ML20079G889

Notifies That Responses to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Interrogatories Must Be Received by 821115.Response to State of Nh Interrogatories Must Be Received by 821119

ML20079G889
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/15/1982
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hulman L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20079F081	List: ML20079F079 ML20079F278 ML20079G616 ML20079G620 ML20079G748 ML20079G889 ML20079K188 ML20079Q381 ML20082B113 ML20082B121 ML20082B125 ML20082B133 ML20082B142 ML20082B150 ML20082B151 ML20082B202
References
FOIA-83-388 NUDOCS 8212010140
Download: ML20079G889 (3)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- ~ ,/ \\ s* Hog'o, / UNITED STATES !')g,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i je j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Q:,,,f .iDV 131982 MEMORANDUM FOR: L. G. Hulman, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch Division of Systems Integration FROM: George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 { Division of Licensing j

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK INTERROGATORIES FOR ACCIDENT EVALUATION BRANCH

Reference:

Memorandum, J. Kerrigan to Addressee,

Subject:

Seabrook Hearing 1 Contentions, dated October 18, 1982, with enclosed ASLB order. The referenced memorandum forwarded contentions in the Seabrook OL proceedings that are within the scope of your review responsibilities and re' quested that the substance of these contentions be addressed in your SER input that is due not later than November 30, 1982. The intervenors (Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) and the Attorney General, State of.New Hampshire (NH)) have forwarded to the staff the first set of interrogatories on your contentions (Enclosure 1 from SAPL; Enclosure 2 from NH). In order for the staff to comply with the Comission's regulations governing respSfRes to interrogatories, your responses to SAPL items 2 through 5 must be received by Division of Licensing (DL) not later than noon today. These were I informally provided to Mr. W. Pasedag on November 10, 1982 with a note of the due date. Responses to the NH interrogatories are required by noon November 19, 1982 ~ i Copies of these interrogatories have not been provided prior to today. DL ~ recognizes that this is a short time to provide the requested information. i If it is not possible to provide responses prior to the requested date, please have your representative contact an attorney assigned to the Seabrook hearings - as soon as possible (R. Lessy, X27992; R. Perlis, X27657; W. Paterson, X27528). i For your possible use as a ceference in responding to the NH interrogatories, a copy of the related NH interrogatories to the applicant with the applicant i responses has been provided to Mr. M. Thadani. Your cooperation in responding to this request on short notice is appreciated. } D1-eorge ,Knighton Chief Licens g Branch No. 3 2 Enclosures': Division of Licensing l As stated i j cc: W. Pasedag l M. Thadani R."$II, XA. Copy Hos Been Sent to PDR W. Paterson e- ,n. n. vg, -.,u.,, ~,... - -.. ,,p. - -. - - - -,,. -, - ~,. -. a me,, ~., -, ,r .. e, - - -, ,-u

...s_--- -. - i SAPL Supp. 3.13 Identify th' Staff persons who, in relation to Seabrook, havo been assigned the responsibility of performing the analysis of transients in accidents which postulates multiple failures including operator errors. 4 SAPL Supp. 3. 14 .3 Identify all documents prepared by the Staff which relate to an analysis of transients in accidents which postulate multiple failures including operator errors. Please produce such documents pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.741. j k jh r, - l.W v 1 ) SAPECSupp. 3.15 ~~ p Identify all communications between PSm! and the NdC he W* ** staff which relate to the analysis of Class 9' 4 accidents including a release of radfoactivity to \\' N,. p.g,4] ! e groundwater. s f. SAPL Supp. 3.16 (h' Explain the extent to which the Staff'has considered the economic impact on the seacoast area in particular and on the State generally in the event of a z significant release of radioactivity to groundwater ' following a serious accident. ,s b a -- gg A s j(. s [

• .... L

~. / j s 'x, 4 t, A i T"f 189'~~ i,7 o -( .,;@k,d M - a / h_ \\,/,s z. - - -1/ [ y u,r..: n at.. -,i e -- i -, 3 r + +,,,,._. - - .., A., _.,/ .w f[ ~). n w i i a / 1,%l i l n - '.Q,s ct:r. 'T '1 C i 'q %j f I 'j\\ 3:: ( n't i i e . ; -.j. =- f [ l' .s ,l R T E ~- r . w.') / f;. r -- y.: =

j. g),_-

• ~$.

ip /u ORT h. l4 l -.q%[ 'g y _ siz .[:, _ y,. -- e gg / Te '~i - sy a a e ocrA ~ W --- Q"l 9 ,r t!gs. / g -[.y si t 7,. i l N/*'

• /. " -.

,mi 1, g yjggk,,\\N ,,y [ ,Y ~~ 9. 3g3)

==., i / ,4 ' s ~ ~ i. z l '; GS ( Q ,..._.'",. _. iu. _. - - - \\. 'f,----.---p 4 .u .-e,, s n ,. - = c. s l\\ _ ~. _1 \\. - pg 1 -i.g 97_ c.;, 4 - vg. 2 k (j'}. +... ], g, a r. -,~. y< ... E ' _ \\g - [.. x

1. 2 s:.

ia nnst ~ 1 t a 1

• g le 12s g, g g g g y 'O E

i - g\\ 5 s: 'I C n j,:q.: - } K,E n s.t M, t 0. N \\ ~ \\ L. 10N i .181 \\ \\ '?n r "^ -. < nu ) & w' ' p., ,: "2 r= J . p.g.n I3' ,-~ _L_c p%.,,., n > y jo ,7 s e - yy y; M.),;1', - 8 MI. ~.,. ]"". -. 'l f g, .~ N A _ .{ N,. n".! ' c--r-i = 1 6 Mt. ia_ 1 ^ A2MO ir ocz a .,g =- see a E:S R - -- a kE 7 [ 4 gg. ,[3 t [g/ Y E in g R,tiw u J s.f ,'j, d D%- s. .;i m +

%a--

g . s. _y y heries N %: m. _._-4:._._ W- .s 1 l w e i y= N.. / u.. g gst L1 - s/* /" s s l x .si...,

,imis...,

.Ariar mapor .#^ ^ -L. g "N !.~ l accxincuau county

• q

[ [i._ '\\ k'. ...._.'v.-- =.. - aggge aC

g

.=,"

=

,,'.'===

.s s N '/ 4 = =lll"::T." ' ', *Iq7 -. 8gg s N / sivP'8 Iu ' l g i l:::=

ll;"/

) d[

• t I W f t'B F88

{ "I" " t ,/s-4 4 s m 1

=__ -- : -- -

i j,, Y '113 I (u) d 3- .L /T I m /- a g g!t sistB \\ I 'ss' 'f. i I \\. [ \\ /[; I Ai - E _.I, F 0 ~ g n

G e e S W P'7.QlEW R yn y o;w :W: ~5 P E N W 53 M iM91 MEN . lf n'yni MM usy y cy..v..: ^ ': qqs G;$lT ,;*k's. ? T - .*i: hdN.M }N- ~,.. , I,; - j./:IN'Yh '$dikJ[n.$$ddu(::d. %.,., c.,'..q-L, ..: m.yd-Wn..) <W,;;gy~ g.~ t y - h. .u lY. ,C :X if $.* 'p.* ! +..: wThid; h (v'*;Ig I h &Y,l-l.. ?{f ft$ .M V . ' :<3 v v?r+g%r,glJ.'$(N71(y-.. he

., y p

f k'pp8.m.hf$m'h_=~ Yf 'cl.I:ikl.hf$, I ti m m m (hhh.{ff=.#[::'l$$Utu.".Q'C%

'Ll$

f, =.,

.::< i h.i lN* tf lY h$ k '.*

Y'. l.. E:--sf.h hbfbh!jNi .:?' ~':~hkk kwwn%%;fff)hIM2 k k h fih i h.! fh kkkI! i yMeyp%ns&.,My%rtw r m. an.w m, IPf$ f L ,h< a .{<. m a.%u'6...,w. (tf.,, h. ,a e \\ a. u@. m% s J .A p n.;,h 1 gf }A p'djN. 4[I [ E )- 0 a sn$$$$*n., ,.., m p 4 % ; i ! , 7 ?.,,5 $ y ,6 .e,p 'w$s$ .x. - Mi /. pqk, a' t.{*l,);. ,, b i n f' Nf i l*ii; l . u L+ 9 yi 60 g'. y}/{- m a \\, L f i: 5

q.W!(kjj L j'

N,, m .v l j I 2 g y ;9 4 ,' Uf s w u, o k gmd th4 N"a ty ai~rJ

.y "pm,'g t

.M Th fyy d s t >., Lgy)a"1,4w*n;3C. 1 r x, o.$ i ,, J. U 4.un \\ w}:' ~s%,. si n n I, %~ s. ,* h b k, f.'-),*g f:.'

• ch l

u<W ~u A Ij h k 4 i h % .m p*t Eihi$h $$$5 N $$$ $ $ $$$$N $ a d h $ e$ w J

4 5pqA?^s@!WNF@@'Fa W W F $3,- we 5g,f... p-

m...

,-t -i' s.n . n ,j n ( r h,g.i '-* .. r. 1 '". ydf ' '- r yep',,, p '.y e4 My% % /.*t ;f. ' fb d i%;I k'.k, ~e ' ~...T . f.. r. .EJ s- ~ ~, ~. d.fh.- ~N ~*

• h g

$vth, p gc r ' .,c, t " * * '.(tn i 2 -t a ., t -1.1

f. m -

s

j'f..

