ML20148E077
| ML20148E077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New England Power |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1978 |
| From: | Harrington J NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811060097 | |
| Download: ML20148E077 (167) | |
Text
r i
Of3 NEWENGlAND P0WER COMPANY Telephone 617 366-9011
' New England Electric System 20 Turnpike Road, Westborough, Mossochusetts 01581 October 31,.1978 NRC-N-94 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Sir:
Docket Nos. STN 50-568 and SIN 50-569 Enclosed please find the following supplemeetal information requested by the NRC staff relative to alternate s:'.tes:
t
- 1. Responses to NRC staff requests for addtcional information (RAI's) 300.9 through 300.19.
- 2. A revised transmission section for each Candidate Site listed in Environmental Report Section 9.2.4. More detail has been provided on the transmission line routes and t he associated cost information has been appropriately updated.
- 3. A revised ER Table 9.3-1. This table has been revised to reflect these additional staff concerns.
This material will be incorporated in Revision 5 of the Environ-mental Report. We trust you will find this information satisfactory.
Very truly yours, Joseph Harrington Project Manager l JDV:rh Enclosures (7)~
cc: R. Rush (ORNL) w/ enclosure (2) /
ri. vga.9w..
' nOr 0 0 Cl 7
- )
V o) j
300.9 Selecticn of Candidate Areas -(ER p. 9.2-3).
Why is it not considered feasible for applicant to obtain state per-mits to build a plant in a state which it does not serve? Please be specific. A casual answer like that given to question 300.4 is not adequate. Four Corners (Arizona Public Service), Tyrone (Northern
- States Power), and State Line (Commonwealth Edison) are. examples of plants in states not served by the utilities building them, e
Response: (a) Applicant believes it is not feasible for NEP 1 6 2 to be con-structed in Maine because Maine law (35 MRSA 52311) requires that.a majority interest in jointly owned generating facilities be owned by domestic electric companies, whereas less than 5% of NEP 1 & 2 is owned '
by Maine utilities. (b) Applicant believes it is not feasible for
-NEP 1 & 2 to be constructed in Vetmont because Vermont law (30 VSA 9248(c)) ,
requires approval of the general assembly before the required certifica-tion of public good for a nuclear plant could be issued by the Pacific Service Board (PSB) . 30 VSA 5231(a) requires that a certificate be ob-tained from the PSB finding that the operation of the proposed business I will promote the general good of the state. In addition, section 248(b) requires that the PSB find that construction "is required to meet the i
need for present and future demand for service" before issuance of a '
certification of public good. The only Vermont utility owning a share of F
NEP 1 & 2 is Vermont Electric Cooperative, which presently owns only 0.200%. (Vermont Electric Cooperative is expected to acquire an addi-tional 0.100% share.) Applicant believes it to be unrealistic to expect that legislative approval and a PSB certificate of public good could be ,
obtained for a nuclear plant over 99% of which is owned by non-Vermont utilities. (c) Applicant believes it is not feasible for NEP 1 6 2 to be constructed in Connecticut because land cannot be acquired for a power
.. . - - - - . . -. - - -. . ~ ~ _ . . - . . . . _ -. . . --
L plant in Connecticut until the state Power Facility Evaluation Council (PFEC) issues.a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Conn. Gen. Stat. 516-50k). The PFEC cannot issue a certificate unless it finds a "public need."' There is a reasonable likelihood that h the PFEC would find that the needs of Connecticut residents are the sole determinant of the existence of "public need." This conclusion is sup-ported by the fact that in determining whether to issue the certificate, the PFEC balances environmental impact against public need. Since direct -
environmental impact is almost exclusively local, it is likely that the -
public need against which the environmental impact is balanced would be limited to Connecticut. Such a finding by the PFEC would bar establish-ment of generating facilities in Connecticut the primary function of which would be to serve out-of-state needs.
i t
9
- - . . .-. ..... = -
i I
300.10 Selection of Candidate Areas (ER p. 9.2-3)
I Why wasn't the New Hampshire Coast identified as a candidate region? Seabrook, Philbrick, Lamprey Pond, and Odiornes Point were conside red 'in the Seabrook proceeding. as potential sites. .
RESPONSE : ER Chapter 9 did not identify the New Hampshire coast as a candidate region; however, during the siting process the l Applicant was aware and f amiliar with this relatively small ,
coastal area and the sites which had been identified by the NRC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Our f amiliarity I with the area and its potential sites led us to conclude that
- there were no sites obviously superior to the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Charlestown, R.I. {
i The basis for concluding that there are no obviously superior sites on the New Hampshire coast is mainly the high transmission ,
costs associated with placing an additional 2300 MW in the area.
We estimate that the total transmission cost for NEP 1 & 2 located. at Seabrook as Units 3 and 4 is $213 million (1985 dolla rs) . The transmission cost for NEP 1 (Seabrook Unit 3) is $53 million and NEP 2 (Seabrook Unit 4) is $160 million.
Transmission costs for potential site areas of Lamprey Pond, l Philbrick, Gerrish Island, etc. are correspondingly higher because these sites are located f arther from the termination points. The transmission costs are based on the following-routes:
Unit 3 consists of the incremental substation work at the plant plus the following 345 kV lines: 23 miles, Seabrook to Boxford Junction (Mass.); 38 miles, Seabrook to North Andover Junction (Mass.). t Unit 4 consists of 43 miles of 345 kV, Seabrook to Colden Hills (Mass.), 32 miles of which is underground cable.
A second consideration is the added cost for secondary containment structures which would be required at Scabrook but not at Charlestown, R.I. The total added cost for secondary containment structures is $25 million. j I
[
I l
L
300.11 Population Distribution (ER p. 9.2-4)
For initial screening purposes, population densities greater than 1000 people per square mile were deemed unacceptable.
