ML19276F563
| ML19276F563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1979 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276F559 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904060103 | |
| Download: ML19276F563 (3) | |
Text
hT.C 2CDL.; o1Eh a.4 U:llTED STATES OF A." ERICA ftUCLEAR REGULATCRY CO:"'ISS10t1 3/13/ g70%
' \\ '.U.*'M
/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A!!D LICE:lsIt:G P0ARD ' ':y-4 ",.
.. s
'3
,)
A f!
NW f "A
In the Matter of
)
j g ',,lf
,:_-}
)
t POWER AUTHCRITY OF THE STATE
)
Docket tio. 50-549 N
[e < ([.(II.
D 0F NEW YORK
)
' c<r
)
Q%
( U,-
(Greene County Nuclear Pcwer
)
- 'en I w Plant)
)
STATE OF flew YCRK DEPARTMErlT OF PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GEt:ERATION SITING AND THE ENVIR0t! MENT In the Matter of the Application
)
of the
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
Case 80006 0F flew YORK
)
)
(Greene County tiuclear Generating
)
Facility)
)
flRC STAFF'S RESP 0f1SE TO APPLICANT'S FIRST DOCUMENT REQUEST The tiRC Staff-1/
hereby responds to Applicant's First Document Request filed February 15, 1979.
By filing of March 5, 1979, the Staff objected to documents requests 3 and 6.
Pursuant to 2.744, the Staff will produce the remaining requested documents (to the extent they exist) for inspection and 1/ Staff counsel is filing this response on behalf of the Executive Director for Operations, to whom the request was directed under 10 CFR 52.744.
7904060103
. copying at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 2] on a date to be determined on the basis of discussions between counsel for Applicant and for the Staff.
t We offer the following specific comments on the requests to which we have not objected:
Concerning the statements and conclusions regarding visual. scenic, historical, cultural and aesthetic impacts in the Final Environmental Statement:
1.
Identify all writings relied upon and provide a copy of each of the items enumerated not furnished by the Applicant.
The reference lists in the FES generally provide an identification of the writings relied upon by the Staff. We will, however, review our files for any writings not listed in the FES and make such copies available to the Applicant for inspection and copying.
2.
Identify all non-written source materials relied upon or compiled in connection with the Final Environmental Statement and provide a copy of each of the items enumerated not furnished by the Applicant.
See response to No. 1.
4.
Provide a copy of all written conclusions (preliminary and final) formulated by NRC Staff regarding visual, scenic, historical, cultural and aesthetic impacts of the Greene County Plant.
The final conclusions of the Staff are as set forth in the FES. We will review our files for any preliminary written conclusions and make them available.
z/
It is not feasible to make these documents available elsewhere due to the large number of documents' involved.
- 5.
Provide the materials and information requested in Item flos. 1 and 2 for the statements and conclusions regarding aesthetic impacts in i;RC Staff's Draf t Environmental Statement and Preliminary Final Environmental Statement.
Other than the brief statements in the DES regardingtaesthetics, we have no further information and materials regarding this matter. The PFES specifically noted (Section 5.6.7) that the aesthetic analysis was to be supplied later. There are, therefore, no writings or other materials which fit the description in document requests ilos.1 and 2.
7.
Provide any analysis of the aesthetic.apact of the plume performed by flRC Staff.
The Staff's analysis of the aesthetic impact of the plume ~is set forth in the FES (Section 5.7; Appendices M, N, and 0).
We will review our files for any more detailed analyses and make them available.
8.
If a specific cost-benefit comparison was conducted of moving the proposed facility versus employing alternative cooling systems at the Cementon Site, provide the supporting data and the details of the cost-benefit analysis which was undertaken.
The Staff's comparison of the costs and benefits of moving the proposed facility versus employing a circular mechanical draft cooling tower at the Cementon site is found in FES Section 10.4.3.
(See particularly
" Natural-draft vs. circular mechanical-draft cooling tower" entry in Table 10.9). As noted in the footnotes to Table 10.9, most of the input data to the table were drawn from the hearing transcript or from Applicant submissions. As with No. 7, however, we will review our files for other supporting data and analysis details and make them available.
Respectfully submitted,
'A ty s)
Stephen H. Lewis Dated at Bethesda, Maryland Counsel for NRC Staff this 13th day of March,1979.