ML20040E027
| ML20040E027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E028 | List: |
| References | |
| HQ:E:82:002, HQ:E:82:2, NUDOCS 8202020500 | |
| Download: ML20040E027 (44) | |
Text
.
. $ff{
Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545
- .m Docket No. 50-537 g, g HQ:E:82:002- J/4N 2 2 1982 #$
'I JI N% d i Kyfgg i Mr. Paul S. Check, Director 6 6' CRBR Program _0ffice Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
' cd lM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Check:
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS This letter responds to your letter of December 29, 1981, which requested specific information with regard to the socioeconomic assessment provided in Environmental Report Amendment X (December 1981). Answers to all 39 questions from the December 29 letter are enclosed.
Sincerely.
Jo n R. Longene r, Manager Licensing & Environmental Coordination" Office of Nuclear Energy Enclosure cc: Service List Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution QDS iI, 8202020500 820122 PDR ADOCK 05000537 C PDR
[
f QUESTION (1)
Section 2.2.1.3 The Applicant should describe the methods and assumptions used to derive resident equivalents from the data on transportation, daily, and seasonal transients.
RESPONSE (1)
The translation of transportation, daily, and seasonal transients into resident equivalents (i.e., the number of persons who would be in the area all year) requires a number of assumptions:
o Transportation Transients The main sources of transportation transients within five miles of the site are local highways. Using the Average Daily Traffic (Table 2.2-4) for the highways discussed in Section 2.2.1.3, the following calculations were made:
- The length of the various highway segments is:
I-40 --11 miles Tenn 58 ---8 miles Tenn 95 ---S miles
- Assuming the average speed of vehicles if 55 miles per hout, this distance translates into an average vehicle transit time for each highway.
I-40 --12 minutes Tenn 58 ---9 minutes Tenn 95 ---6 minutes Q310.3R-1-1
l i
)
For the weekend shif t personnel, the fraction is only 16/168 or .095 workhours/ week, Thus (.095) (120) = 11 persons. l l
t The distributuion of the resident equivalents for the Oak Ridge complex is given in Table 2.2-7.
o Seasonal Transients Table 2.2-8 presents estimated average peak hour visitation and visitation projections for recreation areas within ten miles of the CRBRP. Almost all of these areas will be used for only part cf the day. It is estimated that visitors will stay less than four hours at these areas. Use of peak hour estimates is conservative in that actual use of the facilities is overestimated.
Conversion of the estimates into transient equivalents was accomplished by:
Using the peak hour estimates for each recreational site, e.g., the commercial campground (Site 1). Most campers are present overnight and in the camp for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> or more.
Using the peak hour estimate thus overestimates the number of campers present all day.
Multiplying all visitation estimates for sites other.than Atomic Speedway and the commercial campground by four.
Considering that most visitors are present at the facility less than four hours, this step overestimates the number of persons present each 24-hour day.
Atomic Speedway was not included in the calculations. Use of the speedway is very sporadic, and it is felt that its resi-dent equivalent is negligible compared to the other facilities.
The equivalents for seasonal transients are presented in Table 2.2-9.
Q310.3R-1-3
- The product of the proportion of a day that a vehicle is within 5 miles of the site and the total traffic volume is the resident equivalent. For example, for I-40, the calculation is: -
12 minutes (21,130 vehicles) = 17 6 vehicles (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) (60 minutes /hr)
- To convert vehicles to persons, it is assumed that there are 2.0 persons per vehicle.
(176 vehicles)(2.0 persons) = 352 persons vehicle Table 2.2-5 shows the resident equivalents due to transportation, and the population wheel sectors into which they fall.
o Daily Transients The major source of daily or commuter transients within ten miles of the site is the Oak Ridge complex. There are three major industrial facilities; the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP), the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Y-12 plant. Table 2.2-6 shows the employment at these facilities. Each facility has people present all day, every day of the week. The resident equivalents were calculated in two ways:
- For the weekday and shif t personnel, the f raction is 40/168 =
0.24 workhours/ week. Thus there are (0.24)(4820) = 1157 or 1160 persons for the regular shif t.
