1 ir if
=.
I r S n,h,
;gi )W.
t il= 4 v: x - -' \ n,ii ;; , e. liIl l!i , el /i , i t !
,i d N's'k,1 (
s h es w.s is' F \ sN s i .w.,- 'i::".;?, t a so _. m 1.5 y f h =- n; m ; I
?
U\\ N
\
\\ N_ _
( .
/
l w
\
l
'Il l tea + e g 3/75"i.* ' ' ' I 8" g h
--sgC.4'essey N , % pu a c_WED E DO __ . _ _ (.**'**' W E , _ 7 g o o$
- z. , q *-eit _* et* --
Mw, Jw,- ,
,.aa r'" ' , ~ e,,,,. I ..a4 I F# '
o*o oQ , % ,- y f -s . f catt r o
!!l J
hl Nkk Y-f teg /
/
., 's
.9: waa o
\
g f , E
, j
]f I / \ ,
/ ) I \
' ' (
lI ' / / 4 g i ' .'S _ l * 's2 /( \
\
j l N Ns '/ s N N / I "'" INTAKE 's -% N
'go /' / / " Di ElidFh , ,
g STRUCTURE x' v I'[ ' N
\,_ h '.j[j[ j[j[\jf jf j
/,. ,/
g .
,# j .!'. UNM 2
~
g / . . ,~ c r.... .....s
,/ ' " "' /
~} w 200
> / /D / ~
k&&f I
\ /
/ f*
-s s s-
//C C' ) h'~ 4; f
/
/
fuso m
/ * '/
/
/
g
/
e j lr cp N o,
*h'N E v v'
/ l I
\l Q'
/
s' g l
\
l Y, I . /[/ - #
,,,,os , ,, 9
'll h&7 /
%'$,O's' , ' ,',h g j
\*py','g p' i
/ / /,/ $ /
,/ 'e f C y
% ,' ; ; / .
& ;* w400 -f, / / ,/ .
s / // /
// / - ,4y f w$s'3 00
/ ,'/ ,'p','
AI', j 'l l l
/ o / /,,,,,, %
/ ' 'I rllI l I I l' It I I E?,"V"OL'c,i"!,YA%cn I g i f Ig I g l I f i 1 g I ' t 1
@g \g\ g \ ? RC wGOO
]a b __ v i L.
CARJ O 40 80 120 t I f I SCALE-FEET Also Xvailable On .
. 'Aperture Card (
FIGURE Q240.1 -4 INTAKE STRUCTURE SITE ALTER ATIONS MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL. REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE 83100405.27-05
J i I V
- i. .
j[ ig p g ,Y x g P#0vtoE 5Mooth T Ra= ss tson 6 th l 3 8' To East 680u=D
,,. fo' so'
\g
/ f j ,
/ ** g
\% s t.
1 L vo, or u. ... ..a, I
- u. casr .T
.i
- ,/
-b. av rt e s'g asutus=t ,
J esa> ' l fop EL to so' e
, -{
y ( t.9) " f-voc or w._.... =,
\ _
F T \ l-- ract ce scenH" !
- cut to a Lt-> e o
\ , ,
g (. o .
<-I II
(-11 @ ( TIC)
- fem Ib .
Ies I EC V'"
> ; -l2 ' g C 2 5-' a) N EW DISCH AR GE -
CANAL . k3 f E. coo rs remis to sanos EL e> a o' eis) f
=
0 ttu (fg =d f l . . . 4
;y <- s .) e, c3 .
8~ aio) l f-sacs <w soca cuv to et <- > a e' , L ,or or \ =r. < 't~ f e - w . asur-c ,,5,, N - s.c o ,. f.3 5 af e for...or.ae .
+ .1 et s -
- w. . .a. # \+
y -.3 f
- l 7
,~ e
, fV x
so' mo' L,a ' ad l
! l
/
,% or w. e<p-ear av ei e s' l
7 / fvoe
\ / Z .owca IE' ,
f
/
..s.
.sooo,
,ms v.a[sitio.Q$' r .< , , a s, aav -t 0, o, cc c I
E L 'o 'a e - l . - _ . _ _ . -r,=w ;N A / aereon=vr toe,s or .avr e a, reas , , _ s
/ s' 4 s/ -
%- .elpN -
~ 1
., l
8 EXISTING DISC H ARGE l
"s-aPPGPGa .M at E E CrGE (# .af f # at fL ast
=e W g a ge a g gg 1
~" 7 g g ye W EL OF to C.ONC 2
L l
Il "Q)ra
~
.i hh? \
\\
s - N l
\ is i it
~~ \
\
l
/
\ <%
,v \
~
\ NOTE:
i j Yo 1. x(-8.0) INDICATES TOP OF EXISTING ROCK ON DEC.1982 g g{.n o)
\ Q 05 \ ,
- g 4
't I \
e/ \
'o n
\
-co) ,\
\ l
- g 0 1,0 2,0 3,0 40 g SCALE-FEET
\
v \ , g x
\ 's 1
y ,< re 7 .= ODn i' ji s; if $ \
' [ i]- CF{m t$ -\~l)I ; L L-~ y l .; '
/ J! CARJ r- ~ . - ...