Why? This does not appear to be an adequate reason alone for rejecting sites, as long as they are not ruled out absolutely under the criteria established in 10 CFR Part 100. This point is discussed in some detail in ALAB-471,Section II.B.2 of the majority opinion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
RESPONSE: The " unacceptable" classification was based on documentsl:2
. published by NRC regarding population considerations in the siting of nuclear power plants. In view of the subsequent majority opinion of ALAB-471, the classification of areas with population densities greater than 1,000 people per square mile out to a distance of ' 30 miles .as unacceptable for nuclear sites technically is no longer appropriate.
It is Applicant's view that nuclear power plants as presently designed and licensed would be saf e in high or low population density areas. Based on our past experience with NRC licensing, we believe, 'howeve r, that it would be a useless exercise to propose to NRC either a nuclear power plant site or. an alternative site in a relatively high population area, as long 'l as a number of sites were available in lower population areas.
(See, for ' instance, the Newbold Island case.)
In the case of siting NEP 1 & 2, there are several potential sites in areas of low to moderate population density. The proposed site at Charlestown, Rhode Island as well as the candidate sites described in ER Chapter 9, represent a number of reasonable alternative sites and therefore, in our view, obviate any need to-survey high population density areas for sites.
I Ref e rences:
f
- 1. AEC News Release, dated 4/9/74, titled AEC Makes Public Staf f Working Paper on Population Density Around Nuclear Power Plant Sites.
- 2. NRC Regulatory Standard Review Plan, dated October 1974, titled Section 2.1.3 Population Distribution.
)
l
300.12 Region V - Merrimack Rive r (ER p. 9.2-6).
This region was rejected because of relatively high population density (as was the North Shore region). But Jackman Rese rvoir, Garvins Falls, and Litchfield have been considered in the Seabrook proceedings as potential sites. Are there any sites in Regions V and V1 which are obviously superior to Charlestown?
Provide the rationale for your answer.
RESP 0NSE: Applicant found ne obviously superior sites in Regions V and VI .
Two sites within the Merrimack River Region were considered as potential sites. Both of these sites, known as East Pepperell and Salisbury, are described in the response to RAI 300.13.
Table 300.12-1, developed with information taken f rom site selection surveys, indicates some of the reasons for the deferral of these two sites in the Merrimack River watershed.
The Salisbury site was dropped f rom consideration at a very early stage. The site was ve ry small (300 acres) with little potential for expansion due to nearby residential areas. Other disadvantages of the site included (1) much of the site is salt ma rs h, (2) the great distance to of f shore water for once-through cooling, (3) high comparative transmission costs, and (4) a LPZ radius of only approximately one mile is available.
Four important items influenced the deferral of the East Pepperell site. First, the required land was owned by eight owners which was likely to make timely acquisition dif ficult.
Second, population density is comparatively higher than Charles town's . Third, the source of required closed-cycle system make-up water was approximately six miles from the site. Fourth, delive ry of heavy and large dimension power plant eq uipme nt to this inland area would be extremely dif ficult and costly.
Region \1 was surveyed f or a suitable site. The region is typified by many productive estuaries, wetlands, preserves and summer recreational areas. A site was identified within the region (Glouces ter site), but was quickly deferred. Generally, the population distribution exceeded that of any site licensed at the time. Cooling wa ter system conduit right-of-way problems were anticipated due to residential property between the site and the offshore water source. Additionally, a significant pumping head penalty would be imposed by the site grade of 100 feet MSL. No other potential site was identified in this region.
l I
i
- ; ;? *
! ! - k l r
a _
g ec _
. n d u .
s i oc e d s nt d h e r n .
e oi n Rr a u y c i n a u o t i su L f n q S i v
r u
l o y ow. os s
. d d i
n S
e cw xt r
a et e t s s r
e e
t n
a e
r i c
e i aeu p i l i v l r l tl s s u a . o i . S rs e I q e _
n r tf xh au l d e t w e f us ,h o p n k r i o n e Ar rCi o a c s t e 0t a o r e l o n s G 5 a l m if a p , g l o o _
e n 1 u a/ rov e n i t l yo 2 q vb e 0 n E B. t r bi e au t nr 0i h c n s a t
.d Nr nwo 5l e
w e
g e o s e
s h d a A h I of u t i e C er s dS
.T nd n o o l c t l t e e y ai r r l c i l s r . n t ,t h u e h p i a S oi cs o . pd r t g g t M rn au dd ene a - d e n t i i nl D ap se r e o 2 g w nm 0d ae l o sl e c o 0 r _
o od 0 a bi S sr ei v n l 1 a t CA 6 r AF UI p L m A O F $ B s
e k ,
l ) ec - y - ,
r s b a e v l -
a r . n m rt at i e .
h e s . l o d ti nenac C n u d a r n sr r seh ern w i . e i f a ur o d c m a d
n l o d s at r
a t
n rs ees l
g me M f .
g aaf por ojoit a a l 8 ri e e pnu n r l n rd u e e ( n l d ii E em ai at qel _
l r nu c i eld t o id l reuc l e p o s l ea w ar t o ad o d e p i i o y e pd r e Wf no c a pd y r p h sw l r oi N el oosema e
p p
P e s r
e l
ut cr l
i a r o .
eue pgl i
r g
el
.se tf o
pr l rnnew l aol h f i rib g .
e t n xo t f t 0 em a li e n oat sois P s a
w o
ef r a l e n 0l 5i7 r
e cm y
rv oi i o g R nrh n ep o
. E .e p am m1 v c6 nR l n .m di E e t t / i p s a i l i .eirnt t
a f a u
d e
t o d ed ern dd .
eer mau i dd td oaa nl . w .
M aei - j t y v 0 q d ee eaoe oe spe yh rrseadi r i 0 e o t v cuyt l t omv l s 6 gi d mam u r 0d o oe xqei ei l ui na 4 puoi oi b P 2A W Pd E sb s B s C pR ON $ U qtbarl s l i n -
l o x r y a i .o . . e t S r e
sd re u e pl h
s dk v-if
.g d n
- i il f w l t pb rr r no Rf ei li o o ciaa ae e ao o rl i c y
P xm eifi l md r
p l r gb k
c o il ui ca af r d l oa t o e na at qf f a f
' n t v lb l E e m e e ,
m r a f nsa a p S i s re d g m u l ou ss o w re v ar u b g 0ii e a e eo rl . ni . oa S s n 0 sdl se p Nt eis oss rB i E 0 nai ir Mmn ine -
l 1 arm a 0 er . o t eh d
. a w p e 0 ga h3i ct s n n .