Q310.3R-1-2 t .
QUESTION (2)
Section 2.2.1.5 .
The Applicant should explain the apparent discrepancy between the number of schools operating in 1981 and the number of schools indicated in Table 2.2-11.
RESPONSE (2)
The number of schools operating in 1981 within a 10-mile radius of the site listed in the text of Section 2.2.1.5 should be twenty-one schools rather than twenty-two schools as shown. The number of schools listed in Table 2.2-11 is correct.
Q310.3R-2
QUESTION (3)
Section 2.2.2 The Applicant should explain the apparent discrepancy between the
' following two sentences in the noted section:
"No wildlife preserves, sanctuaries or hunting areas are within 10-mile radius of the site. A waterfowl refuge which is part of the Long Island Wildlife Managment area is located on the Tennessee River approximately eight radial miles. . ."
RESPONSE (3)
In section 2.2.2, the first sentence which describes the type, location, and distance of wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting areas from the site should be changed to read as follows:
"No wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting areas are within a 5-mile radius of the Site."
All of the sentences that follow this sentence within section 2.2.2 regarding wildlife management areas are correct as presented.
c Q310.3R-3
.- . = . .- .. - ;s..
QUESTION (4)
Section 2.2.2.2.
In what year was the Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park established? Of the 33 acre total, how many acres are occupied by Eagle Picher, Inc.? Does Eagle Picher have tax exempt status or benefit from any state and/or local development subsidy? What are the prospects for additional industrial development of the site?
RESPONSE (4)
The Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park was established in 1972.
Eagle Picher, Inc. currently occupies 10 acres and has an option on 20 additional acres within this 112 acre park. Eagle Picher does not have e tax exempt status and does not benefit from any state and/or local development subsidies. The prospects for additional industrial development of the park are believed to be excellent if the CRBRP is constructed according to the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce.
f Q310.3R-4 .
QUESTION (5)
Section 2.2.3.1 Are there any recreational or commercial fishing uses of surface water? If either or both activities occur, the applicant should describe the activities in detail.
RESPONSE f5)
Total recreational and commercial fish harvest from Watts Bar Reservoir were provided in response to Questions 290.6R and 290.7R, respectively, For fish management purposes, Melton Hill Reservoir is currently closed to commercial fishing. Watts Bar Reservoir is closed to fishing with entanglement gear, and current commercial activity on the reservoir is restricted to trot lines, snag lines, slat boxes, and hoop nets. Commercial fishing pressure in the area of the CRBRP is generally low because of the cold nature of the Melton Hill Reservoir releases and low populations of catfish in that portion of the reservoir. There is some seasonal fishing for paddlefish using snag lines and buffalo using bait lines. This activity is generally of short duration and limited to periods when these fish are migrating past the proposed site (late winter and spring).
The most recent information available on sport fishing in Watts Bar Reservoir is a 1980 creel survey done by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Data from this survey indicates that there were about 17,700 fishing trips made in the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir, and anglers harvested an estimated 42,700 fish weighing 31,500 pounds. These numbers are derived from estimates for the upper portion of Watts Bar Reservoir which includes both the Clinch River and Tennessee River arms and assumes that 50 percent of this pressure occurs in the Tennessee River.
Most of the fishing pressure in the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Q310.3R-5-1
\
Reservoir, particularly in the vicinity of the CRBRP site, occurs in ;
winter and early spring when sauger and white bass migrate through the !
area. Although no specific data are available to document the magnitudes of differences, most of the fishing pressure occurs close to Melton Hill Dam and at Kingston Steam Plant while pressure around the CRBRP site is much lower than at either of these areas.
Q310.3R-5-2
QUESTION (6)
Table 2.2-1 This table and others which follow are based on preliminary 1980 Census data. As final 1980 data are available, the Applicant should supply revised tables.
