ML19253A130
| ML19253A130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1979 |
| From: | Scaletti D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907240446 | |
| Download: ML19253A130 (35) | |
Text
s.
PUBLIC DOCUMENI' RCOM
+
R7:0 130Y$
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C
g)9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
Y
/
epIh 1
BEFORE THE ATMONIC SAFETY AND L' :NSING_B0ARD 2
s 3
3 In the~ Matter of 4
BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY, et_ al.
)
Docket No. 50-471
)
5 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
6 7
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL. TESTIMONY RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE SITES 8
9 Q.
Please state your name, where you are employed and describe your 10 responsibility in preparation of the Final Supplement to the Final 11 Environmental Statement related to construction of Pilgrim Nuclear Power 12 Station Unit No. 2, Boston Edison Company, May 1979, Docket No. 50-471 13 (NUREG-0549)(FS-FES).
14 A.
My name is Dino Scaletti and I am the Envircnmental Project Manager 15 for Pilgrim Unit 2 application.
I am responsible for the overall prepara-16 tion of the FS-FES.
17 Q.
Please sumarize the Applicant's and Staff's methodological approach 18 used in this alternative site review.
19 A.
The applicant's approach to siting methodology is identified in 20 Section 2 of the FS-FES. The review started with BECo service area and 21 expanded along resource areas (water bodies) until a decision was made 22 that a sufficient number of sites could be identified within the area of search.
The areas in eastern Massachusetts were broadly characterized
-23 24 based on the considerations listed in the FS-FES page 2-1.
2091 062 7907240 t
d
~
~
N m
1 The staff independently reviewed the applicant's methodology in the 2
areas of aquatic biology and water quality; terrestrial ecology and land 3
use; demography; nearby industrial, transportation, and military facili-4 ties; hydrology; socioeconomics; economics, geology, seismology, and 5
geotechnical engineering; and meteorology.
The staff supplemented its 6
review, where appropriate, with data gathered independently.
7 The information used by the staff in its evaluation was developed from 8
the list presented on FS-FES page 1.1.
Additional sources of information g
used by the staff are presented in the FS-FES reference section.
Part 10 of the staff's review process (as indicated in page 1-1) was the use jj of. site visitations to confirm and/or collect new information about the 12 sites under consideration.
In conjunction with the Pilgrim review the 13 staff made site visits to the candidate sites listed in the 1974 siting 34 study; to Montague and some of its alternatives on the Connecticut River; 15 to those candidate sites listed in the proprietary study that were dif-16 -
ferent than the ones listed in the 1974 siting study; and to Seabrook and Millstone.
In conjunction with the Pilgrim review, the staff made 37 18 visits to 15 proposed alternative sites plus Pilgrim, Montague, Seabrook and Millstone.
g 20 Q.
Please elaborate on the proprietary study you referred to above.
21 A.
The 1978 siting study was a draft prepared for Boston Edison 22 Company by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. The study has 23 been afforded a proprietary status in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790.
24 Because the proprietary study was a draft, the staff review of this document was of a confirmatory nature, i.e.,
to assure that the 2091 063
~
. ~
1 information contained in this report did not change the conclusions 2
that were ba' sed on the review of the United Engineers and Constructors 3
Report' as supplemented by additional information acquired by the staff.
4 The geographic scope of the 1978 siting study differed from the 1974 5
study in that it included all of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the 6
southern part of New Hampshire.
However, all sites that were identified 7
outside of Massachusetts were eliminated from further consideration 8
after their initial identification.
The staff's review of the 1978 9
siting study revealed no significant divergence with the exception of 10 region of interest, between the two studies. The 1978 study considered j j_
the Connecticut River and in fact proposed one of its candidate sites 12 from a region north of the Montague site. The study also had candidate sites from the Merrimack River, and the sea coast. These sites were not 13 significantly different from some of the candidate sites considered in j4 the 1974 siting study.
Of the sites considered by the staff in the 15 FS-FES, four were very similar in location and type to the candidate 16 sites proposed in the Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. study. The 17 staff's review of these sites included site visits, use of available USGS topographical maps, aerial photographs,
,and available literature.