1 S e xZ e tl 5 e al g t exr o ay
- N .EP n ia l ri ura t ea i b .
2 1 y s
e Lo si t l m
,i em vi ooc r
o o rs m l l
l r .
i ad
. b r .my f n a as ht yl pet i aee 0 csul oe ne r vl M rnr 0
3 d
e aume iit hi e d . i r ga w;
o e eur ae dl a oos 7 d su i
n 0d xa cst r u aq l t ct o ov 6 oeq e w 0 aam uei ei nsh l nf 1 oie l O 3 rMi MRs M s B s O es FI o $ Gt r b d a n d T a n d a n e p en L a t i zo L a h i i t d e s S s s n e it r uu e r di e eli s u nS n t cd ee t e a w i xa _rs us C O SER PU FU e
r ) y y n ug n5 t n t o d sn o8 i oa ii i
l ni ot ny at oi pd i9 s1 l
i t r i i u i g
xo s b ae b tb yc E o i$ i ut a ai gi n l m( s li l l r om i mF s s e
ar di ut l s l r nt vC nad e ps oi o od as c E avns oi ee e t n ro c LAaU PD GS G S a TC A
300.13 Selection of Potential Sites (ER p. 9.2-8)
Which potential sites were examined and what were the procedures by which the potential sites were selected for examination?
Describe the application of these procedures to the actual selection of the potential sites. (In the Pilgrim proceeding, the following potential sites were conside red, among others:
site 18 and Cape Cod Bay offshore. In the Montague proceeding, the following potential sites were considered: Maromas, Wately, Northfield, and Turners Falls. In the Seabrook proceeding, the following potential sites were considered: Litchfield, Rollins Farm, Moore Pond, Gerrish Island, Mills tone, Montague, Pilgrim, Sears Island, Maine Yankee, Ve rmont Yankee, Haddam Neck, Yankee Rowe, Seabrook, Fox Point, Dove r Point, Odiornes Point, Philbrick Pond, Lamprey Pond, Isles of Shoals, Raynes Neck, Argo Point, Phillips Cove, Elms, Shelburne, Dummer, Gavins Falls and Jackman Reservoir.)
RESPONSE: The potential sites examined in the preparation of ER Chapter 9.2 and 9.3 fall into four general categories:
(1) large tracts owned by Applicant as a result of past siting efforts.
(2) Land known to be potentially available.
(3) Large sites with existing or planned generating facilities.
(4) Sites identified f rom reconnaissance level data sources.
Sites in the first three categories were selected for examination essentially automatically, by their nature. The following procedure was used to selected potential sites in the fourth category. Candidate Areas were evaluated, screened and selected in accordance with procedures identified in ER Section 9.2.3.
The screening process by which the Candidate Areas were selected involved evaluation of the following criteria on a regional basis:
- a. Cooling water availability
- b. Population distribution
- c. Land availability and use
- d. Ac ces sibili ty
- e. Transmission and electric system balance
Individual parcels of land, within the Candidate Areas were identified by reconnaissance level sources such as topographic maps, aerial photographs, discussions with knowledgeable regional individuals within Applicant's system, transportation maps, .
transmission grid maps, Environmental Reports and both serial and ground obse rvation. Criteria, similar to that used to evaluate and select the Candidate Areas, were applied to these individual parcels to determine potential sites.
The attachment to this response provides a brief description of the potential sites and summarizes the application of the criteria to each potential site. The descriptions may not reflect the most recent available information in every case, as no effort is expended in maintaining current inf o rma tion on def erred sites.
I
. , , , , . . . ~ , . , _ . . , . . . ._. _ _ . , . -
TABLE 300.13-1. Potential Sites Region I. Upper Connecticut River Firs t Connecticut Lake Comerf ord Pond Moore Reservoir Region II. Lower Connecticut River Gill /Erving Montague and Northfield Region III. Androscoggin River Errol Pontook Reservoir Region IV. Deerfield River Somerset Reservoir (VI)*
Harriman Reservoir (VI)*
Yankee Rowe Bear Swamp Dunbar Brook Region V. Merrimack Rive r East Pepperell Salisbury Region VI . North Shore Cloucester Region VII. South Shore Plymouth Sites Region VIII.
Elizabeth Islands Region IX. Southeastern Massachusetts - Rhode Island Coast Slocums Neck Stony Point
Table 300.13-1. (Continued) ',
Allens Pond Round Hill Point Charlestown Warren Point Quicksand Pond Cooseberry Neck Moonstone Beach Weekapaug Dunn Corner Westerly Airport Industrial Park Westerly Sachuest Point Region X. Narragansett Bay Rome Point Mackerel Cove Jamestown Island Melville-Carr Point Fort Va rnum Region XI.
Block Island XII. Other Sites
- Shef field (tiA)
Smith Hollow (Shef field)
Three Mile Pond (Shef field)
Cerrish Island (ME)
- Not in Candidate Areas
I 1
ATTACHMENT To Question 300.13 Region: I Name: First Connecticut Lake Location: Town: Pittsburg State: N.H.
Water source: First Connecticut Lake USGS Quadrangle (s): Second Lake, Indian Stream This site is located on the southern shore of Land Availability and Use.
the First Connecticut Lake which was enlarged by damming the Connecticut River and is used as a storage pond. The land immediately around the lake is heavily forested and the surrounding area is sparsely populated. Dairying appears to be the only significant agricultural activity in the vicinity and there is essentially no manuf acturing around the site.
The site is about 60 miles northeast of St. Johnsbury, Ve rmont ,
90 miles northwest of Lewiston, Maine,135 miles north of Concord, New Hampshire, and about 15 miles south of the Canadian border. At the present time, insuf ficient land is owned by New England Power Company for a nuclear site. However, a tract of land of approximately 10,000 acres currently owned by St. Regis Paper Company has been identified as a potential site. ,
Assuming that this land could be acquired, a suitably large exclusion radius should be available.
Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table.
Distance (mil es) Total Population 0-5 470 0-10 1700 0-20 5500*
0-30 8400*
- Excludes Canadian population Cooling Water. First Connecticut Lake is one in a series of lakes located at the headwaters of the Connecticut River. The gross drainage area for the lake is 83 square miles, with a yearly average inflow and discharge of approximately 190 c.f.s. Inflow and discharge during the later part of spring and during the summer months is reduced to as low as 5 c.f.s.
Total useable drawdown is 30 f t. or 7.6 x 104 acre-ft. During those periods of low inflow, cooling water make-up would have to be supplied by the available drawdown of the lake. Maximum useable drawdown (30') could support a 7.0 x 10 4 GPM make-up requirements for approximately 225 days.
, _,.____._,_,__m . , _ _ , , . - _ _ , _
I Since the average yearly runof f for this site is only 13.9 x 104 acre Et, j the yearly reservoir discharge will be decreased to approximately half its l normal value. j A possible site for a cooling pond has been proposed for the Bog ,
Brook area south of First Lake. The maximal surf ace acreage of such a pond I is approximately 2000 acres. The cooling pond requirements for a 2400 MW nuclear unit approximates a total surf ace area of 3600 acres however. Thus, the utilization of such a pond for cooling purposes is not practical without
, supplementary cooling.
Geology and Seismicity. A nuclear station at this site would be mos t af fected by earthquakes which have occurred in the St. Lawrence River Valley.
An ave rage New England design ground acceleration value is anticipated for -
this site.
In general, the geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are suitable and adequate foundation materials. However, no boring data is availabic to determine conditions at the site.
Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $206 million for Unit 1 and $106 million for Unit 2 for a total of $312 million. These figures are based on the following routings:
For Unit 1 -
201 miles on new right-of-way 253 miles on existing right-of-way for Unit 2 -
84 miles on new right-of-way 118 miles on existing right-of-way Accessibility. Route 3, a two lane highway, passes by the site on the west side of the lake. The site is in the area to the east of the river. A t
road would be required f rom Route 3 and a bridge across the river to provide l access to the site area.
Heavier equipment would have to be brought by rail to a point as
( close as possibic and trucked the remaining distance. One possibility would be to ship by rail to Whitefield, New Hampshire which is about 55 miles to the south. It has been determined that some upgrading of the rail f acilities would be required to accommodate the generator stator.
l l
l l
z.y , __ . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ __ _ _.
l I
Region: 11 Name: Montague Location: Town: Montague State: Mass.
Water Source: Connecticut River USGS Quadrangle (s): Greenfield, Millers Falls Description. The Montague Environmental Report, Docket Mos. 50-496, 50-497, was Applicant's source of information.
f Region: II Name: Northfield Location: Town: Northfield State: Mass.
Watersource: Connecticut River USGS quadrangle (s): Northfield Description. The following is taken f rom the Montague Station Environmental Report, Docket Nos. 50-496, 50-497.
The Northfield site consists of about 1,000 upland acres adjacent to and northeast of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project on the Connecticut River. It meets nuclear plant siting criteria in terms of population density / safety, hydrology, geology, and meteorology.
Makeup water for cooling towers would have to be piped either f rom the Connecticut River or f rom the upper reservoir of the pumped storage pr oj e ct . However, by the end of 1973, only 10 percent of the site had been purchased (by Northeast Utilities) and many landowners remained reluctant to sell.
I i
i
k t ,
Region: II I Name: Pontook Rese rvoir Location: . Town: Dumme r State: N.H.
?
Wa tersour ce: Androscoggin Rive r USGS Quadrangle (s): Percy, Milan NOTE: - The following includes summaries and conclusions from a 1967 intensive 24 month study of Pontook site by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
Land Availability and Use. The main reservoir (proposed) would inundate 7,400 acres, including Thirteen Mile Woods, destroying irreplaceable natural beauty and resources. Even the well-conceived plan by Chas. T. Main would not produce recreational and fish and wildlif e benefits that exceed the losses. Normal daily operation of the reregulating reservoir would create mud flats turning the now crystal clear Androscoggin into a muddy stream no longer suitable for industrial processing water so vital to the larger industries of the region. The probability exists that permanent swamps might be created in Errol .due to higher groundwater levels resulting f rom the creation of the main reservoir.
Population Distribution. Less than 500 people per square mile (ER Figure ,
9.2-4).
Cooling Water. Pontook is encumbered by external restrictions not imposed on more economic alternates. Water cannot be used for power generation as needed, but must be released or retained to satisfy other necessary req uireme nt s.
No recreational use would be possible on' the 6-1/2 miles of the Adroscoggin River inundated to create a reregulating reservoir in Milan.
The rapidly fluctuating water level and the tremendous discharge into the reregulating reservoir while power is being produced would pose a constant threat to the safety of humans and wildlife. As a result, all recreational development would _have to be restricted to ~ the area of the main reservoir.
Although the engineering f easibility of the Pontook Project is clearly established, certain operating problems def y solution. Ice congestion in the reregulating reservoir could curtail power production when it is required mos t. The entire capacity of the plant could not be depended on in emergencies, except for very short periods of time, without producing serious downstream damage.
T ra nsmi s s ion. The transmission costs would be similar to those of the Errol site.
e t
[
vy ..---rr+-~--- - - - - - - . <=*vm s-------=<-r~----,,,-.+.-~-.+-+---r---4-~-.-e - . - - , - -
Region: 1V Name: Somerset Reservoir Location: Town: Somerset "erritory State: Vt.
Wa tersour ce: Somerset Reservoir, East Branch of the Deerfield River USGS Quadrangle (s): Londonde rry and Wilmington Land Availability and Use. The reservoir is located in the center of Somerset Territory. No specific site was identified at this location.
All the area around Somerset Raservoir is heavily forested and hilly and is completely undeveloped in the immediate vicinity. The reservoir is visible f rom Mount Snow Ski area about two miles away. With the exception of the transient population at the Mount Snow and Haystack Mountain Ski areas, no significant population clusters exist nearby.