- hh

y. (a

- *2 J g::w;p...i.- y n ~ m - r. p %,.,,.q

• &p a

e p.4 y.i, w g . s e.c. g -.

p. g, a

. g,.' p:.2-Q,4.;.fy,,x:,',' ' n, s i yy:h,N.u.a _ 1,ge _ v.. w 3.;. ;. w' ' Cl *;T., M;aj;, .. n ! :d. 7, . m, lIY Y., Q r g,7' e -j, L[ p. -e- . j ..., '. w w /g f.el "hn. ? e m ;,y q .s. c. (. 4-; pr i?.th.v f. z -. 9 y'l'.Nr;'d, jU(y 4.iG Y. Q. ; Q.VffM NNM D 3 "'.*[:';t w,.. ~ v.

4 I, - p 4-

..js t.%, ~!' V- . s..*f 9 / NN .b.PI D .. -y'.n T e%y%.%g+o t 19 9>p t/ .u w 9 yt~r. v- .s w ji% p, >< 4 's tQ)) $.go'; %;l.f 9 : m.

~$,Ny

. :.a w& My dpk ' b,th. r b e c' h.h m!,djN., g,M.h)+Tl:hwh. s! e[@w.(m$ dim i ?dl$k aq e M {,M. 5.th a. h, ~2MN. 'd

d..t-,.~~.n9

,m s ...,-.tw y..t.:.n t.'t. .s. s,. i. ,. p,-g 4 s r '" b*b 1 + l h )YM,qi([Ygld w,., h l% h,.. hh IWr d.g.S M.ssd,k f(M.

s. [r L

-t ,...n 7 g..... [u O; .g-n ~

• Ml4.*(iRG{

. M JgS.df h.g: $;Q,4 p A u .. $ w ! q' &w a.# p,mT D W,, ~ M .h k., Q -u..b% MF9 f r/,tY e es. p-zai &: 54 U-C > w t h y &..e. W y'.f p W W %.N.,c s yr m hp u n g $ 6 %p y. w q. W w$Q4{EfWr 4G Nhni% n Age szi;.M y twu Nb fk' hhhf e bmW r'W,tih dif4?$M 9 [E ^ qfvppnaw@.J r .'s;. R W M 5 8. a *s. % 6, ($ > .f f t - A ,. <.. m ~,'%x n % g,.Q*=?hRik ;h= k.,t.h j ( . \\ :L k-h Y . q?.!a.b.?..-s<W+. :),,4G,,. ; y 1 Me~ e ke

>gg4h^

s

[].

h

.f,,FigAs

'? F'&hh$hhh}#f@Ahay(! d.[d.k a c( h. j e,.p hg e M Nkhh $ wm,ihb. M8b h 3.$[MTx[c$g / i MNA M$$b d i E 5L.%-e h+m. (p %) M P siWSO M M pJi UM%s E E.14g .i n 4l*. FM i T W9M.. J M. .:$ k w* N. -,. .. 4478 ? [.n. g4J . %.. '[ O'.r t. -.

7. g OM@, m,

+,.., 'f f1"J.' :W,.- * ' y,;c -7 .n- ' a l Wg ~'s fl f W'g % '*f %. ; K*k'%r k

• Ji r

.. ?.qh' q::Q'. a:- %.,V .: i N -- b"E.'7;.[%.i* M M,;45't'A f! Q ^' ' TN p N[% $ ' ';. % '.3-R -T. 4.. M[ f r i k m.,; w.n ;u& w. N k_: Q~P 7.o % e g f$%IE$3%@ Vg .~ 4ws rc+%.s.u 'p ?:% Q'.[ h.. w% W n y 9 .m.,x.%,. ~. nr.m, ,t .. Q.u s. y- - w % p*-Ea;;%,,:';*;s4t3A % t,b h 5 :@,.

• M w s n,s c

~ .e l

N-311_2LO'tih___

k

e I'f) 'Nk$I; hhd Yd!f I / D,;7[ > l ', 7 '3 c[ *. *.. Mi 9. / l I 2' - 'n.-l3 m? P P ,/ ii!; i: ,s \\ s iim gjp j' \\\\1 'c d_ _ _ ~ _ R'Q?g'N'k.. _. l?'i 'W i .A : ilT

agg 3

t g \\ %m X upe ... g gi ); : ( y* ess Why. % (. bv $y; j..I-

f W.!\\

J:/,gi /- . j e4 __ j\\ / gym i :.. A i h, 1. .. - N5 i /[ [ \\ . ! Y8tu . ns ge x, vnyu s -['\\ 'dd ![ a f. L[ 'T) M / r nN 4f., //up Mf . lF o / n (, m@k TW' s n\\ l i a}t ?^ &x $!?& / .h r f, l 1.\\ ./ / ~ -{ 8 l y}(j W-i i i 11 il 11-I i 'I E !,1 li 11 i ij I' li f il I I g g} l l lg i!!! !!!!!i l

• • • = ***** g 333sg83 90 833 8888188888888888 888% 3 8191 h

.g

y l .} A O i f / / / - ^ > n, / / f O > / I / I l I 's, i I ) [s l l u I sa \\ / INT KE g,/ 2a Sa s.E n

HAMPTON

1. [, [,~) ])\\

. BEACH I /] h 44 /,- ) {yfe ^ cn p!cl N3 g ,u-INTAKE 42*. =. s $====== TUNNEL

1. p. ' t

/'- ) k, ,o i [L j* = p- /" / PLANT - g ._2d ( 7 o(/)D .ars: / '_ I, ' \\. / "' / 5 Of CHARGE [ t,

1. ^ g 7

TUNNEL OuTE n-DISCHAMO I /# '\\ SuaK ,,7,, ,e g I,/,3 3 L / 3 7 f $A i 'l3, ;-) _, I\\ q', ff\\ i:G ^ ,/ vy ^ I'; O //,NNEJ l D; 9( ,qux 1 \\ ROCKS SE A5 MOOK MODEL LIMITS ~ SEABROOK BEACH 5000 SCALE - FEET .j i ~ ' 3,7 ea O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOCATION OF SEABROOK STATION SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 3.4-1

t 0 s 0 0 u )3 4 6 8 1 2 o_ ( S ERU ) T E E O C R NL U O SI Z R H TG2 T /tS FN0 S AI N oF 5 H T T oF _E yO S A D N L I E R MT _NI E RA S E C IRT RU ,R 'k 1 CI 1 HF B \\ A E E A S _U ( 3 _F F 6 ~ 1 I D j

• g 0

A ~ 0R l O 5, H D ~ g I 5 S L F w_ n F E L g N ~ O S y N M U T E K AT N I 7 EN U EN D I N L U X O K O R R C G O E L O A X R O P R C P S P A P A O ( T T O N G N I W r A = R 0 D 5 2 S 8-I 4 2E H - G T R - E EA S KH E U AC T O T S O H P INI D N M U P L 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 S 2. 0 4 0 4 8 1 , 2 M 2 2 0 _ O " C(CO m* yam OOIsZ<~ OT ZmII.>e "f m $OmFm Om m9,mOox f. DOZ U D ) / mm*m80M mjd0Z 'CZgM D M g 3@5dZ0 g>1m3 M mE m55OZI Z1h $qOR1 Om9>dZQ c0$mm mi>Om i' } i 2OCmm 9?w

ar# m e .ni Y. i s. fo, f D,9. \\Ml 'Ws ,gM'*f - / e ~ \\ f \\ e t l. c. -.. s. (-i. . p, i 'on,' . e. O .s

w..

t

• /,"*

y= . q. , /. e% g = .,f .l: A-r a 4 w w M .~ g u --a 6 8_. L 3 $ $,E = g, m u 5w. GJ sr : 6 ~ww .si. 9 CJ E5 C g- 4.5g W, /tg.., so aC CEh O wwn y,</* J :n. M WC 4 ,\\1 O ~ ~ em y s. .p e a f ( = y .,.--...J - - - - - -T G S .g .- - -. r - T m a eC s g 9 M 7. >= w U = W I M l a mmm.m E M V W eC M J C3 C CK y .'~ .0 L ~, ??/ ,L-O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIAGRAM SHOWING SEABROOK STATION SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 VELOCITY CAP INTAKE STRUCTURES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 3.4-3

v ,l 1 45* 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 1000* 19 20 100* 21 NOZZLE DIAMETER 2.65 FT. CISCHARGE VELOCITY 15 FTJSEC. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIAGRAM S$OWING SEABROOK STATION SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 MULTIPORT DIFFUSER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 3.4-4

1 l er I 3y s ',, < y' w \\ ~4-71am On S 4 A s% \\ g ~4_.,. .,,f . ~ qo, \\ f ) nn \\ .~; ta ,- / z 95 1 ' ^

1. lJ)to,

^' Q M H: 8 rf e/t 3 Am\\ F L L ? ondh h' 2 ' ~4E R5 e U A NF.m.,, %w r* gu s' y,i. mpt I \\ '* e 5h' a ,4 p. =p-A .gg 0od ( [ f-N i*4.. Q N[ y e r a O. / he Rocks c. e-