Q.
Please sumarize the staff's analysis and conclusions based on reviewing the region of interest (ROI) selected by the applicant.
22 A.
The supporting reasons and documents for limiting the region of 23 interest are referenced in Section 3 of FS-FES.
As stated in Section 24 3.1 of the FS-FES, the staff believes the constraints placed on siting 2091 064
4-1 outside Massachusetts were sufficiently documented by the applicant 2
and concurred.in by the staff.
In the staff's opinion the rationale 3
for elimination of western Massachusetts was not as clearly defined, nor 4
would this rationale be limited by political borders.
5 Although the staff believes the ROI limiting considerations listed in 6
Section 3.1 of the FS-FES are valid and were properly considered by the 7
applicant, each one by itself, with the exception of the category of 8
legal, regulatory and political constraints, would not result in an absolute bound on the ROI.
9 10 Q.
Please summarize the staff's analysis of the applicant's selection of-candidate sites for each resource area j;
12 A.
The staff believes that the 1974 siting study provided environ-13 mental diversity in that it considered ~ coastal regions, rivers, major 14 lakes anc' reservoirs and large embayments. However, in light of con-15 sidering that some of the factors considered to limit the applicant's 16 ROI do not result in a clearly defined boundary, the staff decided that the Connecticut River should be considered in its own evaluation in order 17 jg that all major resource areas within Massachusetts were given considera-tion. The staff believes the Montague site to be a representation site 19 in the Connecticut River area of Massachusetts for the reason discussed 20 in the FS-FES responses to comments.
21 22 Q.
Please state your name, discipline, and responsibility for prepara-23 tion of the FS-FES.
24 A.
My name is Terry L. Johnson.
I work in the Hydrology-Meteorology 2091 065
. ~
1 Branch, Hydrologic Engineering Section, and I was responsible for 2
preparation 'of the hydrology portion of the FS-FES.
3 Q.
'For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 4
siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 5
with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
6 A.
The methods used to analyze the information relating to hydrology 7
consisted of a review of the information and analyses supplied in the 8
1974 study. This analysis is found in FS-FES Section 3.3.5.
9 As discussed in the FS-FES, the staff believed that the Connecticut 10 River should have been included as a resource area.
11-Q.'
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into your 12 review.
13 A.
A site in the Connecticut River was. evaluated by the staff.
14 Q.
Please state your name discipline and responsibility for the 15 preparation of the FS-FES.
16 A.
My name is Germain LaRoche.
I work in the Environmental Specialists 17 Branch, Terrestrial Resource Section.
I was re ponsible for the 18 preparation of the terrestrial impact and land use sections of the 19 FS-FES.
20 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 siting 21 study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies with the 22 approach and contents of the 1974 study.
23 A
The review of terrestrial ecology and land use is found in Section 24 3.3.2 of the FS-FES.
I also examined aerial photos covering a broader 2091 066
, s 1
area than the designated sites. Massachusetts Map Downs for all counties 2
where the cahdidate sites are located were reviewed.
Information was 3
obtained from the U. S. Soil Conservation Service and reviewed to deter-4 mine if areas of the candidate sites were prime farm land.
5 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into account 6
in your review.
7 A.
The manner by which these problems were resolved is found in 8
Section 3.3.2 of the FS-FES.
9 Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 10 preparation of the FS-FES.
11 A.~
My name is John C. Lehr, Environmental Specialist Branch, Aquatic 12 Resources Section, and I was responsible for preparing those sections 13 of the [S-FES that addressed the water' quality of the waters at the can-14 didate sites and the effects on the water quality due to plant construc-15 tion and operation.
16 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 17 siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 18 with tne approach and contents of the 1974 study.
19 A.
The review of water quality considerations in the applicant's 1974 20 siting study is presented in the Supplement, Section 3.3.1.
Problems 21 associated with the study's handling of water quality are discussed in 22 FS-FES Sections 3.3.1 and 4.
23 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into account 24 in your review.
2091 067
1, A.