The location is approximately 105 miles northwest of Boston and 20 miles north of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company power plant at Rowe, Massachusetts. It is also about 25 miles northwest of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The nearest large population center is Pittsfield, Massachusetts which is about 40 miles southwest of the site.
Popula tion Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following t ab le :
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 600 0-10 2800 0-20 51,000 0-30 160,000 l
! Cooling Water. Somerset Reservoir located at the head of the East Branch-of the Deerfield River, is operated as a water storage reservoir for
! hydroelectric power generation and recreation. The gross drainage area l f or the reservoir is 30 sq. miles, with a total surf ace acreage of 1622.7 acres.
t Available water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, and natural inflow. Total storage capacity for the Somerset Reservoir comprises 1622 surf ace acres, with a total useable water drawdown of 80 feet or 215 x 109ft3 Maximum useable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 104 CPM make-up requirement for
( approximately 190 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a gross drainage i
area of 30 sq. miles, the Somerset Reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 50 cf s average annual runof f. This is less than the required make-up.
I
~
Geology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the most aseismic areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site.
The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available.
Ac ce s s ibil i ty . Rail transportation via the Boston and liaine Railroad to the general vicinity appears feasible. Some upgrading of roads from the ,
nearest railhead would be required. Reactor vessels and portions of steam generators may .have to be field f abricated since rail and highway facilities are incapable of handling equipment of this size and weight without significant and cos tly upgrading.
T ra nsmi s s ion . Transmission costs have been estimated at $119 million f or Unit 1 and S48 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $167 million.
These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
36 miles on new right-of-way 50 miles on existing right-of-way Convert 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2 -
66 miles on new right-of-way P
Region: IV Name: Harriman Reservoir Loca t ion: Town: Whitingham State: Vt.
Wa te rs our ce : Rese rvoir USGS Quadrangle (s): Wilmington Land Availability and Use. The land around the reservoir is heavily forested and rather hilly. A few houses are located near the east shore. Most of the land in the vicinity is undeveloped and there is no significant agricultural or commercial activity in the area. No specific site selected; as a result no exclusion radius determined.
The reservoir is about 100 miles northwest of Boston, 6 miles north of the Yankee plant at Rowe and 20 miles west of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The nearest population center is Pittsfield, Massachusetts which is approximately 30 miles southwest of the site.
Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table:
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 2500 0-10 6300 0-20 93,000 0-30 231,000 Cooling Water. Located downriver f rom Somerset Dam, the Harriman Reservoir represents the second in a series of water storage facilities situated along the Deerfield River. Like the Somerset Reservoir, Harriman is operated for hydroelectric power generation and recreation.
Available water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, natural inflow, and controlled release f rom Somerset Dam. Total storage capacity for Harriman Reservoir comprises 2,184 surface acres, with a total uscabic water drawdown of 92 f t or 5.0 x 109ft3 Maximum uscable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 10 4 GPM make-up requirement for approximately 380 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a net drainage area of 154 miles, the Harriman Reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 250 cf s average annual runof f.
Additional make-up water would be supplied by the controlled release of S ome rs et s torage wa ters. In combination, all three sources of water would supply adequate make-up water for a 2400 MW nuclear unit.
Geology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the most aseismic
, , . , = . . . . . = -
areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site.
The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock ~
surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available.
Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $78 million 'nr Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $130 million. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1-55 miles on existing right-of-way Convert 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2 -
66 miles on new right-of-way Accessibility. A transport route f rom the railhead at Zoar, Massachusetts on the secondary road system west of State route 8A to State Route 100 appears to be feasible. Route 100 borders Harriman Reservoir on the east.
Some road upgrading would be required. The west side of the reservoir is virtually inaccessible due to the steep topography.
Reactor vessels and portions of steam generators may have to be field f abricated since a significant and very costly upgrading of rail and roads would be necessary to deliver shop f abricated equipment.
i l
l l
f l l l
1
(
\
I
- r. . . .- - ~~.. .,.. -
F Region: IV Name: Rowe - Yankee Location: Town: Rowe and Monroe State: Mass.
Watersource: Deerfield River; Sherman Pond USGS Quadrangle (s): Rowe Land Availability and Use. The site consists of a total of about 2000 acres straddling the Deerfield River in the towns of Rowe and Monroe. Yanke e Atomic Electric Company owns 1,862 acres and the remainder is owned by New England Power Company. Most of this land is on the east side of the river.
The existing generating f acility is located on the east bank on the land adjacent to Sherman Dam. A 2900 foot exclusion radius could be possible.
The site is less than a mile from the Vermont border and about 10 miles east of the city of North Adams, the only community with a population of more than 2500 within 10 miles. The closest city or town with a population of greater than 25,000 is Pittsfield located 21 miles to the south.
There is no industry in the Town of Rowe with the exception of the Yankee and Sherman generating stations and the now operational Bear Swamp pumped storage project. A small paper mill is located at Monroe Bridge, a mile downstream f rom Sherman Dam. A hardwood furniture factory is located in Readsboro, Vermont about 5 miles to the north.
About 10 percent of the land area of the surrounding counties in Massachusetts and Vermont is devoted to agriculture. No crops of commercial importance are grown in the area. Maple syrup is produced in the area.
Large portions of the area are heavily forested. Nearby state and national f orests are unavailable for commercial use. At the site of the power plant, the elevation is about 1150 feet above sea level. Within a borizontal distance of one mile the hills on both sides of the valley rise to about 2000 feet. The steep-slope character of the river extends f rom Wilmington, Ve rmo n t , 12 miles north, to Charlemont, Massachusetts, 8 miles south coutheast. Extensive rock removal to create a flat area which would be large enough for constructing the station would be required.
.. - . . - . . - - - . ._. . - - . . . - . - --~. -
t Popula tion Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table:
. Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 1600 0-10 17,700 0-20 100,500 ,
0-30 260,900 Cooling Water. Sherman Pond, located downriver f rom Harriman Reservoir ;
represents the third in a series of water storage f acilities situated along the Deerfield River.