RESPONSE (6)
The final 1980 Census Report was not available for use when the socioeconomic update was prepared (amendment X). The preliminary 1980 population numbers for the 20 cities and towns presented in Table
, 2.2-1 and the final 1980 Census numbers are almost identical (less than a 1 percent difference) except for Kingston, Oliver Springs, Dayton, and Etowah. The final population numbers for Kingston, Oliver Springs, and Etowah are different from the preliminary numbers by hbout 1.6 percent. Only the city of Dayton, located 45 radial miles from the Site is significantly different on the final report (14.4 percent higher) . Because the final population numbers are so close to the preliminary report numbers used in the analysis, it seems reasonable and appropriate to maintain the use of population census data presented in Table 2.2-1. Use of the final 1980 Census numbers
- would not result in any minor or major differences in information and conclusions presented in amendment X to the CRBRP ER.
l l
l Q310.3R-6 1
- ~
QUESTION (7)
Section 6.1.4.2.2 The Applicant shculd update population projections for Tennessee by using the latest population projections prepared by the State Department of Public health on June 17, 1981.
RESPONSE (7)
Section 6.1.4.2.2 Population Projections, vas prepared prior to the update population projections prepared by the State Department of Public Health on June 17, 1981. Appropriate state and local agencies were contacted to obtain their available population projections prior to beginning the CRBRP population projection work. The data used in this population work has been coordinated with local and district planning agencies prior to finalizing the work presented in amendment X. Because the projections prepared by the Public Health Department are viewed as department projections rather than final state pro-jections, it is not believed they are any more reliable than those used in the CRBRP analysis.
Q310.3R-7
_ _._1_._ _ - _ _ - -
QUESTION (8)
Section 8.1.3.2 Information in this section is apparently focused on publicly supported schools. The Applicant should furnish information on private sectarian and non-sectarian schools.
I RESPONSE 111 There are 128 approved private or parochial elementary and secondary schools in the State of Tennessee. Overall, private schools in the State have approximately 3.5 percent of the total. student enrollment.
In the four-county affected area, approximately 2 percent of elementary and secondary students are enrolled in approved private and parochial schools.
Q310.3R-8
.~
QUESTION (9)
Section 8.1.3.6 The information in this section is directed toward public recreational facilities. The Applicant should identify opportunities available at privately supplied recreational activities (e.g., movies, bowling, hunting, fishing).
RESPONSE (9)
It seems inappropriate to attempt to quantify the number, type, and location of privately-owned recreation facilities within the study area. The focus of the analysis was on impacts to public services, facilities, and programs. Privately supplied recreational activities were not quantified. The size of the inmoving population is extremely small compared to the population size of the metropolitan area, which will result in insignificant effects to privately-owned recreation activities. It would be sufficient merely to mention that there are many privately-owned recreational facilities located throughout the four-county area.
Q310.3R-9
QUESTION (10)
Section 8 The Applicant should describe the planning institutions in the four-county area, specifically:
(a) The control of land use decisions and zoning; (b) special purpose ordinances, e.g. , mobile homes, farmland preservation, floodplains; and (c) comprehensive plans and planning.
RESPONSE (10)
The following discussion summarizes the planning function in the four-county area:
(a) In Anderson County all cities and towns have adopted comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. The county does not have an adopted comprehensive plan at this time. Neither cities nor the
' county have specific farmland preservation ordinances.
Mobile home use is restricted in Oak Ridge but generally allowed everywhere else in mobile home parks.
- . (b) Knox County and Knoxville city have comprehensive plans,
( zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations but neither
( the county nor the city have a specific farmland preser-vation ordinance. In Knoxville, mobile homes are re-stricted to mobile home parks, while in Knox County, mobile homes are treated like any other single family dwelling regarding site restrictions.