The manner hy which these problems were resolved is found in 2
Section 3.3.1 :of the FS-FES. As discussed in FS-FES Sections 3.3.1 and 3
4, additional reconnaissance level information was scught out with regard 4
to w;ter quality. This information was supplemented hy examination of 5
USGS maps for the candidate site areas and by site visits.
See FS-FES 6
section 1.
7 Q.
Please state your name, discipline, and responsibility for the 8
preparation of the FS-FES.
9 A.
Falk Kantor and I work in the Accident Analysis Branch.
My area 10 of responsibility includes the material on demography and nearhy indus-11 trial, transportation, and military facilities for each site.
12 A.
My name is Leonard Soffer.
I work in the Accident Analysis Branch 13 as a Section Leader and I supervised the review conducted by Mr. Kantor.
14 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 15 siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 16 with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
17
/s.
Regarding population, the study was reviewed by examining the 18 discussion of how population was used in the search for suitable sites, 19 the sources for the population data in the study, and the criteria used 20 to screen potential site areas.
21 As discussed on page 3-5 of the FS-FES, the population data were not 22 presented in accordance with the preferred format such as that used in 23
.SARs.
Population trends and future growth patterns in the study area 24 were. discussed but not quantified.
In addition, seasonal transient 2091 068
8 8-s N
s 1
populations were not addressed ir, the study.
2 The deficien'cies in the discussion of nearby industrial, transportation, 3
and military facilities are examined in Section 3.3 on page 3-5 of the 4
Supplement.
5 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into account 6
in your review.
7 A.
As dis e ssed in Section 3.3.3, page 3-5 of the FS-FES, additional 8
information was requested from the applicant regarding population. This 9
information was provided in the 1978 submittal.
Our assessment of this 10 information is discussed in our response to the coments on the DES from 11 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To summarize, we concluded that the 12 population data in the Pilgrim licensing documents (PSAR and ES) and in 13 the 1978 update were reasonable representations of the population distri-14 butions for the proposed Rocky Point site and the candidate alternative sites.
15 16 Additional information was requested from the applicant regarding nearby 37 industrial, transportation, and military facilities. As indicated in 18 Section 3.3.7 of the FS-FES, some additional information was provided in the 1978 submittal. Additional reconnaissance-level information 19 was gathered independently by the staff during site visits and by contacts 20 with various local, State and federal agencies as well as representatives 21 of manufacturing and transportation companies.
23 Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the prepara-24 tion of the FS-FES.
2091 069
9-1 A.
My name is Michael Masnik.
I work in the Environmenta' Specialist 2
Branch, Aquatic Resource Section, and I was responsible for aquatic 3
ecology sections of the FS-FES.
4 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 5
siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies with 6
the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
7 A.
The review of the aquatic biology is found in Section 3.3.1 of the FS-FES.
8 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into 9
account in your review.
10 A.
The manner by which these problems were resolved is found in 11 Section 3.3.1 of the FS-FES.
12 Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 13 preparation of the FS-FES.
~
14 A.
My name is Louis Bykowski.
I work in the Cost-Benefit Analysis 15 Branch, and I prepared the socioeconomic section of the FS-FES.
16 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 17 siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 18 with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
19 A.
The 1974 siting study was reviewed to ascertain what socioeconomic 20 infonnation was used in the siting study and whether the information was 21 current.
In the course of review of that study, we met with the appli-22 cant to review his information files, visited the sites, talked to state 23
-officials, and identified what information needed updating.
24 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into account s
2091 070
~
l in your review.
i 2
A.
In response to staff developed questions on the subject of sot o-3 economics, the applicant provided current and more specific information 4
related to anticipated displacements, anticipated historic, archaeologi-5 cal, scenic, natural feature and recreational instrusions, the origin 6
of the construction labor force and anticipated traffic congestion points.
7 Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 8
preparation of the FS-FES.
9 A.
My name is Joseph R. Levine.
I am a meteorologist in Site 10 Technology, tieteorology Section, and I provided information in Section 11 3.3.9 and Appendix C of the FS-FES.
12 Q
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 13 siting s_tudy was reviewed and identify'any problems or deficiencies with 14 the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
15 A.
The document was reviewed for any detailed meteorological informa-16 tion regarding the alternate sites and I found general information 17 regarding climate and air pollution impacts.
