ML20079N208
| ML20079N208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1990 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110113 | |
| Download: ML20079N208 (13) | |
Text
}
u.
d k y el ih operahtin
' i e
UTILITY AJew 1la n ns kr e 4nmk< c ,
SITE P b c bo\l ENCLOSURES I A n s w or
towns of Seabrook, Hampton and Hampton Falls. There are no state property taxes.
The town of Seabrook covers 99% of the value above. They have appealed a court decision which found the Owners are due $35,000,000 in abatements from prior years. . The estimate does not reflect the abatement in 1990. The assessment-reflects a book value of the plant net of nontaxable pollution control assets and net of Owners costs which they have had to write off.
r 11
s MQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS
- 1. Q. Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or_ discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate-impacts that were not anticipated in the design of tne plant.
Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issucnce of the Ooerating License.
A. The operations of the Seabrook Station once-through cooling water systen._ began with the issuance of the Station's National Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit in 1985. Since that time Seabrook Station has achieved 75% power, and this only recently. No modifica-tions md/or changes in operation of the intake or discharge systems have o marred which could potentially alter the aquatic resources or mitigate impact. To date, no impacts have been observed on the aquatic resources as the Station has operated only intermittently.
- 2. Q. Summarizeanddescribe(orprovidedocumentationof)anyknownimpacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement License. How haveactions that these have been occurred resolved since issuance or changed over time?of_the Op(erating The-response to this question should indicate whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that were subsequently resolved).
A. There have been no known impacts on the aquatic resources due to the limited operation of Seabrook-Station, nor have any NPDES enforcement actions occurred since issuance of the operating license. Mini 7al and sporadic exceedences of certain NPDES permit limits have occurred (e.g., elevated turbidity and pH due to excessive rainfall and storm water runoff), however, these did not endanger human-health or the environment. Changes to the NPDES permit to minimize future exceeder,-
ces are expected to be incorporated into the permit renewal an-ticipated at the end of this year,
,_ - 3. Q. Chances to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could l indicate whether water cuality parameters were determined to have no L significant impacts (anc were dropped from monitoring requirements) or
- were subsequently raised as a water quality issue. Provide a brief
[ summary of changes (and when they occurreo) to the NPDES permit for L the plant since issuance of_the Operating License.
A. Since issuanc of the NPDES permit and the operating license-for Seabrook Station, no changes to the NPDES permit have been made other than those for administrative purposes. Proposed changes to the NPDES l
{
l-6 L - .- .. .
h permit within the upcoming renewal are geared toward reflecting actual operating characteristics and are considered minor in nature. Changes in the biological monitoring programs have likewise been minor in noture. Major modifications are not expected until sufficient operational data is available for preoperat.onal comparison.
- 4. Q. An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitor-ing can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or-remained relatively stable during operation. Describe and summarize (orprovidedocumentationof)resultsofmonitoringofwaterquality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Environmental Technical. Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencit.s). What trends are apparent over time?
A. Seabrook Station has to date, not achieved full power operation. As such, all biological and environmental water quality samples have been placed within the pre-operational category. Seabrook Station has been sampling the aquatic environment for more than a decade. Through this period there have been numerous modifications to the biological sampling 3rogram. Ihese have been based upon knowledge obtained on the varia > ility of the ambient populations prior to any potential impact from Seabrook Station will provide the comparison required to determine operational effects,
- 5. Q. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the Operating License. Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How has entrainment and impingement changed over time?
A. The operation of the Seabrook Station cooling water system began with the issuance of the NPDES permit in 1985. Since that time, the volume of water passed through the Station has been dependent on the number of cooling water pumps in cperation. Normal operation will call for three Circulating Water _ pumps and two Service Water pumps to operate, resulting in a total of approximately.720 million gallons per day passing through Station systems as noncontact cooling water.
Estimates on tha number of entrained organisms was made during the original 316(a)and316(b)demonstrationstotheEnvironmental Protection Agency and will be verified during future operation.