(c) In Loudon County, all municipalities and the county have comprehensive planning, zoning ordinances, and sub-division regulations. A farmland preservation ordinance has not been passed by any planning commission in Loudon County. Mobile homes in both municipalities and the 4
Q310.3R-10-1
county are treated like any other single-family dwelling regarding site restrictions.
(d) The major municipalities and towns in Roane County all have comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. The county has never adopted a comprehensive plan, but sectors of the county do have subdivision regulations. In Rc kwood, mobile homes are generally allowed everywhere, whereas in Oliver Springs, Harriman, and Kingston, their location is restricted to mobile home parks or certain residential districts.
All four counties and cities within the four-ccunty area have flood-plain ordinances to control land development in floodplain areas.
All communities and counties in the study area have active planning commissions. Cities like Knoxville and Oak Ridge have their own staff-supported planning agencies. However, in most cases throughout the study area, planning guidance and technical assistance is provided by contracted service with either the East Tennessee Development District or the Tennessee State Planning Office.
Q310.43R 2
QUESTION (11)
Table 8.1-3 .
The State of Tennessee Department of Public Health State Center for Health Statistics has revised 1980 projections for the four-county impact area. Because these data are based on the 1980 Census, the staff believes that projections based on the state's data would be more accurate than those presented in the table cited above.
Therefore, the Applicant should provide a revised Table 8.1-3 using the most recent data from the state.
RESPONSE fil)
See respc'We to question 6 regarding the use of department projections in place of the preliminary projections prepared by the Bureau of the Census.
Q310.3R-11 ,
QUESTION (12)
Table 8.1-4 This table indicated declining population in the 5-19 (school-age) cohort; the state's latest projections for 1985 and 1990.also indicate declines in the school-age cohort at the county level (6/17/81).
However, with two exceptions, Appendix Table 2.2-7 indicates that-school superintendents expect increasing enrollment, exclusive of proj ect-related children. The Applicant should explain this apparent .
discrepancy.
RESPONSE (12)
The Applicant does not have a specific explanation for this discrepancy.
-i i
I l
Q310. 3R-12 ,
, ,w % -- -- ,w r e- ,w g 9
~y ~;~
i ,- ! .
-~ , ,
CUFSTICH (13)'
. Table 8.1-17 s
In the NRC1 Final Environmental Statement (February 1977), the treatment capacity and average daily flow of the Kingston system were
-1,500,000 gpd and 750,000 gpd, respectively. As these figures are
-considerably higher than those now presented by the Applicant, the Applicant should explain this discrepancy.
RESPONSE (13)
The treatment capacity and average daily flow numbers for the Kingston system presented in Table 8.1-17 amendment X were rechecked January 7,
~1982 , and determined to be correct. The treatment capacity and average daily flow numbers presented in the original ER Table 8.1-17 Tof 1,500,000.and 750,000 gpd, respectively, were apparently listed incorrectly.
53 e-I
/
4 0
- / Q310.3R-13
. Jam, L , e s " * ** .**
e QUESTION (14)
Section B.2.2.1 The income data in this section implies a large impact on the four-county area. However, some portion of the total income earned will be spent outside the area by inmovers with f amilies, by inmovers who are unaccompanied by family members, and by daily commuters from outside the four-county area (See FES-CP, Section 4.5.4). In addition. the amount of income earned by residents (nonmovers) should be reduced.by an amount equal to their earning potential in the absence of 'CRBR.' The Applicant should use these considerations to develop an income figure which indicates the net dollar impact within the four-county area.
RESPONSE (14L-The numbers presented in section 8.2.2.1 are gross employment and income totals which will be spread over the project recruitment area.
Therefore, the' positive impact received from CRBRP project-related employment and income in the four-county area would be less than the gross totals presented in this section.
i t
l l
l l Q310.3R-14 i ..
QUESTION (15) l Section 8.2.2.2 In view of the Appalachian Regional Commission's research on the study area, what is the Applicant's rationale for using a lower multiplier than those developed in the ARC study?