18 The approach used for describing alternate site meteorology in the 1974 19 study would be appropriate since detailed onsite information requires 20 establishing a meteorological monitoring system whose operation should 21 extend over a complete annual cycle. Thus, general climatological and 22 air pollution information provides a basis for assessing the meteorologi-23 cal impacts at any site prior to detailed onsite monitoring.
24 Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 2091 071
. ~
1 preparation of the FS-FES.
2 A.
My name is Richard B. McMullen.
I work in Site Technology, 3
Geology and Seismology Section and I reviewed the geological and geo-4 technical engineering aspects of the Pilgrim 2 alternate sites.
5 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 6
siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 7
with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
8 A.
For the geological and geotechnical engineering aspects of the 9
alternative sites, a review of the description of the methodology and 10 the sections describing the geology, seismology and foundation engineering li ch'aracteristics of the alternate sites was conducted.
Independently, 12 references in the geologic literature, and PSAR's and SER's regarding 13 Pilgrim 2, Montague 1 and 2, Millstone, New England 1 and 2, and Sea-14 brook 1 and 2 were reviewed.
15 Problems with the 1974 study, with regard to geological and geotechnical 16 engineering aspects, include (a) there were no geologists, 17 or soils engineers on the applicant's site selection team; (b) there 18 was insufficient information on the subsurface conditions beneath all 19 of the sites except Pilgrim 2; (c) the 1974 study had not been updated 20 to reflect the considerable geologic information that has come available 21 since that time; and (d) sites in western Massachusetts were not con-sidered.
22 23 Q.
Please describe how the identified problems were taken into account 24 in your review.
2091 072
L 12 -
1 The problem identified for the geological and geotechnical aspects 2
of the review were taken into account as follows:
(a) a geolog.ical 3
reconnaissance to each of the candidate sites was conducted; (b) during 4
the site reconnaissance, the soil and roci: outcrops around each site 5
were examined to try to predict subsurface conditions. Published well 6
logs in the general vicinity of the sites were reviewed, aerial photo-7 graphs were studied and pertinent publications were reviewed; (c) recent 8
geologicaldatawerealsorehiewed;(d)foursitesontheConnecticut RiherinnorthernMassachusetts,includingtheMontaguesite,were 9
isitedandinformationonthesesiteswasrehiewed.
10 11-Q.'
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 12 preparation of the FS-FFS.
13 A.
My name is Phyllis Sobel and I work in DSS, Site Technology, 14 Geology and Seismology Section.
I aided in the preparation of the 15 rehiewofthegeologicalandseismologicalaspectsofthePilgrim2 16 alternate sites.
17 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the Applicant's 1974 18 sitingstudywasrehiewedandidentifyanyproblemsordeficiencies 19 with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
20 A.
TherehiewinthisareaisfoundinSection3.3.8oftheFS-FES.
21 Fromthehiewpointofseismology,therewasnoprobleminthe1974 22 study.
23
-Q.
Please state your name, discipline and responsibility for the 24
~ preparation of the FS-FES.
2091 073
, s
'~ - _ _
1 Q.
My name is Suzanne Keblusek and I work in DSS, Environmental 2
Technology,' Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch.
I prepared the review of 3
economic of site comparison in the FS-FES.
4 Q.
For your discipline, please explain how the applicant's 1974 5
siting study was reviewed and identify any problems or deficiencies 6
with the approach and contents of the 1974 study.
7 7.
My review is set forth in Section 3.3.7 of tha FS-FES.
I did 8
not identify any problems within my discipline.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2091 074
4 1
Q.
Please explain the term " environmental diversity" and how this 2
was applied 'to this review.
3 A.
Environmental diversity is defined by the Staff as the range of 4
types of major water bodies (upper and lower reaches of large rivers, 5
lakes, bays, and the oceans) and the associated terrestrial resources 6
available within the region of interest.
7 In this regard the applicant's 1974 study identified the major river 8
basins of eastern Massachusetts, and their ability to support power g
plant development. These rivers included the Merrimack, Assabet, 10 Concord, Nashua, North Nasua, Squannacook, Ipswich, Charles, Neponset, Blackstone and Taunton.
