ML19289D116

Responds to NRC 781122 Request for Addl Info.Info Already Contained in Environ Rept Is Too Detailed & Hypothetical. Some Related Info Is Contained in 781010 Ri Statewide Planning Program Ltr to NRC

ML19289D116
Person / Time
Site:	New England Power
Issue date:	01/22/1979
From:	Harrington J NEW ENGLAND POWER CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-NRC-N-97 NUDOCS 7901290254
Download: ML19289D116 (2)

Text

New England Power Company 20 Turnpike Road

/

NewEngland Power we =rougn. u....chu.eit, omi dI Tel. (617) 366-9011 January 22, 1979 NRC-N-97 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Re gulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Docket Nos. STN 50-568 and STN 50-569 This is in response to your letter of November 22, 1978 and the two enclosures relating to state and local government requests for in-formation on two alternate sites. We are in touch with the various in-volved state and local authorities often, including in particular the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the Town of Westerly. Our response to the DEM motion was distributed to the staff and all interested parties in November 1978. Beyond this, we have sup-plied information to the agencies involved in connection with these re-quests and expect to continue to do so. This constitutes our direct re-sponse to these letters. We regard this as part of our ongoing communi-cation with state and local agencies, quite independent of the "uclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. If any significant changes to Project plans result from our discussions with state and local government we will amend the Environmental Report and distribute the amendment in accordance with Marie Slater's letter of June 9,1978.

In general, the questions asked in the attachments to your letter of November 22 fall into two categories. The first category is questions whose answers with respect to Westerly are already found (to a greater or lesser degree) in the Environmental Report and its Appendices. See for instance the figures in ER Section 2.1 with respect to land use, zoning, demography, ground water resources, and parks and recreational areas. As another example, the comparative cost benefit analysis of all candidate alternate sites is found in ER Section 9.3. Westerly transmission line routes were provided in our letter of October 31, 1978 and are included in Appendix F-9 via Revision 3.

The second category of question is that which is too detailed for a site which is not being proposed. An analysis of the barrier beach im-pacts of a pipeline once-through cooling system at Westerly would be inap-propriate since (1) we do not propose to use the Westerly site and, (2) if we did so propose, we would not propose a pipeline system. Similarly, emergency evacuation measures specific to the Westerly site have not been developed, nor need they be for a site which is not proposed. #'

%(/p }9 730129c # b/

A New England Electric System company \ O

~

~

Page 2 Some pertinent information has become available since the Rhode Island and Westerly data requests were made. The responses to RAI 300.16 and 300.17 answer some of the questions posed. The letter to the NRC from the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, dated October 10, 1978, deals with the comparative merits of Rome Point and Westerly, with parti-cular regard to the effects of the cooling system, and presumably answered or mooted some of the DEM questions in this connection.

We beleive that more than sufficient information exists in the En-vironmental Report and in Appendix F thereto to support your analysis of Rome Point and Westerly as alternate sites.

Very tr.uly yours,

-M Joseph Harrington Project Manager JH:rh r*I