RESPONSE (15)
The ARC multipliers are more indicators of the type of economy each county has than indicators of the size of employment change which would be brought about by a change in basic employment. That is, the ARC multipliers include secondary employment from such things as central trades and service functions (e.g., banking and stock exchange); inleakage from nearby counties to major stores or testaurants; and expenditures by tourists. The applicant concluded that the Chamber of Commerce multiplier was a better estimate to use for this analysi' but to be conservative, it was rounded downward to 1.6.
a J
Q310.3R-15
l l
QUESTION (16)
Section 8.2.2.3 What is the current status of P.L.81-875 for FY 1982?
RESPONSE (16) i We understand that the public law number should have been 81-874. The l
totals for P.L.81-874 are 4 percent below the levels approved in the ,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1982 budget document dated March l 1981. The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee staff has not yet received an actual breakdown of the various funding categories. Based on the Continuing Resolution figures, below are rough estimates as to levels of payment:
"A" payments: approximately 85 percent of FY 81 payments "B" payments: 65 percent to 70 percent of FY 81 levels in districts 20 percent or more of average daily attendance (ADA) comprised of "B" children
-- " B" payments: 30 percent to 35 percent of FY 81 levels in districts with less than 20 percent "B" children
- "(3)D(2)B" payments: payments for those districts with 50 percent or more of "A" and "B" children is "f ully funded" and "not pro-rated" based on the 1982 request Notwithstanding the Continuing Resolution, OMB is calling for a recission of all impact aid money, except $185 million for payments to super A districts at 84 percent of the FY 81 A payment level.
Therefore, all B money and all non-super A (super A district being a i school with 20 percent or more of ADA comprised of A pupils) would be eliminated.
Q310.3R-16
=
QUESTION (17)
Tables 8.2-1 and 8.2-2 Do these tables reflect the onsite employment of maintenance, security, and other contract personnel? If they do not reflect these categories of workers, the tables should be revised.
RESPONSE (17)
Tables 8.2-1 and 8.2-2 do reflect the onsite employment maintenance, security, and other contract personnel.
Q310.3R-17
l QUESTION (18)
Section 8.3.2.1 The Applicant should provide copies of references 2 through 7 cited in this section.
RESPONSE (18)
These references have been provided.
l l
l l
l Q310-3R-18 .
,. g
QUESTION (19) l Section 8.3.2.1 What are the bases and assumptions for the specific assignments of l in-moving workers to the individual jurisdictions?
RERPONSE (19)
The specific assignment of in-moving workers to individual juris-dictions is based on a comparative case study of the residential patterns experienced at six nuclear plants being constructed by TVA (references 2-7 provided in response to question 18). Factors such as municipal population size, distance to the site, housing add-ons by type, and location and capacity of highways, etc., were evaluated to determine similarities and differences in settlement patterns that could occur in the CRBRP four-county impact area. Knowledgeable planners from local planning agencies were consulted prior to i finalizing the settlement pattern presented in amendment X.
1 A.
Q310.3R-19
QUESTION (20)
Section 8.3.2.1.2 -
As previously indicated (see comment no. 8), the information in this section should reflect conditions at private schools. Therefore, the Applicant should supply information on private sectarian and non-sectarian schools.
RESPONSE (20)
See response to question no. 8.
4 Q310.3R-20
QUESTION (21)
S.ection 8.3.2.1.3 I
The Applicant assumes that three highway " intersections will be upgraded to sufficiently accommodate the projected traffic." i Specifically, what improvements would have to be made to achieve the stated objective? Are these improvements currently programmed by ,
appropriate authorities? If these improvements are not currently programmed, what is the likelihood that they would be implemented?
RESPONSE (21)
Reconstruction of the intersection of S.T. 58 and S.R. 95 to provide separated grades and ramps is underway.
The specific improvements proposed for the intersection of Bear Creek Road and S.R. 58 are the addition of ramps to the existing separated grade intersection. The schedule for accomplishing the improvement is to be developed with the Tennessee Department of Transportation.