• c-e go's

=- C ,.0 ,w,g . m...,' V e, l 6 ) o,+ I and ..A: eab o

.e-6'-

o .,A i g% g. C \\ e l .(L p,, cu \\; ~ u .g, Beckm 3 g islan G ,lj I .s. " $ Sei'ro k i \\ N -Q ::9."u;.:,,:.Y.'it O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE VICINITY WELLS SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l FIGURE 2.4-3 J

d s n-2Kes.gJ ;..5. pt.9, %+w. w %s ny em.e <a m-y.w j. w. '* 0 ..: 4..,,.- a g g a.. b(,- + 3 i"4 u.., ,a .,%Q fu " a -Q. ~.' */,m. g. Cg d.> ii ,,e % wf. +,a a2 y%. k.?*g* ,a Ct?;w. >p +w" a, '*% Q " *.l L q~ - W v Q N, d,, 3 QAN%. . ;(

" E O

r 7 -A,q< 1 P. 3; j n. 4p% y i #.-:rg'*FS$s -'g.y$.cy.Y.fm.r,45. .A. 3nJ'%.:MMJfN..y% Et L p3 b. .s e E-VW d, N. D %~;fdh,*W r*- '.., p [o.- y,,.4 *:~.s. +,, - r. s. c - s:h% N4'

- h. Q,Ylf m.. >

~ ?f f'.-[/ lg 'a,', ' s>,.5 ! =p J% r,o ' 5". y ' i %,sy.c &..,' pi;fe y.f.h. e_'k e$-- ."h* I

e. 'e_r..w,

@s e x

r

..;i I". e pgj l h,4..hd.<*e4f.7 h'* /.' ,cJ 3'u~e 5$SY.3*h[slt.>[T ' g ~ 4,P - .m. - N'*4 t N$= e..A*(+ r

• w, c ' -

Sm

• • -gln q$E

& f '~,'9. '. '.a j f '. ' + - -a t Y$ \\ 'f' g

• {

(V f 1 A l% f M Q W y.. m *Km: ji W~.k.@Gp ifi ,6 ) G. Q { g g:. gL : :. g ; L g N,. N w' #3*si* @ 4p,.,....n'. . /.,,, ,. =.. w n.~ v w .~ s hl Sh Q: , l 'Ly,.;-;. % u. e% g & r w# g :.: :.=-r m c'b.: V b .mh.... +s m@a f.2. - 4;x W7 9 <: Oy ww 'se u w(*': . ** 1 W e' ! w~t/.,b, M-g- M "

c..

N,A i e W.a P. p P y; ,4 y*.,5. w., <, n,( ',. 4 4

• v

..,v.. ,, g 6...,,a. . yw q.. r .. 3...,-%..'8.,..~.,.c.. ~ .tyt, s,. T(,,. y, { - -g m

• .a M.,

i :, .~.q'f

• R

.n.' Y b y$a*$ he Y ...S,k,.S

• • hIy

~ .s l C M,u % g v.

• • y' s.

g.. 4,. x* s f..Q,.,. h.w,k,y,k. '. n,. ,s $.4'h..& $ Y ~. n &.x.. w'o.!!a. &, n. e e ~ pS. - d., e n <- O F.'. Mh. k:.hD., ~ s

1. Wk Mpruir,d L 4i, e

(3{ ..- (. -j l*~ "~ v'*** sw.. 7 o-Q -. _ 6 ',

• r*?g. m *.4

, ' f-b '. W~. = *y '.,- -(, 40-p r ..J i ~ l.y Q .- } +y rj 'p, T '*

• N... J,k[,,f/y](&'%. ;..g%. x. -

' N.. ~ 'IM

n., ::

-w .a >> r <v , y., ;, .Y, . '. ' [ V~MMt,i% m*'.: .. ' {(. *

b. l~

2; ~- - s- - : :. -;Wn~9 t' - ~~. G. 9,;p v.. .i. kr-+* s *

• s,y,?'~h ;.s c

m.- 's n.. y t r, r 7._d%'N W g s I

• ' = 'Y ' "' O

%.. -.I hm p'sIdfeln[h. h.:fi ', /'

• k[,*

%

• s -., 3
• d -

b k 2:M *g' 47>(- $ N .* b$:' IJkh.s/ -k = I* 'N 1 I 4 bdk NMhk]". -'I$ 'O L p &< y, me.. -u%*g um, +-e#

.w x

1 ):;: .,W:&v i t.m fs >+9.f v EF.L.I.*i.b k' . v/r e.m' h,h ...;w.h[h h, I.: h 'k 4 h~- ge i. T' i $ h Q( q.y d *v JQ' $h*

U.C,*k.,, - 1 Q>.0..-

': :i $U= :.~: ". 7 ^ c E ,:.., $ 2l9 f=,:'(f i s %. ,a > % A.b Q. g - %::, 97 ~.,.. r Q**,{?.. '.Y <'~f i c g7),a 2p 9 4 r m.. W, n ..: w;, w. ns) y.. w .w.. :@g af ,*'y w N, ' ' )3 M,G4 e% sg A. - s.> M? n.3 -Me *:'5 %4 @ g~. .J wy') v^.u..' A. ay,nn k.....u. w <, rs. n.e,.. J 4 y-.9 .s.g f,'.,i,w ; - > ~ *

m..

s. .,x u, ... s e e>..Le. dw %. 7. w. m...% .M.:W A Nl*@ r'ra ~ sv-: L i a1 f.i. ~ h f'*. w.gbg.goEs,.4%} W.:z', g3 c vy N v..C U' d f f' e m, r e b. Ya '..ekT.*'s;.;

• & lE.

. E /*>'%;- N. *d ',. ,q:,h. 3 ':4

t

{!% fn>:

K ar te=e s* 4,* Wa s' 4 S' &# 4' i t t i ~ SI I - c, c :, . ei n. O ss.itair) i 2-e s thiant 5fTC g,tTS =.= Di f ustm sJTE LCDGE f f sc' e - 4 2'54* l / 4 2

• S s' -

,h r 4 / Q T71 o,5x urtm71 y g e,, its - S S, d."A. di d ~ ,,/ l CRE AT 00am!)* s ntno ; l l l / O l' s.8../ f te s m.5 indTAR,E SITE f j e @ " II"$I I (st) 'f4 f t:t j' g f ~ * * * * *, or v s.s.n \\ ,,s<.~ itay in14 98 s.t, FUSER SITC# .3 mA,vi7e O nawetow t' Stata12) / s en (Q

gagg3, e

s.ct12tm12) ( o sit m e i ,t,' - )* ~ ,-CD40=&tmis - s,. s3 _ l { / ] \\ l / -E ..- s ',o ...\\ t~ t I (Ostmtintf' 1 j T ', i 'J e e i e - 42* St' 42*32* - -I e / N,# cmast=> l ( W.; I O ( -i, \\ ( i - si' ( i si I 0 - Plankton Cruise Station i l s O - Slackwater Station \\ i 1 0 - Current tieter i l e - Temperature lionitor T - *2 so' S - Near surface 42.so*- l< l i ) M - flid water \\ B - Near bottom saussuir '\\, \\ uta==A:s niven Estuaar ( 4... ~, - p . '. ~ j j ~ '....' f n'I aa Ost! tun l i l a n.. + t i i ,a.a e. so. as-so ae LOCATION MAP OF HYDROGRAPHIC SAMPLING PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ST ATIONS OFF H AMPTON BEACH. NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE

SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS TABLE 6.1-1 SEABROOK STATION SURFACE WATER DATA COLLECTED PHYSICAL PARAMETERS (Sheet 1 of 2) I. Continuous Monitoring of Oceanographic Parameters from Fixed Points: A. Mooring Deployment: More than 30 different specially designed mooring systems to serve as instrumentation platforms have been deployed on a year-round basis. B. Current Measurements: For nearly 7 years continuous water current speed and direction measurements have been obtained from the various of fshore moorings compiling a data base, exceeding 40 current-meter mooring years. C. Temperature Measurements: For nearly 7 years continuous water temperature measurements have been obtained from the various of fshore moorings as well as from around the Inner and Outer Sunk Rocks and the Hampton Harbor estuary, documenting nearly 30 temperature monitoring years of data. D. Tide Elevation Measurements: For 6 years tide elevation was monitored continuously in the Hampton Harbor estuary. II. Oceanographic Cruises: A. Plankton Cruises: Essentially monthly oceanographic cruises to survey plankton distribution, hydrographic parameters, and net circulation patterns (drifter releases) in the western gulf of Maine out to almost 25 n mi offshore. B., Slack Water Surveys: Monthly to semi-monthly hydrographic surveys to document low-water and high-water " slack" distributions of I ambient temperature, salinity, density and dissolved oxygen at stations in Hampton Harbor and offshore around the various proposed intake and discharge sites. C. Special Temperature Studies: Over a 1 year period intensive temperature surveys (including in situ monitoring and tide pool measurements) were made around the Inner and Outer Sunk Roc 0s off the mouth of Hampton Harbor.

I SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS till TABLE 6.1-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) III. Anchor Station Studies: Periodic surveys over a tidal cycle at selected stations to document ambient currents, temperature, salinity, density and dissolved oxygen; frequently included in situ streamer observations and drogue studies. IV. Drifter Studies: More than 4 years of drif ter releases including 'some 12,000 drif t. bottles and nearly 15,000 drogue and sea-bed drifters with an overall recovery of about 25 to 40%, depending upon the drif ter type; included a special study to determine the probability of coastal waters entering the Hampton Harbor estuary and neighboring estuaries 's a function a of distance and depth offshore. +' V. Sedimentological Studies: A. Sediment Stakes: Monthly height measurements of stakes jetted into the sea floor were used to document long-term, net-nediment a-a.ian =aAlar danacition. B. Sediment Trap: This device was used to document, seasonal aspects of near-bottom suspended sediment transport at th4 nearshore intake site; C. Turbidity Survey: Two special surveys were conducted to measure ambient turbidity levels in Hampton Harbor estuary under " typical" and " post-storm" conditions. jr O O

SEABROOK Ef1VIR0fiMENTAL 2 v-t i / SAMPLING STATIONS n Q, 198) v a s. j (! nrish: {#.. *JJ Q.1 -s I i Otter trawls (M) J Gill nets (M)a M M 18 30 60 h Seines (E) i f) -Q _ ,[ M. I 1 A Plankton: 8 r O' [ Macrozooplankton (M) -.M ~2): O. ~ ~ " 4. .~ t

f. -

42 . --- - as - Ichthyoplankton (H) 9,. e Microzooplankton (M) i h. g

/

, ' " " ' - -'/ Phytoplankton (E M) ,1-2 '. .t A. ~, a a-o a b b,/ ((,.. ~ '. 3j 3 j . crobenthos (E,M) E ' h <- - N I i,.. Meiofauna (H) / HAMhT0i 4 p[,; -l .~r Macroalgae(M) A ~ BROWNS f g RIVE '),,,e z. (1 > %g . ( g",' { f INTAKE + . RIVER .e Epibenthos (M) ,,4 Artificial S ./ substrates (M) i 'g /,', ,e [ 'i i (._,,, 'T-G ,n ', '~~~ 'I ( .{ ! h e Soft shell clam (E) SEABROOK s STATION A, l'. 's i* r 4 tNAg s .t G Temperature / Salinity i N, ,[. DISCHARGE', Surveys f,/o, !, /,,. a,",,~::., 4., /,...,,... -) '~. i G Continuous Temperature' -,c', j,/ , e.. ,/ N. Current m ,f.. s ', '. - " m 3,* s ,s y u.o s 1 oo u

,.-a o ?i ss o

..s e t - 8 f,t m i s .q g %S ...) i ... / l A ,Iw y,. s,.* I,- , ~ ~, 1 4 m: GLACKWA R I. g',, M = marine, ~~ I a E = estuarine .4, p./ .f MASS. s f '.1/ ~ ' h .f 'O 5 1 b

)

!j Y-1 Benthic control stations s g , -['g " -; !4 at Rye Ledge ( 4 mi. north) MILES

TABLE 6.1-2 (Sheet I of 6) PREOPERATIONAL ECOLOCICAL STUDY P90 CRAM, SEABROOK STATION SAMPLE SIZE OR SAMPLE TYPE GEAR TYPE f STATIONS FREQUENCY DURATION REPLICAT10N DEPTH ' DATA COLLECTED A. PfifIsh ~ 1. C111 mete 100'm8' net 3 btweektr - two 24 he periode none

surface, number, length and off-botton weight of each y,_

with 4 mesh ,/ species y elsee ~ 2. Ottse treet 30', s'aciop 3.-~ ' monthly '. 10 minute trwe 4 botton nueSer, length and weight of each trawl g opecies . M Cp e f y / 3. Seizing 100'z9' net 3 (e)" btweekly 2 " number, tength and b# with 2 mesh (Apr-Now) weight of each td e M eines species y

4. 'tedicator species

c. Cuaner -

Age & growth Diver eetae 1 1 per year 250 indiv. eff-bottoe length, weight, een C and age of each specimen b. Alewife Spawatag rue acee 1 (e) 3 a per 6 weeke counts of todividuate week (Apr-May) passing fleh ledder per hour d' u 5. 11htbyepleektse',< c. gegular 505 p, in met 3 b1 weekly to minute tows 4 obitque number of eli spectees tengths of larvae e f p s ,4 b .1" y f -f J J

i i l TABLE 6.l-2 (Sheet 2 of 6) b. Etel-505p, is met I twice per 10 minute towe 2

surface, Aprit-number and mid-depth length of winter indicator species, year cummer & wtater (Apr-Jul) 4 times in 24 and bottom flounder larvae, July-houro number of cuaner egge flounder and tarvae in 2 mesh e1:se 4

monthly two 24 hr periode none mid-depth, number, length and QW c. Rainbow ement 50's8' net with off-bottom weight of each aw species p up N 3. Plankton 1. Phytoplanktom gg,gg, '3

biweekly, 0.8 Liter 2

surface species counto b monthly Dec-Feb 3 2. Prodwetivity/ ascarbonyptake/m/hr biomaea Niekin 3 biweekly. 0.25 L 2 surface monthly Dec-Feb 0.9 L mg ch! A/m 3. Water quality Niekte 3 b1 weekly, 0.5 L none variable og TFog, ortho Fog, M0,300, pel /I; 2 3 4 mo6thly Dec-Feb og 0 /1; midanhos of 2 conductivity; tempera-ture *C 4. M11rosooptenktom 76p 0.16e

biveekly, 100 L 4

surface, species counto b

off-botton set (peped) 1 monthly Dec-Feb 5. pancrosooplaahtom 505 p, In 3 b! weekly 10 minute tow 3 oblique species counte, tengthe b of key species mete meristic & seasonal data on Neomysis s

"*s .g e TAgLE 6.1-2 (Sheet 3 of 6) c. Diel ,505p, le 1 1 per year 10 minute tow 2

surface, counto and etsging of b

nete (Oct) mid-depth Neomyste americans and bottoe 6. Meroplankton 76 g 0.5e net I weekly 2 minute tow 2 oblique bivalve larvae (towed) (Apr-Oct) species count 7. Neuston lee, in2e net I btweekly 30 minute tow none surface countys and staging of b Hoearus americana (May-Oct) larvae en 19 t*8 8. physical data in site 1 continuous continuous subourface, temperature, all depthe f a. Temporet-recorders (20 min mid-depth current speed and O interval) and bottoe direction, subourface [* b. Spettet salinemeter 4 biweekly all depthe ' temperature ('C) sonthly-winter (2e intervale) conductivity (steroshoe) C. Berthon 1. M;artne intertidal 2 e. Nondestructives renden 3 5 m per yr 0.25e 10 sean sea level number or I cover of dominent fawns & flora quadrate 2 b. Destructives scraped 3 3 x per yr 0.0625e 5 meen low water number of all fauna spectee in August; number sample of dominant fauna in May, December; dry weight biomass of flora is all collectione c. Indicator species scraped 2 bisonthly 100-250 individuate mean low water staging and meristico esople (gg) of Amphithee rubricata live / dead ratio of Mytilus edulio staging of Chondrue crispus

i .). t** "e$ TABtf 6.1-2 (5heet 4 of 6) 2. Martoe subtidal 2 2 -20' to -60' I cover and frequency c. pondestructive random 4 3 a per yr le below MLW of occurence of quadrate dostnant understory algae b. Transects random 5 3 x per yr 1:10u 6 -20' to -60' f,1 cover of dominant 2 below MLW kelpa; n e ber of transects Modtelus mediolus 0.062 5=2 5 -10' to -80' number of att fauna c.' Destructives-diver operated 12 3 a per yr below MLW opectee in August; number macrofaune & atritit of dominant fauna in macroflora May, Derceber; dry n$ II8 seight bloeses of flora h ". in all collections r. M d. Destrwettves-diver operated '6 monthly 50cm 3 -10' to -60' number of all taxonoste g 2 below NLW groupe present; neber metofauna airlift of all harpactacold copepod spectee o. Sett11ag 4

monthly, 103.2cm 2

-10' below MLW oumber or I cover of 2 commuettles deatnant fauna and

1) Surf ac e 5

plaatstaes & wood pomel 3 m per yr. flore; etsging of Myttles yearly edults; etsging and eerletic data on Jesse falcata 2 4 -45' to-80' counts or Z cover of

2) Bottoe bluestone 5

3 a per yr and 0.0624e below MLW the doetaant fauna 6 panel 1,2,3 years flora dry weight blamese of flera on yearly penete 'd

b k w TABLE 6.1-2 (Sheet 5 of 6) f. Indicator species

1) Bard substrate diver operated 5

bimonthly 100-250 -10' to 60' staging of Chondrue arganious eitlift (except individuals below MLW crispus live / dead ratio winter) of Mytilus edulle; merletic date on selected amphipode

2) Algae growth in situ

& reproduction tagged plante 2 monthly 30 10' below MLW linear or areal (except Individuale changes in plant eine winter) and reproductive status

3) Arctica telendica random diver 1

biveekly 20-40 -50' below MLW reproductive status to C reprod uc tion collection (Oct-Dec) individuale h)b5 l >*