// '
______ Also Ivallable On f~~___7__0"!%~" 7 Aperture Card l l l ANAL l FIGURE O240.1-5 DISCHARGE CAN ALS SITE ALTER ATIONS l- ' -- - - MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 3
- '\ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSESTAGE l ,
I i 8 310 04 0 5 2 7- o c,
I ' Exhibit 240.1-1 jl - O FLOOD 8.* "~ - O INSURANCE, STUDY , L ww '
~ .- d \
- O '
TOWN OF WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT NEW LONDON COUNTY l AUGUST 4,1980 I O federal emergency management agency l federal insurance administration COMMUNITY NUMBER . 090107
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS i % 1 Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 4
- 1.l' Purpose of. Study 1
. j 1.2 . Authority and Acknowledgements -1 j l. 3 ' Coordination 1 i 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2 .; 2.1 Scope of Study 2 ] 2. 2 Community Description 4 I 2.3 Principal Flood Problems 6 , i 2.4 Flood Protection Measures 7 1 I \ j 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 8 1 3.1- Hydrologic Analyses 8 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 10 i j- 4.0 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 11 4.1 Flood Boundaries 11 f~ 4.2 Floodways 12 i 5.0' INSURANCE APPLICATION 13 t i i 5.1 Reach Determinations 16 5.2 Flood Hazard Factors 17 5.3 Flood Insurance Zones 17 i. )\ . 5.4 . Flood Insurance Rate Map Description 20 i l-L d
-e- v- *-ee .we-w e-ere% -- - -ee+4 wwrer e-% -w e e -w t-ge ww ww. w-y---,ee. w n -te .c y -hw ..- w vm e W w"*f t we,wv gr __ t w ym- - w qv.ew w-
O TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued Page 6.0 OTHER STUDIES 20 7.0 LOCATION OF DATA 21 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 21 FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2 - Floodway Schematic 16 TABLES Table 1 - Summary of Discharges 9 Table 2 - Summary of Elevations 10 Table 3 - Floodway Data 14-15 Table 4 - Flood Insurance Zone Data 18-19 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles Jordan Brook Panels OlP-llP l Nevins Brook Panels 12P-16P l Exhibit 2 - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Index Exhibit 3 - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map PUBLISHED SEPARATELY: Flood Insurance Rate Map Index l Flood Insurance Rate Map I ii l
4 k FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY TOWN OF WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in the Town of Waterford, New London County, Con-necticut, and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insur-ance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study will be used to convert Waterford to the regular program of flood insurance by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA). Local and regional planners will use this study in their efforts to promote sound flood plain management. In some states or communities, flood plain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than those on which these federally-supported studies are based. These criteria take precedence over the minimum federal criteria for pur-poses of regulating development in the flood plain, as set forth in I'~'h ' the Code of Federal Regulations at 24 CFR, 1910. l (d) . In such cases, 1
\~ / however, it shall be understood that the state (or other jurisdic-tional agency) shall be,able to explain these requirements and crite-ria.
1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements The source of authority for this Flood Insurance Study is the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were prepared by James P. Purcell, Associates, Inc., for the Federal Insurance Admin-istration, under Contract No. H-4561. This work, which was completed in March 1979, covered all significant flooding sources in the Town of Waterford. 1.3 Coordination Contacts were made and meetings were held with the first selectman, the director of public works, officials from the building and planning departments, and other town officials and residents. The initial Consultation and Coordination Officer's (CCO) meeting was held on June [;) x 8, 1977, at which time the tidal and riverine flooding and f 1
,m -
-, - .,.y-
drainage problems were described and discussed. Streams to be studied O' in detail were identified and it was confirmed that a detail study would be made of coastal flooding. Information concerning potential development along streams and on the coast was provided by the direc-tor of public works. Maps and survey data were also provided. Con-tacts were made with the Connecticut Department of Transportation. A town roads map and survey data were obtained. During the course of the work, specific information on peak discharge-frequency relationships, previous flood hazard evaluations, recent and impending flood plain development, and the extent of historical flood-ing was obtained, reviewed and discussed with town officials, members of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, local residents and the FIA. An intermediate CCO meeting was held on January 19, 1979, to review the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. On January 8, 1980, results of this study were reviewed at the final CCO meeting, which was attended by representatives of the Town of Waterford, the FIA, and James P. Purcell, Associates, Inc. (the study contractor). 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2.1 Scope of Study This Flood Insurance Study covers the incorporated area of the Town of Waterford, New London County, Connecticut. The area of study is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). Detailed tidal flood ana'ysis was performed on the complete coastline of Waterford, for which the flooding source is Long Island Sound. Floods caused by storm tides on the Niantic and Thames Rivers were also studied in detail. For Jordan and Nevins Brooks, a detailed study of non-tidal, riverine flooding was made. The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to all known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development and proposed construc-tion for the next five years, through March 1984. Portions of Jordan Brook and Nevins Brook above the limits of detailed study were studied by approximate methods. Church, Fenger, Green Swamp, Hunts, Lakes Pond, Oil Mill and Stony Brooks were also studied by approximate methods along with other smaller flooding sources. Approximate methods of analysis were used to study those areas having low development potential and minimal flood hazards as identified at the initiation of the study. The scope and methods of study were pro-f posed to and agreed upon by the FIA. 2 L
I p' y ',, , ,p u au 9' 's] ' Q% ; Gj.crp' -c
..--g,&< . '4 ,y,, Q j
<> w" g== _w{( ;
m; e y o m ,i
@ #ffE
- r. pp ~y g g, % xetg% % gFL;, en d i k; 8 % c s h
' dp.