33 12 The applicant considered the ability of the river to (1) provide a 13 reliable year-round source of water with a volume sufficient to meet 14 the needs of a plant as well as downstream users and (2) meet state 15 and Federal criteria regarding allowable temperature rises.
16 For open-cycle cooling the applicant estimated a flow requirement of 17 about 29,200 gpm for a 4000 Mw plant while limiting the temperature 18 rise to 4 degrees F. in the receiving water.
In searching for rivers jg which would have lowest monthly flows of 1/5 *.o 1/100 of the average 20 annual flow (average monthly low flows in this region for many rivers),
it was initially found that the Merrimack Rive, is the only river in 21 Eastern Massachusetts with adequate flow to even consider open-cycle 22
~"
"9' 23 24 For closed cycle cooling, the applicant considered only those rivers 2091 075
%m 1
whose lowest monthly average stream flow is at least as large as the 2
required mak'eup water fi.swrate of 124 cfs for a 4000 Mw LWR. The general 3
rule followed was that the average annual flow of the river be at least 4
ten times greater than the makeup water needed. The streams meeting 5
this requirement included the Blackstone, Charles, Concord, Merrimack, 6
Nashua, and Taunton Rivers.
7 Lakes / Reservoir - In considering lakes for open cycle cooling, it was 8
estimated that a lake of about 3 acres per Mw would be required to meet 9
the 4 degree requirement. To utilize lakes for closed cycle cooling, 8
3 10 a water supply of about 9 x 10 ft /yr would be required from the lake jj and its drainage area. The applicant considered a site (Quabbin Reser-12 voir) in this category, but it was rejected on other grounds.
13 Ocean / Bay - The applicant identified the entire shoreline of Massachusetts 14 as potential siting areas for power plants.
For sites on coastal waters, 15 it was considered that water availability would be no problem.
In addi-16 tion, it was felt that minimum thermal effects would be produced, subject 17 to proper engineering of intake and discharge structures which would 18 limit thermal effects on bottom-dwelling biota.
19 Estuaries - Estuaries were also considered, subject to meeting thermal 20 requirements. The applicant considered sites in the Merrimack estuary 21 and they were also later rejected.
22 Grpundwater and Municipal Supplies - It was judged that the makeup water 23 requirement for cooling towers would be approximately 50-100 cfs, which 24 would eliminate groundwater and municipal sunnlies as ootential sources.
2091 076
, s 1
The staff believed that within the region of interest defined by the 2
applicant's 'all of the major resource areas were included.
3 As stated in the FS-FES, to assure itself that all major resource 4
areas in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were given consideration, a 5
site on the Connecticut River was also examined.
6 With regard to the associated terrestrial resources, the geographical 7
area of New England occupies land classified under 3 physiographic 8
regions; the Gulf Atlantic, the Eastern Highland and the Interior Divi-9 sions.-1/Only a small section of northwestern Vermont occurs in the 10 Interior Division while all of coastal New England is in the Gulf Atlantic 11 Division. An irregular line going through Connecticut, Massachusetts, 12 New Hampshire and Maine separate the Gulf Atlantic from the Eastern High-13 land Division.
14 All the sites that we examined as part of the alternative site analysis 15 and compared to the Rocky Point site occur in the Gulf Atlantic Physio-16 graphic Division.
17 18 19 20 21 22
'23 24 1/ National Atlas p. 61 Physical Division map by Edwin H. Hammond.
2091 077
. ~ ~ _. _.
i Q.
Is it necessary to have diversity among the candidate sites in 2
categories sUch as water quality, aquatic biology and terrestrial ecology?
3 A.
No, and in fact diversity in some respects may be an undesirable 4
feature.
However, when you have environmental diversity as described 5
above, you will likely achieve diversity among the sites in the areas 6
you described. This is illustrated in section 4 of the FS-FES. The 7
candidate sites have diversity in aquatic biology, terrestrial ecology, 8
water quality, population density, socioeconomic factors, and geology 9
and meteorology.