Studies to determine specific improvements at the intersection of Bear Creek Road and S.R. 95 are underway.
I l
Q310.3R-21
de sw - # +- - *--#
QUESTION (22)
Section 8.3.2.1.3 Does the Applicant foresee an increase in either accidents or road maintenance as a result of increased traffic volumes? With respect to road maintenance, do the counties and/or state have load limits for roads?
RESPONSE (22)
The amount of road maintenance and the number of accidents are both anticipated to increase with increased traffic volumes. The State of Tennessee does have load limits f or roads. The maximum allowable weight limit for five-axle tractor trailer rigs traveling on Tennessee state roads is 80,000 pounds. Weight limits for trucks other than five-axle vehicles on state roads are lower than the 80,000 pound maximum limit and vary in accordance with the type of truck. Load limits are also required on country roads and are based on the type of vehicle.
f Q310.3R-22
QUESTION (23)
Section 8.3.2.1.5 .
What is the Applicant's basis for concluding that no " recreation program will be significantly adversely affected"? What is the analysis which indicates that Roane County's recreational facilities are already in short supply?
RESPONSE (23)
The conclusion that no recreation program will be significantly adversely af fected is based on the expectation of a relatively small peak population influx in the four county area. The conclusion regarding existing shortages in Roane County's recreational facilities was based on comparisons between the current population, limited existing facilities (Table 8.1-20) , and standards of the National Recreation and Park Association.
Q310.3R-23
QUESTION (24)
Section 8.3.2.1.5 Would the site be visible from nearby vantage points such as historic sites, areas of recreation, or housing developments? Would the containment building be visible from such vantage points?
RESPONSE (24)
The CRBRP site will be visible from various vantage points near the plant site. Both the site and the containment building will be visible from portions of both I-40 and S.R. 58. Both the site and the containment building will be visible from recreation sites 1 and 2 listed on Table 2.2-8. The site will not be visibic from any housing development within the study area but will be easily seen from many of the single-family homes from across the Clinch River. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, neither the containment building or the plant site will be visible from any significantly offsite historical site or structure within the study area.
Q310.3R-24
- -. . - - _ _ _ _ . =.. .= - . = _ ... -.,- .:-- - -.
QUESTION (25)
Appendix-Introduction The Applicant should prepare a table similar to Table 8.3-2 but assuming Migration Condition B.
RESPONSE (25)
CRBRP ESTIMATED POPULATION EFFECTS PEAK YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION FOR MIGRATION CONDITION B Projected Employment 5,400 Population Effects Number of movers 1,990
, Movers with f amilies (70%) 1,390 Movers without families (3 0%) 600 School age children
- 980 Total population influx ** 5,040
- Assuming .7 school age children per family.
- Assuming 3.2 people per f amily.
Q310.3R-25
QUESTION (26)
Appendix-Introduction In Section 8, Migration Condition A was indicated as 25 percent, while this level of migration is defined as 26 percent in the Appendix. The Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy.
RESPONSE 26 In the introduction of section 8, Migration Condition A is indicated as 26 percent, the same as this level of migration is defined in the Appendix.
t l
l-Q310.3R-26 l
l
- - + - - - , , .. ~ __. _
QUESTION (27) 1 Appendix-Table 2.2-8 Project enrollment for Knox County differs significantly from data in Table 8.3-2.
RESPONSE (27)
We assume there was e typographical error and Table 8.3-5 is the table in question rather than Table 0.3-2. Appendix Table 2.2-8 provides project enrollment for the 40 percent mover rate while Table 8.3-5 provides project enrollment for the 26 percent movers rate. The numbers for Knox County differ significantly because of the comparison of project enrollment from two different mover rates.
4 I
Q310.3R-27
QUESTION (28)
Appendix-Section 2.4 What is the basis for the Applicant's conclucion that no expansion of fire protection services would be necessary during the construction period? Do current fire protection services meet or exceed guidelines established by the national insurance rating organization, the American Insurance Association?