P w?gv f '] m(b,osf,
;',7 94 ;u.
,4
/
c; n .. --
') n t .,3-
. f&;f.5 Ysfj w
Wt - ,' "';V ,
,[
g6
'e 1 ^ ",
f f @l^- " l..j. fh')
'%gws }esa& %
&O: wN~
> \ j i 3 ,
^W' tt / a. ~
; ., u -m s w w- .-
sq4
, l' +
p,5
" ~
" ~
i W; /,_f': y , g g 7 h_ Mfg
% p? ..; 4::f) 3 g [. p y#
' ~
V$ m u;fy % '>
&j c %' Q' Y.M @ ,m , 9r['N h $shb 9,.
I
~
; ' .x Fne 4 w
-i w n -- 1 P:
fl j . g' j$ q _ i
+; h(., ' e$ .
.% j 2 e M' .V Mf "I
h Mm$hTW . amp-g klY h-r ,Wp3qt ,Q[bG%WQ tc ]'?-lt.4g yk* &fV .m s;f 'W L q myp s% Wxci&y%g,p. S t / gg M7negn/ - % p=?
'Wd&tr~WJ.L J ' V&n g udpi k.
3M. f&gg& _. g %:.4m ; a n6 p& ;E Kh fs.=g^giy;y g#E nu5w #med slmn1W E g A -_ l Also Avallable(in -_ . Ancrante Car'd
mumur
' - a . ,.
.'" W .
fi), T f : 4 ,\ 5'"[ cf g i,s y to * . lrt *, .) r, Rs an (',' " ,J Lg, - j'@ - t 5g
=
- p. ,g~ ,' t._, - .
@ U%, b k,< =
m '- $ [ .j i h Q !p' JM gA .. 7,,
! 'L i . *.. .. N 't 3p,. s .j . .N' {
(\
^ k h,. ' '
4 .;l'y .' yN \\ , : g q- . y10 g'gp j e4 l{ g~j p jqhg &&'.g' -
,7
' Q=~ ;j "I
3 j j 'ME- :, * ' [~.,b ;
~~ $
h.
= .
d' ,
"$[,,","*"It
- l. j.9 fi - ' ' d' Y E Mi, j ,
g 1 _
" ' 'y. @ijI W h,h M y .: ,g
\, .
r& W - - x
.. m ~
gg' f S, ~ styj }g( & N {f. xxh f k , ff.. ; h, .
-l p { , , . /1 1 3 I, -
Q lg .x Aw - .y y
.@. -w$. -
.7 -
) i
.__ $ f i ^' ...
m f i '- Q? L , ,
~
hy ..'~f 3 : N h !k< k,
\ ?'
'h- \ 1 J .
V ?g-l)Ql, .t%.
. 3 .
l,. k,'
- - x i s n'r.: c
- )R).y[.~ ~p" }f,' *Yy -
L ~
'afV f 15 h: %. -
W . K\ \ ,_
~
Q W %*
~
/ ' '
- 1 "' '
i ' I
,y';
9' a sa r I s fy[ h JN
*!* . 'Q, ',,,-
-G'f y c) &
c I X.' T
~
c- ~. .Gx.v ,, . ):h oo f
&y &.q y g,,, q.
. .;_ l,, ; ' ~ w Q ?p ~
g
}y n " tg;g. . ;-
w
~
t a c~v - g,. g
. ny. -
3
- f. ,
.r.
. .;l~ x . ,
o my y -- n . ..:, W. -
= r O t 3
& {'\yJL
** ~
% I?!b. )T :
[}i * - *
~
C%
,3 g D -
@ c' .W(,i, c/ - . t
/ ,m -\ {.y Q . cN ~.-
.; > 3
% a{ ,7~. .MN S
% . .,A N i
tb APPROXIMATE SCAL.E e4 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Federal Insurance Administration 800 o soo 1s,00 240o FEET C 0 im TOWN OF WATERFORD, CT i 4 - [NEW LONDON CO.) 3 W Xvallable &
. , ; .n y. cp;y myy. . .uy 3 :. cgy.pggp;;__g_.9p3.y.;.cg. .;.y.[; v 39. ; _ y ^
f3 b be separated into village concentrations by the transportation sys-tem. State Route 52, State Route 85, Interstate Route 95 and the railroad ~ right-of-way act as barriers that serve to reinforce the historic villages that comprise the Town of Waterford (Reference 4 ) . This village separation has played a significant role in the devel-opment of Waterford's character as a small, open, residential commu-nity. Industrial and commercial development has been pretty well segregated and contained away from the residential villages (Re f-erence 4). Development in Waterford consists mostly of single-family, detached houses on medium to large lots, commercial areas concentrated on Boston Post Road, and some small industrial and warehousing opera-tions primarily within the State Route 52 - State Route 85 - Inter-state Route 95 triangle with the major exception of Millstone Point. Urban development now occupies about 25 percent of the town's land area, an additional 50 percent of the land contains physical charac-teristics that are not conducive to development (steep slopes, shal- , low lying bedrock, and wetlands). The remaining 25 percent, over 6,000 acres, presents no constraints to development (Reference 4). (
2.3 Principal Flood Problems The most severc flooding in Waterford occurs during hurricanes or coastal storms. These storms, with their intense winds and rainfall can create abnormally high tidal surges, wave run-up and peak runo?f.