4) Monarum ssericanus conventional 2

3 x per wk Jun-Nov 5 -50' below MLW number, stae and een [3,, trape of all individuels; en data also collected bJ for concer crabe 3. getuarine 2 e. Destructives diver opere-4 eubtidet 3 m per yr 0.0625e 5 subtidal number of att spectee ted str11ft (e) intertidal present 4 intertidal (e) b. Carcinue seenes conventional 4(e) b1 weekly Ma r-Dec 2 subtidal number, eine Sud een traps of all individuale e. Sedimente core 6 subtidal 3 a per yr 5-grain eine subtidal grain size analysis (e) 1-L01 intertidal organic carbon 6 intertidal estimate from LO! (e) (lose on ignition)

m 6 \\ e TAtt.E 6.1-2 I (Sheet 6 of 6) I d. Teeperature & Ni eki n, 2(e) 3 m per wk Jan-Dec none subourface temperature ('C) conductivity (micreehoe) settatty thermometer 1. Adults clas fork 5 flate yearly 0.186m 14 to 72 intertidal number and size of D. g aresaria all Individuate (flat depen-(e) dent) i 2 3 intertidal number and else of all individuate y 3-5/ mite, 3 a per yr' 8tce 2. Spat core 3 ottee (e) 8 h "sp, 3. Larvae o. Segular 769, 0.5e 1 btweekly M (Apr-Oct) 2 minute tov 2 obitque number of individuale net b. Intensive 76 g 0.5m 12 2 a per yr 2 minute tow 2 oblique number of Individuato when denettles are (Aug-Sept) highest net (e) = estuartne ettes; all.othere marine G. s b. 1mcludes tedicator species Adequate data collected; progree suspended untti operational phase s. f

r + LNCLOSURE 4 8 c.. u I. Interaaency Coordination A. The NPDES permit for operation of Seabrook Station has not yet been issued by the USEPA. Due to a desire by both NRC and EPA to perform our operational environmental reviews in concert, the EPA has agreed to accelerate the NPDES process to coincide with the DES. A draft NPDES permit will be prepared by EPA and ready for inclusion into the DES by March 1,1982. This review-in-concert is a critical element of this DES, thus some parts of our input will have to await receipt of the draft permit. The March 1,1982 deadline for DES input to the LPM, therefore, might not be met for some sections of the aquatic ecology / water quality reviews. B. The USEPA also desires to be a party in the preparation of the DES. By mutual agreement, this will be accomplished by EPA reviewing the NRC staff input prior to publication of the DES. This will require staff input to be fomarded to EPA (Boston, MA), reviewed critically by EPA staff and returned. We then will review the EPA comments and revise the input as appropriate, prior to submitting our final DES input to the LPM. Achievement of this coordination and inclusion of the information on the NPDES permit in the DES will result in a unified interagency position on Seabrook - with respect to impact projection and operational monitoring (required by the permit). One of the chief concerns of the NH Fish and Game Department will be an adequate program to monitor the operational impacts resulting from fish impingement and ichthyoplankton entrainment. Proper coordination concerning the NPDES will ensure that these concerns are adequately reflected in the DES. C. During the interagency meeting at the site visit, we made an initial contact with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service '(FWS), as a precursor to formal communication required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. To initiate the formal participation of the FWS in our EIS process.for Seabrook, we prepared a letter for your signature (with concurrence by the LPM) to the FWS Supervisor of Ecolcgical Services, Concord, NH. This will enable FWS to provide to NRC their concerns relative to Seabrook, prior to DES publication. II. New Issues for Treatment in the DES A. One of the concerns during the CP stage environmental review was the impact to aq'uatic biota resulting from thermal backflushing, an operation designed to control biofouling of the intake tunnel and offshore structures..The thennal backflushing operation is

r-described in Section 3.4.5 (pages 3-9 and 3-10) of the FES-CP. Control of fouling within the condenser system was to be by low-level chlorination injection at the pumps. The OL stage ER reaffirmed the intent to use this method of biofouling control, in Section 3.4.2.5 (ER page 3.4-2). In response to NRC IE Bulletin 81-03 (on safety related problems resulting from biofouling), the applicant stated (in his letter of July 8,1981) that thermal treat-ment of the main circulating water and low level chlorination for service water systems would be used. During the site visit, we learned that the applicant has revised his plans for biofouling control and now proposes to use continuous chlorination, with injection at the offshore intake. To this end, a chlorine-injection pipeline is being constructed within the concrete lining of the 17,000 foot intake tunnel. With this system, chlorine injection would be used to control fouling of the entira once-through cooling system. The applicant proposes to use this method because it does not require a reduction in station load, as does the thermal backflushing method. The applicant has discussed this new proposal to chlorinate continuously with the NH Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. At this time, the Commission has not been requested to approve the ~ proposal, but has stated that the applicant could construct the necessary equipment (i.e.' pipeline, etc.) with the understanding - that it may or may not be approved for operational use. The thermal backflushing option, therefore, still is a viable option. Discussions with State of New Hampshire agencies during the site visit revealed that they are concerned with ths potential impacts of continuous chlorination to Gulf of Maine aquatic biota. The USEPA also is concerned, since with this method, Seabrook might discharge more chlorine into the environment than any other power plant now operating. We will provide you with some questions for formal submittal to the applicant prior to addressing this issue in the DES. Lastly, you should note that the eventual control method for biofouling might be different from that provided by the applicant in his response to the IE Bulletin. The appropriate IE person should be informed. B. The staff (M. Kaltman and G. Gears) toured sections of the proposed Se.abrook/Scobie Pond and Seabrook/Tewksbury transmission lines. Issues involving historic preservation and human health and safety were raised during the staff's field investigations of the proposed transmission system as well as during the public scoping meeting. g

. ; 1 r., 1 : :- y _. o 1 .U C L I: AR W.'ULAlm.i u

SSION

.. u.m.c. m, e c. 2^ n 'UG ?C M 2 Da:..et 30. 50-443 and 50-444 i E'.:RANDUf1 FOR: Thomas fiovak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FRC: R. Layr.e Houston, Assista : :irector for Radiation Protectior. Divisicn of Systems Integratior SL'E J ECT : RE5F C::SE TO FUELIC C0"If,TS 0, NE SEA 5EOPL DES Entiest.re 1 is the Accioent Evaluation Grancn respense to the Public cc-ents on tne DES essigned to AEB via three memoranda from F. fiiraglia dated July 12, 19S2, July 13, 1982, and August 2, 1982 (Enclosure 2). Tne CGrments HHS-3 and f,'H-1 were transmitted to the Hydrologic and Geo-technical Engineering Branch. Their response will be forwaraed as soon as it is received. This respenst was pre ared by I'ohan Thadani X28941. -n

/g/

. J.- /., .< - u (n. L;.L L'~ R.1.'ayne Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protectior. Division of Systems Integration

Enclosures:

As stated CC:RIla ttson FMiraglia D'.s' hee l er P.Codell l l (ft,4 0 ) ^~mrt T' O f W ~ r s a Nb

A-37 Corrected page 5-44 is attached. (Attachment #1) A-38 Corrected page 5-62 is attached. (Attachment #2) HHS-3 (To be done by HGEB) DLH-5 The Nuclear Pegulatory Commission constantly evaluates all reportable incidents at nuclear power plant facilities, and has established the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data to assess the incident reports provided by the licensees. As a result of these evalutions, the licensees are, from time to time, required to take steps to reduce the occurrences of both minor and major events. An extensive list of requ'irements was generated in the Ti1I action plan. These requirements are presently being implemented. There are other examples, too numerous to list here, of the steps that the Commission has taken to prevent the occurrence of both common and low probability accidents. These Commis-sion actions inevitably have increased the awareness, and improved the ability of the nuclear plant workers ~ to deal with both minor-and major accidents if and when they occur. We, therefore, disagree with the commentor's statement that "there-is no concrete evidence that nuclear plant workers have im-- proved their ability to deal with these accidents when they occur, and there is no concrete evidence to indicate that

definitive steps have been taken to prevent the occurrence of the most common accidents." The DES statement in Section 5.9.4.3 that "no accidents have caused any significant individual or collective public radiation exposure, nor any significant contamination of the environment" is based on the observation and records available to us. In the staff's view, the accident experience base is not large enough to permit a reliable quantitative statistical inference. It is, however, sufficient to make a broader and more general statement that the experience " suggests that significant environmental im-pacts caused by accidents are very unlikely to occur over time periods of a few decades." NH-1 (To be done by HGEB). NH-2 The population exposures presented in the DES are not based on two hour duration. They are based on the duration of the accident and the population densities projected for the year 2020 (See FES related to the construction permit for Seabrook ~ Station Units 1 and 2, pages 7-1 and 7-2). The commentor is under the incorrect impression that the staff. evaluation of the design basis accidents presenteo on page 5-46 of the DES assumes evacuation. This is no,t the case. The staff has, however, considered evacuation in the case of accidents more severe than the design basis accidents. The staff discus-sion of the evacuation assumptions is presented in Appendix F l of the DES (NUREG-0895). l ~

4 The evacuation time estimate is based upon the staff's review of the applicant's estimates of " clear times" presented in the applicant's Environmental Report (Table 7.7-6 in Chapter 7). Their estimate of evacuation time appears to the staff to be reasonable and has, therefore, been used in the analyses presented in the DES. Although the staff has not separately addressed the impacts of serious accidents specifically on the salt-marsh ecosystem, the overall economic inpacts of accidents presented in the DES is comensurate with the consideration given to the public health and safety. The staff analyses of the economic impacts L is based upon the economic model discussed in Appendix VI of the Reactor Safety Study (NUREG-75/014) in Section 12.1.1, and includes "the cost of managing a possible evacuation, the cost of temporary accommodation for evacuees, the decrease in the value of interdicted property, and the cost of decontaminating the property." In addition, the staff has evaluated, in the DES, radiological impact,s on public health and safety result-ing from all significant exposure pathways to the public. The risks to the salt marsh ecosystem will, therefore, be small when compared to the larger risks on the public health and safety, and overall economic risks, and would not be expected to alter the conclusions reached in.the DES. l The staff has, in the DES Section 5.9.4.3(3), stated that!" no . operating license will be issued to a nuclear facility appli-a w t 0

1 cant unless a finding is made by the NRC fnat the state of on-site and off-site emergency preparedness provides reason-able assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency....." The staff will ensure that this policy is implemented prior to issuance of an operating license for the Seabrook facility and adequate emergency response capability is provided at the Seabrook site. 6 e J -;j li a x ti .4