RESPONSE (28)
The conclusion that no expansion of fire protection services would be necessary is based on the expectacion of a relatively small peak population influx that should also be widely distributed among area communities. Maintenance of current levels of service, not national insurance rating guidelines, were used as the basis for the assessment. Thus, the relation of current fire protection services to those insurance guidelines was not considered.
Q310.3R 28
QUESTION (29)
Appendix-Section 2.5 The Applicant's analysis of and conclusion on the adequacy of water supply facilities does not appear to take into account population growth between 1981 and 1985. Considering this increment of growth and the influx of project related population, would these facilities be adequate?
RESPONSE (29)
Existing and proposed water supply facilities will be able to accommodate the demand f or use of water f rom both the population growth between 1981 and.1985 and the projected CRBRP project-related demand.
Q310. 3R-29
QUESTION (30) l Appendix-Section 2.6 - ;
The comment and question in item (29) applies to this section.
1 RESPONSE (30) ,
Existing and proposed wastewater and solid waste disposal facilities will be able to accommodate the demand for use of these type of public services from both the population growth between 1981 and 1985 and the projected CRBRP project-related demand.
(
l I
l Q310.3R-30
l .
QUESTION (31)
Appendix-Section 2.6 The amount of solid waste generated by the inmoving population is I overstated by a factor of 10 and the amount of total solid waste handled per day differs from the total figure in Section 8.1.3.3.3.
The Applicant should check these data and correct as necessary.
RESPONSE (31)
The calculations presented in Appendix section 2.6 for the amount of solid waste generated by the inmoving population were rechecked and ,
found to be correct. The numbers listed in section 8.1.3.3.3 represent the current amount of solid waste in tons received daily by facilities operating in the study area, whereas the numbers listed in section 2.6 are additional load totals resulting from the project-related inmoving popualation during the peak year and typical year of plant operation.
i e Q310.3R-31
._ _ _ _ = . - .- =. : . . :_- . .:,. . . . . .x._ . _ _ ._.._. _. .. -- .
QUESTION (32) i Appendix-Section 3.2 In what instances would an " assessment lag" apply? Who would be responsible for an assessment lag if it did occur?
RESPONSE (32)
An assessment lag is simply the time required for a new addition to the property tax rolls tc pay its full share of taxes. It would be expected to occur in most, if not all, instances and would not be considered an unusual occurrence.
l l
l l
i Q310.3R-32
A e Ae- m QUESTION (33)
Appendix-Section 3.2 The Applicant mentions state funds--state foundation and equal-ization--in the analysis of local expenditures and revenues. Do the level of these funds or any other intergovernmental transfer funds to local jurisdictions change with changing local revenue levels?
RES PONSE (33)
State foundation funds are apportioned equally to all school systems in the state on a per ADA basis with additional funding related to vocational and special education needs. In contrast, equalization funds are apportioned on the basis of each jurisdiction's capacity to generate property tax revenue, i.e., local property assessment values.
Depending on values statewide, an increase in those values could possibly result in a decrease in equalization funds. However, for purposes of the fiscal analyses, it was assumed that the current level of both educational revenues would remain constant.
i I
I
(
l I
i l
Q310.3R-33
i QUESTION (34)
Appendix-Section 3.2 The Applicant states that no necessary education-related capital improvements were identified. However, Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 indicate that 15 classrooms and 29 classrooms would be needed under Migration Conditions A and B, respectively. The Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy and provide the bases for the conc'lusion.
RESPONSE (34)
Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 indicate that 15 classrooms and 29 classrooms would be needed under Migration Conditions A and B, respectively.