When the hurricane's storm track is west of the community, the hur-ricane's counter-clockwise winds tend to increase the adverse effect of the tidal surge. Hurricanes normally occur in late summer or early fall, but occurrence of coastal storms is not restricted to any particular season. When coastal storms occur in winter and spring, the flooding problem is compounded by ice jams and runoff , of melting snow. Reports of flooding in eastern Connecticut extend back to the early l 17th century.' Records indicate that the hurricanes of 1635 and 1638 caused extensive tidal flooding in coastal areas of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, probably the greatest ever experienced in New Eng- [ land during the past 340 years. Though no records exist for Connec-l ticut, it is reasonable to assume that these hurricanes caused ex-tensive tidal flooding of the Connecticut coast. [ Records do indicate that the coast o? Connecticut has experienced ("j 4 or has been threatened by hurricane tidal flooding on 66 occasions j since 1769. On nine of these occasions severe tidal flooding did i l 6 l l
O occur. The five greatest, as far as can be determined from existing records, were the hurricanes of 1938, 1893, 1954, 1815, and 1944 (in descending order of estimated magnitude) (Reference 5). In.the COE study entitled Hurricane Survey, Connecticut Coastal and Tidal Areas, information regarding flood problems in Waterford is included (Reference 6) . The following information has been taken from that Hurricane Survey. The Town of Waterford has a shorefront along Long Island Sound of about 7.3 miles. About one mile is publicly owned. The total tidal shoreline, including that on the east bank of the Niantic River and the west bank of the Thames River is about 22 miles. (This distance presumably includes the shores of Jordan Cove, the western shore of Alewife Cove and all other coves and indentations.) (Reference 6). Hurricane tidal flood damages for Waterford reached 370,000 dollars for the 1938 hurricane and 310,000 dollars for the 1954 hurricane according to the Hurricane Survey (Reference 6). These figurea were adjusted, in the survey report, to a 1963 price level. The damages were scattered along the entire shoreline with principal concentra-tions at the head of Niantic Bay and in the Ridgewood area on the west f bank of Alewife Cove. Much of the loss in 1954 was from damage to boats (Reference 6). Tidal surges during severe storms cause flooding along both the Nian-tic and the Thames Rivers, the larger rivers in the area, and also along other smaller streams flowing into either these rivers or Long Island Sound. Where structures are located in the flood plains of these streams, damage is inflicted. Further inland, riverine flood-ing, not directly related to tidal surges, has occurred on many of these and other streams. Again, where structures are located in the flood plains, damage is inflicted. 2.4 Flood Protection Measures According to the COE Hurricane Survey, no flood protection measures for the coast of Waterford have been considered (Reference 6). The State of Connecticut and the U. S. Department of Agriculture are providing for protection of tidal marshes by prohibiting future de-velopment. Coastal flooding of marshes, as opposed to developed areas, will not result in large monetary losses. 7
[ ) U 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources studied in detail in the community, standard hy-drologic and hydraulic study- methods were used to determine the flood hazard data for this study. Flood events of a magnitude which are ex-pected to be equalled or exceeded once on the average during any 10 , 50 , 100 , or 500-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for flood plain management and for flood insurance premium rates. These events, commonly termed the 10 , 50 , 100 , and 500-year floods, have a 10 , 2 , 1 , and 0.2-percent chance, respectively, of being equalled or exceeded during any' year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood in-creases when periods greater than one year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood which equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (one-percent chance of annual occurrence) in any 50-year period is about 40 percent (four in ten) and, for any 90-year period, the risk increases to about 60 percent (six in ten) . The analyses reported here reflect
~, flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the
( ) time of completion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be
' amended periodically to reflect future changes.
. 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish the peak discharge-frequency relationships for floods of the selected recurrence inter-vals for each riverine flooding source, and to establish the peak elevetion-frequency relationships for the other flooding sources studied in detail affecting the community.