10 With respect to terrestrial ecology, the candidate sites represent the 11 available variety in New England, except for mountainous sites.
In 12 general, there are serious problems with mountainous sites, e.g., steep 13 grades.
~
14 Coastal zone sites having a variety of terrestrial resources are repre-15 sented by the Rocky Point, Seabrook and the site 18 complex. Sites 19, 16 20 on Buzzards Bay are representative of bay sites. Terrestrially dis-17 turbed sites are represented by Millstone, Seabrook and Pilgrim. Typi-18 cal New England rolling plains sites with hardwood forest and some farm-19 land are represented by sites 1, 2, 2A (Merrimack River).
A true valley 20 site is represented by the Connecticut River site as opposed to the rolling 21 plains of the Merrimack River sites.
22 With respect to aquatic ecology, a range of environmentally diverse re-23 sources is represented by the sites review in the Supplement. The 24 ocean / bay resource is represented by the site 18 complex, Seabrook and 2091 078
N m
1 Pilgrim.
A riverine resource is represented by Sites 1, 2, 2A, and 2
Montague.
S'eabror.., sites 19 and 20, and Millstone represent an estuarine 3
envirsnment.
4 Some sites identified also appear in two different categories because 5
construction and operational impacts raay effect different biota. All 6
major aquatic environments are represented except for the lake-reservoir 7
categories, groundwater and municipal suppliers. The applicant looked 8
at potential sites in these categories, but they. ce dismissed on other 9
grounds.
10 The water resources of the candidate sites taken as a whole are diverse 11 with respect to their water quality. On the basis of the reconnaissance 12 level information, the nine coastal sites are similar with respect to 13 water quality in that their waters all are currently meeting their 14 assigned classification criteria and stressed water quality parameters 15 at these sites have not been identified.
Because of their geographical 16 separation (i.e., New Hampshire coast open Atlantic Ocean, Cape. Cod Bay, 17 Buzzard's Bay and Long Island Sound-Niantic Bay) the specific water quality 18 at these candidate rites would not be expected to be uniformly under 19 the influence of the same pollutant or other water quality affecting 20 activity or source.
For the four inland sites considered, two separate 21 river basins are present.
Both have the same water use criteria and 22 classification designation. The present water quality problems at these 23 sites are different.
As with the coastal sites, a comon pollutant or 24 other water cuality affectino activity or source is not present for all of these sites.
2091 079
s 19 -
1 The identified sites cover a range of population densities, from those 2
that fall below the population density guidelines of Regulatory Guide 3
4.7 to~those that exceed these values.
4 There was also diversity in terms of historical resources, archaeological 5
resources and recreational and scenic areas.
6 From a meteorological point of view, a complete range of possible alter-7 native sites were considered.
Coastal to inland river valley sites and
.8 areas with rolling hills provide the choices possible in this region of 9
the country.
10 The kinds of geological diversity offered include: competent soil sites 11 such as Pilgrim 2 and site 18; possible bedrock sites such as Dunstable 12 (2A); and competent but relatively easily excavated rock such as that 13 at Montague.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2091 080
20
~
~~
1 Q.
What is the effect of not conducting a detailed examination of 2
sites from Deerfield River.and Bear Swamp?
3 A.
None 4
Q.
Please elaborate.
5 A.
From a hydrologic engineering standpoint, the Deerfield River, 6
with a recorded minimum daily plan of 28 cfs, is not considered to be 7
capable of providing year-round flow requirements for makeup cooling water, without provisions for some type of flow augmentation. Since 8
the Deerfield River draws into the Connecticut River.in the vicinity g
of Montague, we conclude that no hydrologic basis exists for inclusion 10 of'another site in this area as a representative of this resourc.e region.
j) 12 It is possible that sites in these areas could have population 13 densitias significantly lower than the Rocky Point site (i.e., lower 14 by a factor of two or more). The Staff has visited sites in this area and examined information such as aerial photographs and topographical 15 16 maps. This examination has not changed our conclusion that the proposed candidate sites and Montague are:among the best.that could be reasonably 17 found.
18 19 2L 21 22 23 24 2091 081
.