Attachment I respectively. The population center distance is at least one and one-third times the LPZ outer radius, regardless of whether the nearest population cen-ter were designated to be Portsmouth, Amesbury, or Newburyport. The transient population associated with seasonal activity at Hampton and Seabrook beaches about 3.2 km (2 mi) east of the site is sufficiently large* that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB), in the course of the construction permit hearings, directed that the beach areas to the east of the site be con-sidered the nearest densely populated center. The Board ruled that Route 1A to the east of the site serves as the real boundary of the populated area. Because the nearest approach of Route 1A is 2.68 km (1.67 mi) from the Seabrook site, the population center distance is at least one and one-third times the LPZ, as required by 10 CFR 100. The largest city within 80 km (50 mi) is Boston, Massachusetts, with a 1980 population of about 562,000 persons. It is about 65 km (40 mi) south-southwest of Seabrook. The projected popula-tion density within 48 km (30 mi) of the site in 1983 is a maximum of about 2 (530 persons per mi2) at about 3.2 km (2 mi) from the 1373 persons per km plant. The projected population density within 48 km (30 mi) in the year 2025 i s ag -t ad to reach a maximum at about 3.2 km and is projected to be about 29 p person per km (]50personspermi2), The safety evaluation of the Seabrook site has also included a review of potential external hazards (activities offsite that might adversely affect the operation of the plant and cause an accident). This review encompassed nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities that might create explosive, missile, toxic gas, or similar hazards. The risk to the Seabrook facility from such hazards has been found to be negligibly small. A more detailed discussion of the compliance with the Commission's siting criteria and the consideration of external hazards are in the SER. (3) Emergency Preparedness The Emergency Preparedness Plan for the station has been submitted to the NRC and is undergoing review. The state and local plans for the areas around the site have not been submitted to FEMA for review. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.47, effective November 3, 1980, ~ no operating license will be issued to a nuclear facility applicant unless a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency pre-paredness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken ir the event of a radiological emergency. Among the stan-dards that must be F.et by these plans are provisions for two Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs). A plume exposure pathway EPZ of about 16 km (10 mi) in radius and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of about 80 km (50 mi) in radius are required. Other standards include appropriate ranges of protective actions for each of these zones, provisions for dissemination to the public of basis emergency planning information, provisions for rapid notification of the pub-lic during a serious reactor emergency, and methods, systems, and equipment

• Staff's analysis of accident consequences presented here accounts for the transient population a,s a weighted average addition to the normal population.

i Seabrook DES 5-44 l i

crossing the site to the northeast of both reactor units. This location of the divide would mean that the flow of any contaminated groundwater from the reactors would be in the direction of the marsh to the south. Groundwater could enter the marsh soils underground at the interface of the soil and bedrock, or it could seep from places where bedrock is exposed. According to maps (FSAR Figures 2.I'.12 and 2JF.14) showing bedrock and surface topography of the site, bedrock is only a few feet below the marsh surface to the south of the site, and may be exposed along the site boundary near the seawalls and riprapped banks. The swamp to the south adjacent to the site is flat and several feet above normal high tide. Frequency plots of tides along the coast (FSAR Figure 2.4-15), which are typical of Hampton Harbor, indicate that flooding of the marshland adjacent to the site would be common. Tides exceeding 6 or 7 feet above mean sea level (MSL) datum, which would bring water within a few feet of the site boundary, have recurrence intervals of less than 2 years. The staff has chosen a represent-ative groundwater pathway of 360 feet in length, which is the distance between the center of the Unit 2 containment building and the 6-foot MSL contour. Contaminated groundwater is presumed to migrate to the marsh through fractured bedrock and to enter surface water in the marsh at times when it is submerged. The groundwater level on site is conservatively chosen to be at plant grade, 20 feet MSL. The permeability of the fractured bedrock is taken as the average measured value of 4 gpd/ft. 2 The effective porosity of the bedrock is taken as 0.01, which is typical of water-bearing fractured crystalline rock (NUREG/ CR-0912). The travel time for groundwater to migrate to the marsh has been predicted to be about 170 days. Movement of much of the radioactivity would be slowed, however, by sorption. Retardation coefficients of the two potentially most significant radionuclides, Cs-137 and Sr-90, are very difficult to estimate. A small number of in situ measurements in fractured granite indicate a retaraa tion factor of between 4 and 6 for Sr-90 (ibid). Retardation factors for Cs-137 have not been measured in these experiments, but they are usually much greater than those for Sr-90. For the present example, retardation factors of 5 and 50 have been chosen for Sr-90 and Cs-137, respectively. For these conditions, 94% of the Sr-90 and 58% of the Cs-137 would eventually enter the marsh. This compares to 87% of the Sr-90 and 31% of the Cs-137 escaping the groundwater pathway in the LPGS example. Radioactive groundwater seeping in to the marsh would encounter marsh deposits of silt and and clay and would be adsorbed; the movement of most radionuclides would be slowed to a certain extent. Retardation factors for Sr and Cs for most soils in salt or brackish water are considerably smaller than the corresponding values in fresh water. Because the marsh is frequently inundated with salt water, it may hold relatively little of the radioactivity. The staff has conservatively assumed that any Cs-137 or Sr-90 escaping to the marsh would be subsequently carried to Hampton Harbor and to the Gulf of Maine by tidal flushing. Although Hampton Harbor--and its marsh complex--is technically an estuary, it is relatively small in volume and area, and has a large tidal prism (volume difference between high and low tide). An estimated 88% of the volume of Hampton Harbor and the marsh is exchanged with the Gulf of Maine each 12.4-hour tidal cycle; this exchange would quickly and thoroughly flush dissolved pollutants. The estuary site chosen in the LPGS study had a much slower rate of flushing (on the order of months), and also had much higher usage (such as fisheries and shorelines) than the Seabrook site. Therefore, the LPGS-Seabrook comparison will consider the Seabrook site as an oceanside land-based plant. Seabrook DES 5-62

e o e + 1 e a d 6

e .p* "%,\\ / UNITED STATES N -[g fi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . j j W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555 \\, v C \\ i. Y,f \\) J'UL 12 932 1 b Docket Nos.: 50-443 and 50-444 + MEMORANDUM FOR: R. L. Ballard, Chief. Environmental Engineering Branch, DE S. Field, Acting Chief, Antitrust & Economic Evaluation Branch, DE

1. G. Hulman, Chief, Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI F. Congel, Acting Chief, Radiological Assessment Branch, DSI W. H. Regan, Jr., Chief, Siting Analysis Branch, DE FROM:

F. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL SitBJECT: SEABROOK DES COMMENTS The enclosed comments on the Seabrook DES have been received from the following sources: Public Service Company of New Hampshire (applicant) Department of Health and Human Services United States Department of Agriculture Marginal notes have been added to identify each comment by author and number, and to identify the review branch responsible for evaluateng the comment. Please review the enclosures and provide your evaluation to the Seabrook Project Manager (Duke Wheeler, Mail Stop 128) not later than August 18, 1982. Marked up DES pages and/or marked up copies of the enclosed comments are acceptable. Your responses will be reflected in the FES which will be provided for your review prior to publication on October 10, 1982. f Frank J. Wirkli hief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated ~ cc: A. Thomas v = h N M) i Q. \\ Q' I {y l

e o EflCLOSURE LICANT' OMMENTS ON USNFC OrarA DYIBONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO THE CPERATION OF SEAEF00K STATION, UNITS 3 AND 2 NUREG-Oe95 The Applicant generally considers the Draft Environ = ental Statement (DES) to be a realistic assessment of the anticipated effects of operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2. Based upon our review of the DES, we of fer the following comments: Suemary and Conclusions, Item 2, Paragraph 2 Correct sentence to read, "The gross electrical outptit for each unit will M be 1198 MWe." Table of Contents, Appendices, Appendix I, Page xii Correct to read, ~40 CFR 423, Appendix A" = Section 1.2 Ad=inistrative History, Page 1-1, Paragraph 3 As of April 1,1982, Unit 2 was approximately 12% complete. Section 4.1, Resume, Pa ge 4-1, Paragraph 2 The statement that continuous low level chlorination has replaced thermal g-N backflushing of the cooling system may be misleading. It would be more g appropriate to say that thermal backflushing may be used to supplement continuous low level chlorination. If it is determined that chlorination is not completely effective in the control of fouling of the intake tunnel, backflushing will be utilized to provide additional fouling control. Also, even if chlorination is completely ef fective,. backflushing would be conducted infrequently for the purpose of operator training and system maintenance. It is unlikely, however, that thermal backflushing and chlorination will be utilized concurrently. A.g Section 4.1, Fesume, Page 4-1, Paragraph 3 The historic site mentioned is misspelled; it is the Covernor Meshech SAG /D' Weare House. Also, to avoid *any misunderstanding concerning the activity completed at' the "three potential sites," it would be more informative to state that they have been investigated by trained archeologists and some artifacts were recovered. Applicant is concerned that the term " excavated" might lead one to believe that this was done rot by i l archeologists but by bulldozer and power shovel. g.f Section 4.2, Figure 4.1, Site Layout, Page 4-2 ne item number 36, meteorological tower is misspelled. This error also ( appears in Page 5-7, Figure 5.1. l l A-] Section 4.2.2, Water Use, Page 4-3, las t Paragraph of Section EE6 1 l Information source is from response to RAI 291.21. + .e-. m o e. S. w.wo-c .i 4-e e g asemp.- e-4 pie p pps pg it