To define discharge-frequency data for Jordan and Nevins Brooks, the USGS flood flow formulas for ungaged streams were used (Reference 7 ) . These formulas were empirically derived from stream-gaging and pre-cipitation-gaging stations in Connecticut with 10 to 45 years of re-cord. The formulas utilize drainage basin characteristics and pre-cipitation data and yield the 100-year peak discharge. The values of the 10 , 50 , and 500-year peak discharges were determined from a log-Pearson type III distribution, which was obtained from the calculated 100-year peak discharge, the standard deviation and skew coefficient of annual maximum flows. Tidal flood elevations for Long Island Sound, the Niantic River and
'\
the other tidal-affected streams (except the Thames River) are based 3 ) upon a storm-surge frequency curve from the COE report entitled Long Island Sound, Interim Memo No. COE-2, Tidal Hydrology (Reference 5) . 8
W 9 This curve was developed by statistically combining elevations of the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954 and records of great historic storms with records of the U. S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey, and with municipal and public utility company tidal gages for a 26 to 42 year period starting in 1930. In this study, flood elevations along the Thames River are based upon a storm-frequency curve published in the COE report entitled Hurricane Survey, Eastern Connecticut (Reference 8). In addition to that report, frequency tidal data compiled by the COE at Thamesville (Norwich) and Uncasville (Montville) were utilized to substantiate flood profiles published in the Hurricane Survey report. A summary of drainage area-peak discharge relationships for the streams studied by detailed methods is shown in Table 1, " Summary of Discharges." A summary of tidal elevation-frequency relationships for the tidal areas is shown in Table 2, " Summary of Elevations." TABLE 1 -
SUMMARY
OF DISCHARGES DRAINAGE AREA PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs) FLOCDING SOURCE AND LOCATION (sq. miles) 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR JORDAN BROOK At confluence with Jordan Cove 6.39 760 1,200 1,500 2,200 Above confluence with Nevins Brook 4.53 420 680 820 1,200 900 feet downstream from Boston Post Road 3.85 370 600 730 1,100 At Interstate Route 95 2.66 300 500 600 900 3500 feet downstream from State Route 52 1.76 220 350 430 640 At State Route 52 0.72 160 270 330 480 NEVINS BROOK Above confluence with Jordan Brook 1.86 220 360 440 660 At Fog Plain Road 1.23 180 280 350 510 At Interstate Route 95 0.29 90 150 180 270 0 9
(D I, I s/ TABLE 2 -
SUMMARY
OF ELEVATIONS ELEVATION (feet) FLOODING SOURCE AND IDCATION 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR LONG ISLAND SOUND At the Niantic River 6.7 9.4 10.7 14.4
'At Alewife Cove 6.6 9.3 10.7 14.1 THAMES RIVER At the City of New London corporate limits 6.7 9.6 11.0 14.4 At the Town of Montville corporate limits 7.5 10.4 12.0 15.6 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of Jordan and Nevins Brooks and the shoreline characteristics of Tong Island sound, the ,~ ,
Niantic River, and the Thames River were carried out to provide ( ) estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence
\- ' intervals along each of the flooding sources.
For Jordan and Nevins Brooks, cross-section data were obtained from aerial mapping (Reference 9) . Data for the below-water sections were obtained by field measurement. All bridges and culverts on these streams were surveyed to obtain elevation data and structural geometry. Roughness coefficients (Manning's "n") for the streams were estimated by field inspection at each cross section. For Jordan Brook, the i roughness coefficients range from 0.015 to 0.080 for the channel and from 0.030 to 0.080 for the overbank areas. For Nevins Brook, the coefficients range from 0.015 to 0.060 for the channel and from 0.030 to 0.080 for the overbank areas. Starting water-surface elevations for the streams studied in detail were estimated between the mean spring tide levels and the coastal storm surge levels for the various return frequency floods. Water-surface profiles were developed using the COE HEC-2 computer program (Reference 10) . Comparisons of the profiles were made with the estimated profiles or elevations of historic floods. Reasonable () f-s, . correlation was evident. The estimated profiles or elevations were obtained as the result of observations made in the field and inter-views with town officials and local citizens. l 10 i
O Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations to an accuracy of 0.5 foot for floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Locations of selected cross sections used in the hy-draulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a floodway is computed (Section 4.2), se-lected cross-section locations are also shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (Exhibit 3) . The hydraulic analyses for this study are based on the effects of unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the profiles are valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed,and do not fail. Areas of coastline subjected to wave attack are referred to as coastal high hazard zones. Coastal high hazard zones were identified by use of the abbreviated analytical method described in Section 2 of the COE Guidelines for Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones (Reference
- 11) . In determining coastal high hazard zones, consideration was given to reaches of open water which were sufficiently long to permit generation of damaging waves. Some shelter of the study area from the open sea is afforded tj Long Island.