Available water for closed cycle cooling requirements is provided by the storage contained within the reservoir, natural inflow, and controlled release from Harriman Reservoir. Total storage capacity for Sherman -
Reservoir comprises 218 surf ace acres with a total useable water drawdown of 9 feet or 7.4 x 107 f t . Maximum 3 useable drawdown could support a 7.0 x 104 GPM make-up requirement for approximately 5 days. Based on calculated flow rates for a gross drainage area of 236 miles, the reservoir can be expected to receive approximately 425 c.f.s. average annual runof f.
Additional make-up water would be supplied by the controlled release of Harriman storage waters located upriver.
By combining all three sources of available waters, adequate make-up can be provided for two additional 1200 MW nuclear units on the Sherman Rese rvoir.
Geology and Seismicity. This site is located in one of the most aseismic '
areas in New England. A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site.
The geology of the area is characterized by a shallow, hard bedrock surf ace and dense glacial till deposits. Both the bedrock and till are usually adequate foundation materials. No specific site data are available.
Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $78 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total cost of $130 million. These ;
figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
t 55 miles on existing right-of-way Conve rt 145 miles of 230 kv for Unit 2 - )
66 miles on new right-of-way
Accessibility. A transport route f rom the railhead at Zoar via the existing road system on the east side of the Deerfield River appears to be feasible.
Some road upgrading would be required.
Accessibility for large equipment would be dif ficult and costly but is f easible for a cost somewhat higher than that of the Bear Swamp site which is estimated to be $70 million. Ref er to ER Section 9.2.4.5 for a discussion of the Bear Swamp site.
1 I
l
1 Region: IV Name: Dunbar Brook I.o ca tion: Town: Florida State: Mass.
Wa te rsour ce: Deerfield River USGS Quadrangle (s): Rowe Land Availability and Use. The proposed site is situated on a gently sloping terrace bounded on the east by a steep slope to the Deerfield Riv 3r, which flows south approximately 100 f t. below the site. Dunbar Brook flows east towards the site between two mountains which rise approximately 700 f t.
above general site grade. This brook is dammed just west of the site area and a canal runs along the west side of the site. The water level in the canal and behind the dam is El.1025 i which is 25 f t. above the presently proposed site grade of El.1000.
Population Distribution. Similar to Rowe-Yankee site.
Cooling Water. Water would be withdrawn f rom the Deerfield River. An intake structure could be located north in Sh6rman Pond, in the Deerfield River or to the south in the Bear Swamp lower reservoir. Hydrographic descriptions f or Rowe-Yankee are generally applicable for this site.
Geology and Seismicity. The rocks underlying the site are interlayered schists and gneisses of the Cambrian aged Hoosac Formation which is part of a north-northeast trending belt of intensely folded, sheared, and variably metamorphosed rock units forming the east limb of the Berkshire ant iclinorium. An existing water well encountered rock at a depth of 50 l
! f t. in the vicinity of the proposed northernmost reactor. A second well in the area of the east end of the site bottomed in overburden at an approximate depth of 90 f t. No rock was encountered in this well.
Most of the site appears to be underlain by a thick sequence of sand and gravel deposits and glacial till. A recent slump in the bank dropping of f to the river on the castern side of the site has exposed about 100 f t. of these unconsolidated deposits. The U. S. Geological Survey geologic map of the Rowe quadrangle depicts the unconsolidated materials in the northern half of the proposed site area as stream terrace deposits composed of silt, sand, and gravel formed f rom pre-existing valley train or glacial outwash deposits by downcutting, reworking, and downstream migration of glaciofluvial material (material deposited by glacial meltwater streams). The unconsolidated materials in ene southern half of the site are depicted as water laid ice contact deposits. These are generally gravels, sands, and silts with minor amounts of clay wh1ch are deposited by glacial meltwa ter. The southern half of the site is thus thought to be either a kame terrace or a delta formed during the last glacial epoch.
1 The site is located in one of the most aseismic areas in New England.
A low design ground acceleration value is anticipated for the site.
Transmission. A new transmission system similar to that discussed f or Rowe-Yankee would be required.
A c c e s s ibil i ty . The Dunbar Brook area plant layout indicates an extremely congested site. Extensive site preparation would be necessary should this site be utilized.
With only minimum space available for materials in the site area, labor and equipment costs for rehauling from downstream storage sites are estimated to range up to 10 percent above otherwise normal costs.
Due to extreme dif ficulty in scheduling firm deliveries via truck during winter months, many items would require abnormally early delivery in order to avoid construction delays. These conditions would also require increased storage capabilities as well as River Road maintenance (even though a public road) to ensure all-weather hauling conditions to the site. In addition, improvements to River Road downstream of the Bear Swamp Project will be necessary. The road, in general, should be upgraded to a wider all-weather road. The bridge across the Deerfield River should be replaced with a more adequate structure capable of handling normal truck traf fic as well as the majority of personnel vehicles.
Perhaps in coordination with operational planning for spent fuel shipments, consideration should be given to extending the B&M Railroad with a spur track from the Hoosac Tunnel on the west side of the Deerfield River up at least as f ar as the contemplated storage yards.
o Region: V Name: East Pepperell Location: Town: Pepperell and Dunstable State: Mass.
Wa tersour ce: Merrimack Rive r USGS Quadrangle (s): Pepperell Land Availability and Use. The site is located in the towns of Pepperell and Dunstable, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. With the exception of the towns of Pepperell and East Pepperell, the area in the vicinity of the site is primarily rural in nature. The town of East Pepperell lies 1.5 miles west - southwest of the site. The Nashua River runs 0.25 miles west of the proposed site boundary. Lowell Road (Masssachusetts Route 113) borders the site on the south. The Massachusetts - New Hampshire border runs in an east-west direction two miles north of the site. Lowell, Massahchusetts, is situated 11 miles east of the East Pepperell site.
Nashua, New Hampshire, is 7 miles to the northeast.
A 2000 foot exclusion area may be possible at the site. The land is presently privately owned.
