ML19270H808

Requests Addl Info Re Total Length & Average Width of New Transmission Line right-of-way for Carroll County.Info Required to Complete Environ Statement Fact Sheet Needed for Cost/Benefit Analysis

ML19270H808
Person / Time
Site:	05000599, 05000600
Issue date:	12/28/1979
From:	Opelka J ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Haupt C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8001030663
Download: ML19270H808 (2)

Text

s T.tSDqures d Euy A'RCONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 9X)0 SouTk CAss Awar. ARcpw. llhois 60439 Tdtplot 312/972 7797 December 28, 1979 Dr. Clifford A. Haupt Room P-538, Phillips Building Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Cliff:

We need to know the total length and average width of the new transmission line right-of-way for Carroll County in order to complete the environmental statement fact sheet needed for the cost-benefit analysis. The data provided in CCS-SS-ER are inconsistent. We woulo, therefore, like to add the following question to the second round of questions for the applicant.

"In Sec. 3.9, the new transmission line requirements are given as 32.5 miles from Quad Cities to Carroll County, 39.5 miles from Carroll County to Byron and 119.5 miles from Carroll County to various locations in Iowa, a total of 191.5 miles. Fig. 3.9-2, which uses a solid line for existing R0W and a broken line for .

the proposed transmission ROW, indicates that this will all be new R0W (some adjacent to the existing R0W). In Appendix 9.2C the new transmission line requirements are given as 35 miles from Quad Cities to Carroll County, 44 miles from Carroll County to Byron and 34 miles from Byron to Charter Grove, with no data for the lines to Iowa. Using the data from Sec. 3.9 for the lines into Iowa, the total is 232.5 miles. On p. 9.2-45, the new transmission line mileage is given as 113 miles. Please explain these discrepancies."

"On pp. 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 the line from Quad Cities to Carroll County is described as consisting of four sections. In Fig.

3.9-2 only three are shown (AB, BC and CD). Please explain."

"How many miles of new access roads will be needed for servicing the new transmission lines? (This information is needed for the Early Site Review.)"

In preparing our assessment of the applicant's site selection methodology, we are making use of proposed amendments to 10 CFR 51 given in enclosure 1 of the memo of August 10, 1979 from R. B. Minogue to the Commissioners. We would, therefore, like to pose the following questions to the applicant.

1678 049 Y1 0 8001080 bh-

'4

[

i

~

Dr. Clifford A. Haupt December 28, 1979 "Is the applicant aware of the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 51 concerning the evaluation of alternative sites for nuclear gen-erating stations under NEPA as described in enclosure 1 to a memo dated August 10, 1979 from Robert B. Minogue to the Commissioners?"

"Does the applicant believe that the Site Selection Analysis described and applied in Sec. 9.2 is consistent with these proposed amendments? If not, please describe those points which are inconsistent."

The reply to verbal question 2 (CCS-SS-ER, Supplement 1, p. V02-1) indicates that the applicant was aware of developments leading to the proposed new rules, in particular, the workshop at McLean, Virginia in March 1979. In the event that we may not agree with their choice of Carroll County as the preferred site, it would be helpful to know whether they are aware of the guidelines we are using to assess their Site Selection Analysis and the ramifications of possible inconsistencies between their analysis (which was, presumably, intended to be consistent with ESRP 9.2) and the new rules.

I would like to obtain a copy of the proceedings of the workshop at McLean if they are available (other than the material in the enclosures to the Minogue memo which you gave us in November).

Very truly yours, L/ -

iTames H. Opelka Qivision of Environmental Impact Studies JH0/amw cc: A. J. Dvorak R. A. Zussman T. L. Gilbert 1678 050