All elevations used in this study are referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD), formerly referred to as Sea Level Datum of 1929. Incations of the elevation reference marks used in the study are shown on the maps. 4.0 FIDOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The National Flood Insurance Program encourages state and local govern-ments to adopt sound flood plain management programs. Therefore, each Flood Insurance Study includes a flood boundary map designed to assist communities in developing sound flood plain management measures. 4.1 Flood Boundaries In order to provide a national standard without regional discrimi-nation, the 100-year flood has been adopted by the FIA as the base flood for purposes of flood plain management measures. The 500-year 11
(v)~ flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the community. For each stream studied in detail, the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floods have been delineated using the flood eleva-tions-determined at each cross section; between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using aerial maps at a scale of 1:2,400. Stereoscopic plotters were used to determine spot elevations (Refer-ence 9) . The 100-and 500-year boundaries of the tidal areas were delineated using topographic maps at a scale of 1:24,000, with a contour interval of 10 feet (Reference 12) . In cases where the 100-and 500-year flood boundaries are close together, only the 100-year boundary has been shown. For streams studied by approximate methods, the 100-year flood bound-aries were established from Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and from in-formation provided by the Town of Waterford and local citizens (Ref-erence 13) . Field verification was made of all data and information. The boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floods are shown on the [,. } Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (Exhibit 3) . Small areas within the \- # flood boundaries may lie above the flood elevations and, therefore, may not be subject to flooding. Owing to limitations of the map scale and lack of detailed topographic data, such areas are not shown. 4.2 Floodways Encroachment on flood plains, such as artificial fill, reduces the flood-carrying capacity, increases the flood heights of streams, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of flood plain management involves balancing the economic gain from flood plain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the Flood Insurance Program, the concept of a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of flood plain management. Under this concept, the area of the 100-year flood is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent flood plain areas that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum standards of the FIA limit such increases [QJ ). in flood heights to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are 12
O not produced. The floodways in this report are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted or that can be used as a basis for additional studies. The floodways presented in this study were computed on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the flood plains. The results of these computations are tabulated at selected cross sec-tions for each stream segment for which a floodway is computed (Table 3). Near the mouths of streams studied in detail, floodway computations are made without regard to flood elevations on the receiving water body. Therefore, "With Floodway" elevations presented in Table 3 for certain downstream cross sections of Jordan Brook are lower than the regulatory flood elevations in that area, which must take into account the 100-year flooding due to backwater from other sources. As shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (Exhibit 3), the floodway widths were determined at crocs sections, between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated. In cases where the boundaries of the floodway and the 100-year flood are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary has been shown. The area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-year flood is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe thus encompasses the portion of the flood plain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 100-year flood by more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to flood plain development are shown in Figure 2. 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION In order to establish actuarial insurance rates, the FIA has developed a process to transform the data from the engineering study into flood insurance criteria. This process includes the determination of reaches, Flood Hazard Factors (FHFs), and flood insurance zone designations for each flooding source affecting the Town of Waterford. 13
O O O 4 BASE FLOOD FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION SECTION MEAN REGULATORY WITHOUT WITH INCREASE I WIDTH FLOODWAY FLOODWAY CROSS SECTION DISTANCE ( p y,y AREA VE LOCITY (NGVD) (FEET) (SO. F T.) ( F.P.S.) (NGVD) (NGVD) Jordan Brook 2 A 50 100 221 6.8 10.7 10.6 10.6 0.0 B 1,300 350 2,402 0.6 15.8 15.8 16.8 1.0 C 2,400 350 2,417 0.3 15.8 15.8 16.8 1.0 D 3,930 130 480 1.5 16.0 16.0 17.0 1.0 E 5,800 40 193 3.8 28.8 28.8 29.1 0.3 F 6,590 30 209 3.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 0.0 G 7,620 125 362 2.0 33.8 33.8 34.0 1.0 11 9,120 80 499 1.5 36.0 36.0 36.3 0.3
% I 10,830 120 229 3.2 45.4 45.4 45.9 0.5 J 12,155 40 127 5.8 54.2 54.2 54.2 0.0 K 13,470 38 124 5.9 62.0 62.0 62.0 0.0 L 15,120 150 1,055 0.6 63.8 63.8 64.3 0.5 M 17,740 100 219 2.7 78.5 78.5 78.9 0.4 N 19,440 60 90 4.8 90.9 90.9 91.0 0.1
. O 21,560 82 114 3.8 104.2 104.2 104.2 0.0 P 22,860 40 107 4.0 109.3 109.3 109.8 0.5 24,265 50 141 3.0 118.2 118.2 118.8 0.6
- Q R 25,825 50 119 3.6 118.6 118.6 119.4 0.8 S 2/,105 50 78 5.5 121.5 121.5 122.0 0.5 1
Feet above confluence with Jordan Cove 2 Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Long Island Sound FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
- H Federal Insurance Administration FLOODWAY DATA
- B; A TOWN OF WATERFORD, CT
" JORDAN BROOK
[NEW LONDON CO.)
1 FLOOD!NG SOURCE FLOODWAY WATER SURFACE LEVATION WIDTH SECTION MEAN REGULATORY WITHOUT WITH INCREASE CROSS SECTION DISTANCE i (p y,g AREA VE LOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SO. FT.) (NGVD) (FEET) ( F.P.S.) (NGVD) (NGVD) Nevins Brook A 1,480 50 86 5.1 16.4 16.4 16.6 0.2 B 2,040 40 208 2.1 21.5 21.5 21.5 0.0 C 4,110 60 105 4.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 0.0 D 6,650 30 103 4.3 30.6 30.6 31.5 0.9 E 7,225 40 222 1.6 33.7 33.7 33.8 _ 0.1 1 F 9,120 40 145 2.4 33.7 33.7 34.6 0.9 G 10,050 50 263 1.3 41.1 41.1 41.1 0.0 H 11,660 30 74 4.8 46.3 46.3 4 46.5 0.2 O I Feet above confluence with Jordan Brook FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY g Federal Insurance Administration FLOODWAY DATA
; =
l A TOWN OF WATERFORD, CT
" NEVINS BROOK
[NEW LONDON CO.) O O O
/'D %.J 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN :
F LOODW AY _ _ y F LOOOW AY F RINGE FRINGE STREAM CHANNEL FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN CONFINED WITHIN FLOODWAY E NCRO AC_HMENT ENCROACHMENT
%&6" SURCHARGE
- A i '#~
MW ..