l o - - A -g Ta bl e 4.1, Plan t Wa t e r Us e, Page 4-4 DL Correct footnote Condition B to read, "one unit full load, one unit s t a rt up. " /g.G Table 4.2, Intake Systee Data, Pag e 4-5 db The delta-T should be 39 F and should be further qualified as a daily 0 average, not an instantaneous maximum. The delta-T provided in the response to ER-OLS RAI 291.9 should be 390F. This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the ER-OLS. Correc t: footnote spelling of multiply. f Figure 4.2 Plant Water Use Diacram, Page 4-6 Eliminate hori: ental line between termination of Flow. Paths 13A and 15. Flow Path 15, system flushing during construction, is routed to the settling basin for discharge, not the Gulf of Maine. A -/) Section 4.2.5, Non-Radioactive Waste Treatment System, Page 4-9 M l With regard to the statement, "all station wastewaters, except treated sanitary wastes and non-radioactive floor drainage and storm water runof f, will be routed to the station discharge tunnels for discharge offshore" - for purpose of clarification, it should be pointed out that there are three vaults that collect non-radioactive floor drainage. Vaults #1 and #2 are ultimately routed to the discharge tunnel. However, Vault #3, af ter oil separation, goes into the settling basin and henceforth is discharged into the Brown's River, an NPDES compliance point. Floor drains from the diesel generator building and the fire pur:phouse go into Vault #3. T Page 4-10 4 able 4.3, Chemicals Added to Discharge, M Table 4.3 is the same as Table 3.6 in the 1974 Seabrook Station FES-CP. As a result of the planned use of continuous low level chlorination ac the method to control biofouling, values presented in Table 4.3 for ~ chlorine addition should be updated as follows. The yearly discharge of 6 chlorine (Cl ) is increased to about 5.5 x 10 pounds. The two 2 categories of free residual and chlorine reaction products with 0.25 ppm and 1.75 ppm effluent concentrations, respectively, are replaced by the single category of total residual oxidant with a ' maximum estimated effluent concentration of 0.2 ppm. gjg Figure 4.6, Proposed Transmission Lines, Page 4-14 i EE6 Termination of Seabrook - Tewksbury line shown on figure shou 2d inaicate "to Tewksbury" since the figure portrays only the portion of the line in New Hampshire. Section 4.2.5, Non-Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, Page 4-11, Paragraph 1 gj Ek Figure 4.5 does not show water temperatures.

7 g~7s/82 hU Y0 jhection4.2.5,Non-RadioactiveWasteTreateent Systecs, Pag e 4-11, Pa ra era ph 3 The control of slime buildup in station condensers and heat exchangers is anticipated to be a recurring need throughout the year, and =ay require continuous year-round chlorine application to these systems. g,/f I Figure 4.5, Block Diagra= of Chlorination of Cooling Water System, Pa ge 4-12 Flow to the service water pumphouse originates from the intake transition structure and not the pumphouse. Figure 291.19-1 from Applicant's response to RAI 291.19 will likewise be codified in the next revision to the Seabrook Station ER-OLS. Figure 4.7. Physiographic Felationship of Seabrook Site to the Hampton Harbor /9 -/7jtstuary, Page 4-18 The highway designation shown as State Highway 86 is incorrect. This is Stat e Highway 286. g g Se ct ion 4. 3. 2.1.1, Surf ace Water, Page 4-19, Paragra ph 5 Applicant reconcends the following changes to the paragraph beginning with " Water temperatures show...": Insert the word "also" between the word " data" and "show" in the sixth line; replace the coc=a af ter the word " day" in the seventh line with a period; delete the re=ainder of the paragraph and insert "The largest variations occur in the summer months, with smaller changes during the winter months." Applicant feels this change better describes the coastal temperature regime. It does not, like the original statement, highlight the Hampton Harbor estuary, which only contributes a p'ortion to the coastal tidal variability. Section 4.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Page 4-21 S pa rtina, the genus name of the local salt carsh grass, is misspelled. g.;20 Section 4.3.3.2, Acuatic Resources, Page 4-23, Paragraph 3 Same comment previously given for Section 4.1, Resume, Paragraph 2, Page 4-1. g.y Table 4.5, Esticated Annual Recreational Harvest of Sof t Shell Clams..., Page 4-25 Footnote 2, information source from RAI Table 291.2-2. O Section 4.3.5.2, Aquatic, Page 4-29 Piscataqua River has been misspelled.

i g i ection 4.3.6, Historic and Archeological Sites, Page 4-29 S 360 Meshech has been misspelled. g.gySec' tion 4.3.7.1, Permanent Population, Page 4-30, Paragraph 1 SAG The staff indicates that they use the "...most recent projecticns (population) by the State of New Hampshire...." This should be given a specific reference so that others can secure the same information if desired. A.g f section 4.3.7.2, Transient Population, Page 4-30, Paragraph I /7O The staff updated and revised Applicant's information on transient population in part by the "... adoption of different assumption." However, they do not state what different assumptions vere made. Applicant suggests a listing of all assumptions made by the NRC in assessing the transient population be included. gg Table 4.12, largest Indus trial Employers..., Page 4-35 8 Change USM, Bailey, Div. to E= hart, Baily Div. Same as Page 5-43, Paragraph 2. gg Se ction 4.4, References, Page 4-37 Mk To facilitate location of a specific reference, they should be organized alphabe tically. Also, the Normandeau Associates, Inc. Summary Document should be placed with the other NAI reports. Correct the reference shown as Savage and Goldbert (1976) as follows: Savage, N. B. and R. Goldberg. " Investigation of the practical means of distinguishing Mya arenaria and Hiatella sp. larvae in plankton samples." ection 5.1, Resume, Page 5-1, Paragraph 3 EEG In the interest of avoiding unnecessary and duplicative regulatory Q"# requirements, Applicant infers that the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) conditions (3) and (4) of this paragraph requires reporting only to the cognizant regula tory authority (e.g., USEPA for NPDES-related matters). Section 5.3.1, Water Ouality, Page 5-3, Paragraph 1 I It should be clarified that the 88-minute ' transit time from' the intakes to the intake transition structure is based on one unit operating. With two units operatir.g, the transit time to the intake transition structure is reduced to approximately 44 minutes. i I o l ..e oe.....e. - =, s ee e-e e,em s.

• .s%-

m.o+==%,m-e-4.* . - **womem-e e,

== = -. - -. - 4--=== a

6

ecti n 5.3.1, Water Quality, Page 5-3. Paragraph 2 A-3o It should be clarified that the 42-cinutes travel ti=e from the discharge transition structure to the station diffuser is based on both units operating. With only one unit operating, the transit time from the discharge transition structure to the station dif fuser is about twice the value given.

A-3l Section 5.3.1, Water Quality, Page 5-4, Paragraph 4 O The correct reference to the DES section that discusses the cooling system is 4.2.3. Also, correct spelling of reference to Normandeau Associates, 1977. . A-31Section 5.3.1, Wa ter Quality, Page 5-5 Two references, Mattice and Zittel 1976 and Gibson et. al.1981, appear missing fro = the Reference section (5.14, Page 5-75). Gibson et. al. may be listed as NUREG CR-1297, however, no reference to Mattice and Zittel is apparent. A.jj' Se ction 5.5.1.2, Risht-o f-Way Maintenance, Page 5-11 [$G Applicant is concerned about NPC's understanding with regard to our use of herbicides in watershed areas. Certainly, Applicant avoids direct spraying in wetlands and spraying of watershed areas that drain into reservoirs used for public water supplies. However, in a strict sense, all highground is so=e sort of watershed, the water draining from it goes ultimately into some water course or pond, lake, etc., yet we do use herbicides on dry ground rights-of-way. Applicant assu=es that NRC shares their prag=atic interpretation of this point. A ]u ection 5.9.2, Operational Overview, Page 5-20, Paragraph 3 6 Applicant wishes to clarify that revised dose calculations will be perfor=ed, but that they will be based on the annual land census centioned earlier in the subject paragraph. Applicant recon: mends the deletion of the phrase, "As use of the land surrounding the site boundary changes," and replace it with, " Eased on this annual land census." Section 5.9.3.1.2, Direct Radiation for PWRs, Page 5-26, Paragraph 2 It appears that something has been deleted at the end of the phrase, "make a dose contribution at the site boundary of less than 1"(?). Table 5.6, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, Page 5-33 kM With respect to surface water samples, Appliant intends to collect the initial preoperational samples as grab samples for the purpose of establishing background levels, and will implement the use of a composite sampler prior to commencement of station operation. .,. es s ee n++.- = e o g one e o e ,e. - - = e e-. mer.n e.e.o m.. g. eme.een% %... eeen +.