Population Distribution. The population distribution for the East Pepperell site was calculated. A 5 mile radius from the site encompasses the town of Pepperell (population 6963). A 10 mile radius includes parts of Nashua (population 55,820) and Lowell (population 94,239). All of Nashua, Lowell and Fitchburg (population 43,343) lie within a 20 mile radius. A 30 mile radius includes all of Lawrence (population 66,915), Manchester (population 87,754), Framingham (population 64,048) and parts of Worcester (population 176,572).
The East Pepperell population distribution is less than the AEC guideline at distances of less than 8 miles from the site; however, from 8 to 30 miles, the East Pepperell population exceeds the AEC limit.
Cooling Uater. The East Pepperell site is located 6 miles west of the Merrimack River and 0.5 miles east of the Nashua River. Based on 48 years f of historical data the average flow of the Merrimack River at Lowell, Massachusetts, is 7,055 cf s. The minimum daily flow for the same period was 199 cfs. The average flow measured in the Nashua River at East Pepperell
! (36 years) was 515 cf s. The minimum daily flow for that period was 1.1 cfs.
The Nashua River flow in the vicinity of the East Pepperell site is not adequate for plant cooling requirements. However, the flow in the l
Merrimack River would provide sufficient make-up water for evaporative closed cycle cooling. Make-up would utilize less than 2.2% of the average Merrimack River flow and less than 79% of the minimum daily flow given above. The l
- . . . . -. - . .- _- ~_ - --
t Merrimack River flow at Lowell is regulated by the Franklin Falls Reservoir, and by Squam, Newf ound, Winnipesaukee and other upstream lakes and rese rvoirs. Additional make-up water during periods of minimum river flow would be obtained from those bodies of water.'
Geology and Seismicity. The seismic history of the East Pepperell Region
.is characterized by infrequent, low intensity earthquakes. Three ;
instrumentally located epicenters are located nearby. No nearby epicenters ;
exceed intensity IV (MM). The highest intensities experienced in this region probably resulted f rom the Cape Ann earthquakes of 1726 and 17 55. Reports concerning the effects of these ear 5 quakes are scarce. It is. estimated that the maximum intensity was V-V1 (MM). ,
A site located in East Pepperell should expect an average or slightly I below average New England design ground acceleration.
East Pepperell, Massachusetts, is located near the New Hampshire border in an area of Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks, overlain in many places by Pleistocene glacial deposits.
Transmission. Transmission costs for the East Pepperell site have been estimated at $32 million for Unit 1 and $14 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
20 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line 13 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 - ,
23 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new.
Accessibility. Massachusetts Route 113 passes 1000 f eet south of the site. f Route 113 connects with U.S. Route 3 at a point 5 miles east of East Pepperell. Massachusetts Route 2 runs in an east - west direction and passes 10 miles south of the site. Interstate 495 passes within 10 miles southeast
- of the site.
The Boston and Maine _ Railroad runs tangent to the northwestern corner of the proposed site and of fers a direct railroad line to Boston. There is a railhead in East Pepperell. Delivery of the major components by rail s or over road f rom some coastal point would prove to be a major undertaking i and would require a transportation study. However, it is generally known ,
that the railroads and highways leading t'o the site are completely inadequate l l
f or delivery of heavy and wide dimensional componentns. The transportation l f acilities would require significant and costly upgrading, if it is feasible a t all.
The Merrimack River may of fer water access to as far as Lawrence, Massachusetts, without encountering dams. Utilization of the Merrimack River for a water approach is contingent upon the spacing and clearance of bridges en route from Newburyport to Lawrence.
I 1
l l
l i
l l.
a
8 Region: V Name: Salisbury Location: Town: Salisbury State: N.H.
Wa te rsour ce : Merrimack River USGS Quadrangle (s): Newburyport East Newburyport West Land Availability and Use. The site, owned by Applicant, is located on the north bank of the Merrimack River about 2-1/4 miles inland from Salisbury Beach. It is about 35 miles north-northeast of Boston and 30 miles east-southeast of Mar.chester, New Hampshire. The nearest large population center is Haverhill, Massachusetts 12 miles to the west. The town of Newburyport is directly across the river less than two miles away. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts maintains a state beach and park with numerous campsites.
The immediate vicinity is moderately populated and several houses are located along Ferry Road which borders the site. Much of the site area consists of salt marsh. There is a shellfish and sport fishery in the area.
Based on the assumed restrictions on use of the marsh area, it would be fortunate to obtain an exclusion radius of even 1000 feet. Expans ion of the site to increase this radius appears impractical because of the houses in the direction of the required expansion.
Popula tion Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table:
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 33,000 0-10 66,200 0-20 470,700 0-30 1,291,000 The population distribution approximates that of the Zion station which has been licensed. Zion, which is influenced by the Chicago area, is the second most densely populated site which has been licensed to date.
Cooling Water. Once-through cooling is possible at this site. At the site location the Merrimack River experiences tidal reversala and is deep enough to provide adequate water for the intake to a once-through cooling system.
Extensive ice flows and ice blockage are known to occur locally in the river which could pose engineering and maintenance problems for an intake structure on the rive r. Of f shore intake and discharge structures could be located about 3000 f eet of f Salisbury Beach thus making the total distance f rom the site to the offshore intake or discharge about three miles. Swif t tidal currents in excess of 2 knots are reported in the Merrimack River and l
l l
1
adjacent to the river entrance. These currents would encourage dispersion and dilution of the thermal plume.
Storm Exposure and Flooding. The present site grade elevatiot. of about 10 feet MSL would have to be raised to 20 feet MSL to protect safety related structures from flooding.
Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $115 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2 for a total of $167 million. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
51 miles on new right-of-way 26 miles underground f rom Salisbury to Salem for Unit 2 -
5 miles on railroad right-of-way Accessibility. There are good rail and road facilities near the site and heavy coeponents could be barged. A barge docking and un'.oading facility would be required at the site.
l l
l l
1
..-.,,,~,m.>,-,,,,, , , , . . . . , _ , , , _ , . . , , , _ __ _
i Region: VI Name: Gloucester Location: Town: Gloucester State: Mass.