'gr AREA OF FLOOD PLAIN THAT COULD FLOOD ELEVATION BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY BEFORE ENCROACHMENT RAISfNG GROUND ON FLOOD PLAIN / \
i '
*j
( LINE A B IS THE FLOOD ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT LINE C DIS THE FLOGO ELEVATION AFTER ENCPOACHMENT
- SURCHARGE NOT TO EXCEED 10 F00T IFIA REQUIREMENil OR LESSER AMOUNT IF SPECIFIED BY STATE.
FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC Figure 2 5.1 Reach Ceterminations Reaches are defined as lengths of watercourses having relatively the same flood hazard, based on the average weighted difference in water-surface elevations between the 10- and 100-year floods. This difference dous not have a variation greater than that indicated in the following table for more than 20 percent of the reach. Average Difference Between 10- and 100-Year Floods Variation Less than 2 feet 0.5 foot 2 to 7 feet 1.0 foot 7.1 to 12 feet 2.0 feet fq More than 12 feet 3.0 feet 16
O The locations of reaches determined for the riverine flooding sources of the Town of Waterford are shown on the profiles (Exhibit 1) and are summarized in the Flood Insurance Zone Data Table (Table 4). In tidal areas, reaches are limited to the distance for which the dif-ference between the 10-year and 100-year flood elevations does not vary more than 1.0 foot. Using these criteria, the shorelines of / the Thames River and Long Island Sound each qualify as one reach. The Niantic River is entirely controlled by backwa ter f rom Long Island Sound and does not qualify as a separate reach. 5.2 Flood Hazard Factors The FHF is the FIA device used to correlate flood information with insurance rate tables. Correlations between property damage from floods and their FHFs are used to set actuarial insurance premium rate tables based on FHFs from 005 to 200. The FHF for a reach is the average weighted difference between the 10- and 100-year flood water-surface elevations expressed to the nearest 0.5 foot, and shown as a three-digit code. For example, if the difference between water-surface elevations of the 10- and 100-year floods is 0.7 foot, the FHF is 005; if the difference is 1.4 feet, the FHF is 015; if the difference is 5.0 feet, the FHF is 050. When the difference between the 10- and 100-year water-surface elevations is greater than 10.0 feet, accuracy for the FHF is to the nearest foot. 5.3 Flood Insurance Zones After the determination of reaches and their respective FHFs, the entire incorporated area of the Town of Waterford was divided into zones, each having a specific flood potential or hazard. Each zone was assigned one of the following flood insurance zone designations: Zone A: Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by the 100-year flood, determined by approximate methods; no base flood elevations shown or FHFs determined. Zones Al, A2, A3, A4, Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by the A6, A8 and A9: 100-year flood, determined by detailed methods; base flood elevations shown, and zones subdivided according to FHF. O 17
O O O I ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 2
' ^ BASE FLOOD FLOODING SOURCE PANEL 1 FHF ZONE 10% 2% 0,2% ELEVATION 3 i (10 YR.) (50 YR.) (500 YR.) (NGVD) f l
Jordan Brook Reach 1 15 -1.2 -0.4 +2.6 010 A2 Varies Reach 2 15 -1.5 -0.2 +0.5 015 A3 Varies Reach 3 15 -2.0 -0.5 +1.4 020 A4 Varies Reach 4 15 -3.0 -0.4 +0.8 030 A6 Varies Reach 5 15 -1.5 -0.4 +0.7 015 A3 Varies Reach 6 15 -0.8 -0.3 +0.6 010 A2 Varies Reach 7 15 -1.3 -0.4 +1.5 015 A3 varies Reach 8 10,15,20 -0.6 -0.2 +0.5 005 Al varies Reach 9 10 -4.2 -0.2 +0.3 040 A8 Varies Reach 10 10 -1.4 -0.2 +0.4 015 A3 Varies Reach 11 10 -0.6 -0.2 +0.4 005 Al Varies Nevins Brook Reach 1 15 -1.5 -0.2 +0.3 015 A3 Varies Reach 2 15 -0.6 -0.1 +0.3 005 Al Varies Reach 3 15 -2.8 -1.1 +0.5 030 A6 Varies Reach 4 15 -0.8 -0.3 +0.5 010 A2 Varies Reach 5 15 -0.4 -0.3 +0.4 005 Al varies Reach 6 15 -2.2 -0.8 +0.8 020 A4 varies Reach 7 15 -0.5 -0.2 +0.5 005 Al Varies IFlood insurance Rate Map Panel 2 Weighted average 3 Rounded to the nearest foot - see map FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
;;! rarounsurone uminisu tion FLOOD INSURANCE ZONE DATA c.