The offshore intake and discharge structures were located to minimize inpact to aquatic organism. The three offshore intake structures are elevated from the bottom, located at approximately mid-depth, and fitted with velocity caps. As a-result, from the limited information
.obtained to date with intermittent circulating water pump operation, few fish have been impinged upon the travelling _ screens at Seabrook Station. Significant increases during full greer are not expected.
See attached impingement data for the years 1985 and 1986.
(Enclosure 3) 7
c..
- 6. Q Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., aradromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological com-munities in the vicinity of the plant. Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resources near the site.. Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the Operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
A. There have been no changes to the aquatic habitat within the vicinity of Seabrook Station since issuance of the Operating License.
Pollution within the Hampton Seabrook estuary associated with municipal wastewater treatment pla t discharges has resulted in the closing of the estuary to soft shell clam harvesting, an important recreational and commercial species. There have been no impacts associated with the location and limited operation of Seabrook Station.
- 7. Q. -Plant operations may have had Jositive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by otlers. Harvest by commercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.
Alternatively commerciel harvesting may be relatively large compared with fish losses cauied by the plant. Describe (orprovidedocumenta-tion for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisherier.) and how these impacts have changad since
-issuance of the Operating Licente.
A. The operation of Seabrook Station has not and is not expected to have, an impact on the use of the aquatic resources within the region.
Harvests by commercial and recreationul fishermen are not expected to be constrained or eleveted as a rewlt of future operation. Other uses of the aquatic resources (e.g. swimming boating) are likewise l
not expected to be impacted by the operation of Seabrook Station. -
L 8. Q. Describeothersourcesofimpactsonaquaticresources(e.g.,
L industrialdischarges,otherpowerplants,agriculturalrunoff)that L could contribute- to c'mulative impacts. -What are the relative-
! contributions by pe w . of these sources, including the contributions i due to the power plar.t, to overall water quality degradation and L lrsses of aquatic biota?
i A. As providad within the res;.anse to question 6 above, discharges from municipa> waste water treatment plants have resulted in the discharge-of pollution to the environment. The effect has been the closing of importart shellfish beds within the region due to elevated fecal
-coliform bacteria within the resource. Seabrook Station operates its own wastewater treatment facility onsite, in full compliance with the NPDES permit. Seabrook Station is not-a known contr;buting agent to this pollution source. Additionally, the Town of Seabrook will in the 8
3 near future be building a wastewater treatment facility for its ;
residents which will eliminate numerous private septic systems which are expected pollution sources. No large industry of other power plants are located within the vicinity of Seabrook Station.
- 9. Q. Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Waste Act. What Section 316(a) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?
A. Licensing for Seabrook Station began in February 1972, with an application before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a Certificate of Site and Facility. An application for Construc-tion and Operating License was tended by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in March 1973. The New Hampshire PUC issued a Site and Facility Certificate in January 1974 and_the AEC issued a draft Environmental Statement in April 1974.
An appl 4ation for a waiver to section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution control Act for a once-through cooling water system was filed by PSNH in August 1974. The NRC staff issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement in December 1974 which :eflected views and comments by the public, the Council of Environmental Quality, as well as Federal, State and local agencies, including the EPA.
Public hearings were held by EPA on PSNH;s requested exem)tions from thermal effluent limitations and on design criteria for t1e intake of the proposed once-through cooling water system under Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Seabrook proceedings were the first under Section 316(b) for intakes. Numerous Determinations were made by the EPA from 1975 to 1977 based upon information obtained at public hearings and documents supplied by PSNU.
In June of 1977, the EPA Administrator issued a decision reversing an earlier decision-by the Regional Administrator in November of 1976.
In his decision, the Administrator affirmed the RA's initial finding l that the plant's intake and discharge tunnels represented the best technology available in design and location of the cooling water sp tem. In addition, that the adult Mya (clam) population would not be significantly reduced by larvae deaths caused by heat. This decision is attached for reference. (Enclosure 4).
Also attached is a summary document prepared by environmental consultant, Normandeau Associates. (Enclosure 2) The document summarizes all pertinent work that was accomplished up to December 1977 with respect to assessment of possible impacts on the marine ecosystem of the construction and operation of Seabrook Station.
9