Table 5.6 indicates the composite ground water samples will be collected from two sample locations likely to be affected by plant operation. Since the principal direction of ground water is towards the earsh and estuary, and away from any ground wa ter users, the possibility of plant releases af fecting ground water used for drinking or irrigation is unlikely. Therefore, as indicated in Section 6.1.5.6 of the ER-OLS sub=ittal, Applicant intends to take grab samples of ground water f rom two locations in the i==ediate area of the plant site. g.37 Section 5.9.4.4, Mitigation of Accident Consecuences, Page 5-44, Paragraph 1 AE.6 v NRC should review the projected population densities provided since 2 2 densities per km versus mi appear inconsistent. J.3[Section5.9.4.5, Accident Risk and Impact Assessment, Page 5-62, Paragraph 1 Jo C6 r 'arrect references to FSAR Figures to Figures 2.5-12 and 2.5-14. g.* g.y Section 5.13. E=ereency Plannine I=cacts, Page 5-75 L63 The first sentence contains an incorrect reference, i.e., NUREG-0658 should be NUREG-0654. 4/0 Section 6.1, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 6-1 EfddG3 Applicant interprets the scope of condition (1) to apply only to on-site activities, and that the requirement for notification vill be based on Applicant's deter:nination of an activities significance. A-l// Table 6.1, Eenefit-Cos t Su==ary, Page 6-2 M Sta 6 An additional indirect benefit that should be included in the B/C Summary r is the franchise tax that PSNH cust pay to the state. The esti=ated state franchise tax for the first full year of operation is $5 million (see ER-OLS Section 8.1.4). Quantitative indications of land and water resource commitments and their impacts are not provided in the table. Section 6.4.3, Economic Costs, Page 6-4, Paragraph 1 6N It should be noted that the operating and maintenance (0&M) co..: of 8.3 mills per kWh (1987 dollars) does not include capital additions. If capital additions are included the C&M cost is about 11.05 mills per kWh. g g Aopendix C, Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Pa g e C-1, Paragra'ph 1 Add the word " reactor" af ter t'le phrase " light-water-cooled". ,*+a.- ,go

e ~ II I-l HS & ~~ &.,.5 \\ i u,.~7-s' DEPART. MENT OF HEALTH & HU. MAN SERVICES Public Health Service % L Food and Drug Acministration Fiockville MD 20857 Ju 21 1962, Mr. Louis L. Wheeler Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cor: mission Washington DC 20555

Dear Mr. Wheeler:

t e Bureau of Radiological Health staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, NURS3-0895, dated May 1982. In reviewing the DES, we note that (1) the application for a construction permit was received in March 1973, (2) the Final Environmental Statement - Construction Phase was issued in December 1974, (3) the construction permit was not issued until July 1976, and (4) as of March 1982, the construction of Unit 1 was about 61 per cent ecmplete. The Bureau of Radiological Health staff evaluated the health and safety impacts associated with the proposed operation of the plant and have the following coments to offer: 1. n e dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, the Uranium Fuel r ,I Cycle standards of EPA's 40 CFR 190, and the applicant's proposed radio-MS active waste management system provide adequate assurance that radioactive f o ch j materials in the effluents will be maintained as icw as reasonably w ac:hievable (ALARA). It appears that the calculated doses to individuals and to populations are within current radiation protection standards. 2. We envircr= ental pathways in Section 5.9.3 and shown in Figure 5.2 cover all pessible emission pathways that could impact on the population g-2 in the envirens of the facility. The dose computational methodology and p #p l medels (Appendix B and D) used in the estimation of radiation doses to individuals and to populations within 80 icn. of the plant have provided p the means to make. reasonable estimates of the doses resulting frem normal cperations and accident situations at the facility. Results of the cal-culations are shown in Appendix D, Tables D.6, D.7, D.8, and D.9. We results confirm that the calculated doses meet the design objectives. 3. Discussiens in Section 5.9.4 on the environmencal imcact of postu-lated accidents is considered to be an adequate assessment of the radi-ation exposure pathways depicted in Figures 5.2.and 5.3 and the dose and fd S'3 I health impacts of atmos;heric releases. Hewever, in Secti.on 5.9.4.2 (2)7 Q two additional pathways are mentioned that could be significant for accident releases. These are (1) fallout onto open bodies of water of radioactivity initially carried in the air, and (2) the " China Syndrome" that creates the potential for' release of radioactive materials into the hydresphere through centact with ground water. If possible, it would be helpful to expand the discussion in Sections 5.9.4.2(2) snd 5.9.t.2(J03 en releases to grcund water to quantify the environmenta and he .h ' impacts from the latter pathway in sufficient detail to pe. mit an under-standing of the consequences of such an event. j 9M1!rGGG443=' 9206 21 FDR e4CCCK 0"CC0443 3 PDR =*a- = <

• eq
• eeur,4-ww e epmwe_. eger une e__

p e,%a y g ,,p, e-m- + -w-

e Mr. Louis L. hheeler - Page 2 We will forego eccments on Section 5.9.4.3(3) relating to emergency preparedness since we realize the process of granting an operating license will include an ad:quate revi-of the emergency preparedness plan for the station by NRC and Qe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In this context, it is essential that the factors impacting on the capability to evacuate the beaches be fully understood and are factored into the station, state and local governments emergency response plans. The NRC's independent evacuation time estimation study should provide timely input to the respective plans. We have represen-tation on the RAC's whose evaluation relative to the emergency prepared-ness for the Seabrook Station will speak for this department. 4. We radiological monitoring program, as presented in Section 5.9.3.4 g / ps L( and sumarized in Table 5.6, appears to provide adequate sampling fre- , 3 n quency in expected critical exposure pathwayq. The analyses for specific -3. s D ' radimuclides are considered sufficiently inclusive to (1) measure the extent of emissions from the plant and (2) verify that such emissions meet applicable radiation protection standards. In view of scrae of the monitoring problems identified during the t ree Mile Island, Unit 2, accident, we suggest reevaluation of the airborne radioiodine and particulates sampling and analysis program to ( determine if the instrumentation is adequate to measure releases under

• --i> accident conditions. In particular, address the problem of monitoring radiohalogens (especially radiciodines) in the presence of radionoble

~f gases. 2is could be accomplished by reference to FEMA-REP-2, a document on instrumentation systems prepared with considerable input from NRC. 5. Section 5.10 and Appendix C contain descriptions of the environ- [H Mf. ] mental impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (UK). W e environmental effects presented are a reasonable assessment of the population dose y,s % !ccomitments and health effects associated with release of raden-222 from the UK. Rank you for the opportunity to review and ceccent on this Draft Environmental Statement. Si.cerely yours, N,: d' \\.' hu (' '/Jho n C. Villforth "di- 'G iS Director Bureau of Radiological Health I' n C.,+ :.M y u 3 t r -l) ~ I l 1 - me

==w w e-h---Wem etee me e. g .e is a + &==+ eemas a

• eme a

e a

r e e h 3A J-United States Economics Washington. D.C. Department of and Statistics 20250 ? Agnculture Service June 1, 1982 Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Miraglia:

Thank you for forwarding the Draft Environmental Statement (NUREG-0895) in which the Public Service Company requests the issuance of operating licenses to operate the Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2, located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. g.} We have reviewed Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 and have no I comments. ,A Sincerely, vi / m lw: [wtfr ,A , \\; (w r1 W. DAVIS Associate Director !;atural Resource / Economics Division (OO B /o l l ...- -820601 N, DOC'K 05000443 POR A pop D ... ~ -...

1. ps ac u

o UNITED STATES E j 3.- ( [,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ?\\ E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

d) '; f E s

g w......f JUL 131982 Docket Nos: 50 443 and 50-444

R%.

o-J MEMORANDUM FOR: R. L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Engineering Branch, DE )W M ny, Chief, Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI F. Congel, Acting Chief, Radiological Assessment Branch, DSI W. H. Regan, Jr., Chief, Siting Analysis Branch, DE FROM: F. J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK DES COMMENTS

Reference:

Memorandum, Subject as Above, Dated July 12, 1982 \\9 Additional comments on the Seabrook DES have been received from the following sources: Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) Deoartment of the Interior Environmental Protection Agency Dr. D. L. Herzberg (for intervenor SAPL) Society for the Protection of the Environment of Southeastern New Hampshire Marginal notes have been added to identify each comment by author and number, and to identify the review branch responsible for evaluating the comment. Please review the enclosures and provide your evaluation to the Seabrook Project Manager (Duke Wheeler, Mail Stop 128) not later than August 18, 1982. Marked up DES pages and/or marked up copies of the enclosed comments are acceptable. Your responses will be reflected in the FES which will be provided for your review prior to publication on October 10, 1982. frank J. Mirag ia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 i l Division of Licensing l l

Enclosure:

As stated cc: A. Thomas g,. o n % f & YA

st Sod } Un ted States Department of Conservation Box G Agneutture Sennce Durham, New Hampshire 03824 July 1, 1982 Mr. Louis L. Wheeler, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Wheeler:

We reviewed the Draf t Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Seabrook Station (May 1982) in regards to items within the expertise hb of the Soil Conservation Service. All items within our area of expertise are adequately addressed. We did find the conservative 100-year flood estimate of 10 ft. mean sea level to be consistent with our flood hazard analysis for Hampton. It ~ b' has a 100-yr. frequency storm elevation of 8 to 9 ft. M.S.L. W Sincerely, Richard L. Porter State Conservationist ec: Peter C. Myers, Chief, SCS, Washington, DC l Coo D EhWFP99 Gem-8207'01 i PDR ADOCK 05000443 D PDR

n. se con rv tion serv.c.

...n. ney or in. D.o.nreent of Agneustur. t

4 31 E^ l.Jnite d States Department of the Interior i d 5 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 ER 871 JUL 1 1982 i Frank J. Miraglio, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing ~ i U.S. Nuclect Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miroglio:

si We have reviewed the draft environmental impoet statement related to the operation of the Seabrook Station, Units I and 2, Rockingham County, New Hampshire and find it , adste adequately cnolyzes the impacts of the proposal from our jurisdiction and expertise.1The Y opportunity to review this document is appreciated. Sincerely, s ..,. 9 j,str n.<4 s ' Bruce Blonchard, Director Environm. ental Project Review 4 s J t. 3ee9990245 820701 PDR ADOCK 05000443 D PDR}}