A TOWN OF WATERFORD' CT
- JORDAN BROOK AND NEVINS BROOK Inw tonoon ca.)
i - I i ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 2
' ^ ^
FHF ZONE FLOODING SOURCE PANEL 1 EE O (10 YR.) (50 YR.) (500 YR.) (NGVD) Tharaes River Reach 1 20 -4.4 -1.5 +3.5 045 A9 Varies Long Island Sound Reach 1 05,15 -4.0 -1.3 +3.6 040 A8,V8 11 E 1 I Flood insurance Rate Map Panel 2 Weighted average 3 Rounded to the nearest foot - see map i FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY g Federal Insurance Administration FLOOD INSURANCE ZONE DATA oo A TOWN OF WATERFORD' CT
. THAMES RIVER AND LONG ISLAND SOUND
[NEW LONDON CO.] O O O
~
e
~
\_ / I
. I
~ Zone V8: Special Flood Hazard Areas along coasts inundated by the-100-year flood as deter-mined by detailed methods, 'and thac have, additional hazards due to velocity twave I action); base flood elevations shown, and zones subdivided according to FHFs. l Zone B: Areas between the Special Flood Hazard Area and the limits of the SOO-year flood, in - ,, I cl,uding~ areas of-the 500 year flood plain "'" [ -
'^
g that are protected from the 100-year flocd by dike, levee, or other water control'~* s a structure; also, areas subject to certain' types .of 100-year shallow flooding where depths'are less than 1.0 foot;/and' areas v e, subject to 100-year flooding from sources with drainage areas less than 1 squar'el-mile'.N Zone B is not subdivided.S -
% :e' %
s Zone C: Areas of minimal flooding. i - s-N-' Table 4, " Flood Insurance Zone Data," summarizes the flood elevation differences, FHFs, flood insurance zones, and base flood elevations for the flooding sources. studied in detail in the Town of Waterford. 5.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map Description
' The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town ,of Waterford is, for insurance purposes, the principal result of the Flood Insurance ,
Study.- This map (published separately) contains the official delin-eation of-flood insurance zones and base flood elevation lines. Base flood elevation lines show the locations ~of the expected whole-foot water-surface elevations of the base (100-year) flood. This map is developed in accordance with the latest flood insurance map preparation guidelines published by the FIA. 6.0 OTHER STUDIES The. tidal hydrologic data used in this study were drawn from a previous study conducted by the COE in 1973 of the coastline between Willets Point, New York and Pawcatuck Point, Connecticut (Reference 5). The Town of g Waterford lies within this area. The COE study provides consistent re-() sults for communities that base their tidal flooding elevation on that" source. 20
.s
, : 's.
The results of this report are consistent with the Flood Insurance Study for the City of New landon, Connecticut (Reference 14). s
'$his ' study is authoritative for purposes of the Flood Insurance Program, and the data presented here either supersede or are compatible with pre-vious determinations.
7.0 LOCATION OF DATA Survey, hydrologic, hydraulic, and other pertinent data used in this study can be obtained by contacting the office of the Insurance and Mitigation _ Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Regional Director, Region I Office, J. W. McCormack Post Office t.nd Courthouse Building, Room 462, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. '
\
1
~8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
- 1. Foye, W. G., The Geology of Eastern Connecticut,-State Geological and Natural History Survey, Bulletin No. H, Hartfordi Connecticut, 1949.
[
- 2. Town of Waterford, Waterford Conservation Commission, Natural Resource Data Maps by Richard H. Goodwin, Sally L. Taylor and Barbara Jane s
Zaccheo, Waterford, Connecticut, October 1972.
- 3. U. S. Departnient of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of P9pulation, Number M Inhabitants, Connecticut, Washir.gton, D.C. , U.
S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
- 4. James P. Purcell Associates, Inc., Plan of Development, Waterford, Connecticut, June 1973.
- 5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England DiviJion, Long Island _ Soand Interim Memo No. COE-2, Tidal Hydrology, Waltham, Massachusetts, June
, 6 1974. 4f
- 6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Hurrican3 Survey, Connecticut Coastal and Tidal Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts, May 1964.
i
- 7. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Flood Flow Formulas for Urbanized and Nonurbanized Areas of Connecticut by L. A. Weiss, Washington, D. C., 1975, Revised 1978.
qs,.
-7 8. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Hurricane Survey, Eastern Connecticut, Waltham, Massachusetts, October 1972.
f\, ' s
- 9. Potomac Aerial Surveys Company, Photogrammetric Maps, Scale 1:2,400,
\ Waterford, Connecticut, 1978.
{ .
'.," 21
- d. % s
y'
.9 a ,.
_7
,1 ,.
3
., 10. .U.-S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-2, Water-Surface Profiles,' Users' Manual, Davis, California, November
.1976.
- 11. U. . S . Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, Guidelines for Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones, Galveston, Texas, June 1975.
- 12. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24,000, Contour Interval 10 Feet Montville, Connecticut, 1958, Photorevised 1970; New London, Connec-
'ticut, 1958, Photorovised 1970; Niantic, Connecticut, 1958, Photo-revised 1970; Uncasville, Connecticut, 1958, Photorevised 1970.
- 13. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Town of Waterford, New London County, Connecticut, Washington, D. C., July 1974.
-, 14. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of New London, New London
}
County, Connecticut, Washington, D. C., November 1976. N
\ ):
22
MNPS-3 EROLS NRC Letter: January 31, 1983 Question No. Q240.2 (Section 7.1.9) Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactivity contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 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 i analysis.
Response
l As stated in Section 7.1.9 of the Millstone 3 EROLS,-"The analyses of l the probabilities and consequences of accidents beyond the design bases l of the Millstone 3 plant will be comprehensively discussed in the l relevant portions of the Millstone 3 Prcbabilistic Safety Study (PSS), l which the applicants presently estimate will be completed within
) 6 months after the docketing of the FSAR" (August 1983).
v i b V Q240.2-1 _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _}}