This does not mean that up to 29 classrooms would have to be built to accommodate project-related students. Under migration Condition B (the worst case scenario) 980 students would have to be housed for a period of no more than one year by the 8 school systems (see Appendix Table 2.2-8). Because of the law number of students added to each system (to be assigned to various schools grades K-12 located through-out each school system) and because of the short time period of maximum project-related demands, it is concluded that no school system would choose to construct a new school facility to accommodate project-related students. Instead, they would assign individual students to exisitng rooms with available space and in cases of demand exceeding capacity, assign students to school areas excluded in the capacity numbers used in Appendix Table 2.2-7.
Q310.3R-34
1 I
j QUESTION (35)
Appendix-Table 3.2 j The table and text are unclear as to whether the sales and beverage tax data reflect local collections (with a smaller amount being dis-persed to the municipalities by higher levels of government) or the actual dispersements to local government. The Applicant should clarify. Also, by assuming that the project-related (inmoving) pop-ulation have the same per capita income as residents, the Applicant is conservatively estimating sales tax and beverage tax revenues. Does the Applicant agree that its estimates of sales and beverage tax rev- ,
enues are conservative?
RESPONSE f35?
The sales and beverage tax data reflect actual disbursements to local governments. We agree that the estimates of sales and beverage taxes are conservative.
Q310.3R-35
QUESTION (36)
Table 3.1 What are the specific values and assumptions underlying the data in the column titled, "Inmover-Related Taxable Assessed Value"? This information should be presented for each housing type and jurisdiction.
RESPONSE (36)
Refer to the table below. Those values are estimated from the range
, of values included in the various sources referenced in Table 3.1 of Appendix C.
AVERAGE HOUSING VALUES Single-Family Mobile Multi-Homes Homes Familv*
Clinton $37,000 $9,000 $13,000 Oak Ridge 55,000 9,000 15,000 Lenoir City 24,000 9,000 13,000 Kingston 44,000 9,000 13,000 Rockwood 30,000 9,000 13,000 Harriman 33,000 9.000 13,000 Anderson Co. 37,000 9,000 13,000 Knox Co. 55,000 9,000 15,000 Loudon Co. 33,000 9,000 13,000 Roane Co. 44,000 9,000 13,000
- Per unit Q310.3R-36
QUESTION (37)
Tables 3.3 and 3.12 The Applicant should specify the population figures used for each jurisdiction to derive the general fund and school fund r6 venues. How do these numbers differ from these contained in or underlying Table
~
8.2-1, 8.3-3, and 8.3-47 Also, in this series of tables, how are sales taxes apportioned between general fund and school fund revenues?
RESPONSE (37' The population figures used to ectimate the general fund and school fund revenues are either found in or derived from Tables 8.3-3 and 8.3-5. The employment figures in Table 8.2-1 were not used in estimating revenues but instead provide the basis for the snalysis population and housing estimates. For the purposes of estimating per capita revenues, half of the population estimated for each munici-pality, except for Oak Ridge and Knoxville, was assumed to be located outside of the municipal limits but in the general area. For example, about 240 persons would be expected to locate within the city limits of Kingston (see Table 8.3-3) . The housing distribution data in Table 8.3-4 were used in estimating property tax revenue for each juris-diction. Table 8.3-5 contains the data, number of students by jurisdiction, used in estimating per pupil educational revenue. The per capita sales tax revenue figures contained in Table 2.2 of Appendix C are based on the amount of sales tax revenue historically received by either the general or school funds. Therefore, there was no apportionment between the two funds.
r O
Q310.3R-37
_ - _ _ . _ . - - . . ,-- - - . . - . - . .-.=.:.=.. -. -.-. = . . . . . - . _ . .
QUESTION (38)
Appendix-Table 3.13 In addition to salary, what are the components of the cost / teacher data?
RERPONSE f38)
The cost / teacher data are based on salary only.
l Q310.3R-38
QUESTION (39)
Appendix-References The Applicant should provide a copy of citation 8.
RESPONSE (39)
This reference is provided.
e l
l Q310.3R-39
. .- - - - . . . --.. - .,. -.- .._:-_. :- . :. .- . .- .- . . . .. -... - ._