Watersource: Gloucester Harbor; Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Gloucester Land Availability and Use. This site is located about 2000 feet inland f rom the shoreline of Gloucester Harbor near Norman's Woe. The site includes the Gloucester dump, a sanitary landfill. Precise boundaries were not available and it is understood that the land may be of fered for sale by the town of Gloucester. This site is located at the edge of the Magnolia section of Gloucester, a fashionable and moderately densely populated residential area. The site is about 25 miles northeast of downtown Boston.
An exclusion radius has not been determined due to un.ertainty of site boundaries.
Population Distribution. Population data are shown in the following table:
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 33,000 0-10 101,000 0-20 547,000 0-30 2,733,000 This is a high population density which is about the same as that of Zion out to 10 miles and exceeds it beyond that distance.
Cooling Water. Gloucester Harbor and Massachusetts Bay provide an ample supply of cooling water. Water of adequate depth for of fshore intake and !
discharge is found about 1500 feet of f Norman's Woe Cove. This area is I c rowded with fishermen and lobs ter traps in the summer. Difficulty in
! obtaining a right of way for conduits would probably be encountered since residential property is between the site and the water. In addition, the site grade of 100 feet MSL imposes a signficant pumping head penalty.
l Geology and Seismicity. Specific information is not available. However, -
i there is ove rburden of questionable character at the dump.
l Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $238 million for Unit 1 and $168 million for Unit 2 for a total of $416 nillion. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
20 miles underground to Salem ]
2 underground cables 14-1/2 miles each. One cable continues 16 miles on existingon existing right of way. Second cable continues 7 miles on existing right of way. ,
for Unit 2 -
40 miles underground to Seabrook Accessibility. Road transportation is generally good in the area. Barge delivery of components would be feasible if a right-of-way from the water to the site could be obtained.
I t
I r
Region: \11 Name: Plymouth Location: Town: Plymouth State: Mass.
Wa te rsour ce : Cape Cod Esy USGS Quadrangle (s): Manomet Land Availability and Use. There are several candidate sites in the Town of Plymouth. These sites are located aloig a section of shoreline of Cape Cod Bay that extends from Sagamore Beact orth to Rocky Point. Site 1 is located on Rocky Point, in the vicinity :t the Boston Edison Pilgrim Station.
Site 2 is located 0.5 miles inland, near nranberry bogs, on a latitude with Center Hill Point. Site 3 is located 1.5 -ites inland, to the northwest of Eastland Heights and Savery Pond. Site 4 is located 0.5 miles inland, south of Mountain Hill, on a latitude with Lookout Point. Each site can provide an exclusion radius of approximately 0.5 miles.
Population Distribution. All four candidate Plymouth sites lie within 8 miles of Pilgrim Station, located on Rocky Point. Therefore, the population data for Pilgrim Station may be applied to the Plymouth sites as well.
The population distribution for the Plymouth sites exceeds the average, but is less than both the maximum figures for seashore sites and the AEC guideline.
Cooling Water. Since all four candidate Plymouth sites are located within 1.5 miles of Cape Cod Bay, once-through cooling may be feasible for those sites. A 30-foot water depth is reached within a 1.5 mile distance of f any of the sites. However, the depth of bedrock may exclude a tunnel c o ndui t.
Geology and Seismicity. The Plymouth to Cape Cod region has a history of low seismic activity. There are no instrumentally located epicenters within the region and no epicenters in recent times. The highest intens ities experienced in the region were VL1 (MM) during the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. It should be noted that the high intensities were probably a function of poor soil conditions.
A site within this area should anticipate an average New England design acceleration value.
This region consists primarily of Cenozoic glacial and alluvial sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, lying on rocks of Paleozoic age.
Transmission. Transmission costs for the general area have been estimated to be approximately $124 million for two units. However, transmission reliability and stability from this region are of concern, particularly in comparison to Rhode Island. Refer to the response to RAI 300.7 for further discussion.
+ i Accessibility. Massachusetts Route 3A and Route 3 run roughly parallel and serve the length of coastline of interest. A barge unloading f acility would be required to be constructed along the shoreline.
i
(
l
Region: VIII <
Name: Elizabeth Islands Location: Town: Dukes County State: Mass.
Wa t ersour ce: Buzzards Bay (N and NW); Vineyard Sound (S and SW).
USGS Quadrangle (s): Cut tyhunk Size: 145 acre island, Uncatena Island; 2000 foot exclusion radius Land Availability,and Use. The Elizabeth Islands are located between Buzza?ds Bay and Vineyard Sound, southwest of Woods Hole. It is believed that the islands are owned by a wealthy family. Boaters are allowed to use the beaches but no camping is permitted. The islands themselves have f ew residences.
One possible site is Uncatena Island, located two niles southwest of Woods Role. This island is separated from the neighboring islands by the Northwest Gutter and f rom Woods Hole by the Woods Hole passage.
Population. Population data (1970) are shown in the following table:
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 1,100 0-10 16,200 0-20 204,000 0-30 430,000 These figures represent permanent residents only and do not account for the large transient summer population or the student population at Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins titute. The permanent population figures are in line with other licensed sites.
Cooling Water. Water depths of 30 f eet or greater are located approximat2ly 1000 f eet to the northwest. Once-through cooling is the preferred scheme.
Geology and Seismicity. No detailed evaluation of seismicity was made.
However, it is estimated that an average or below average New England design acceleration value would be applied to this site.
It is anticipated that a thick overburden layer (about 1000 feet) would be encountered.
Storm Exposure and Flooding. Flood protection would probably be required.
Transmission. Costs not estimated. Unde rwater construction would be necessary, akukwr==w.:M * ' -
w -- - .= -
t 1
t-Accessibility. Barge delivery of equipment could be provided. No roads '
service the islands. The labor force would have to be ferried.
?
f f
p
,. f' W f _IN ' _"MdM1P MP4 M- 5 f t_q g _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t Region: IX Name: Slocums Neck Loca t ion: Town: Dartmouth State: Mass.
Wa te rsour ce: Rhode Island Sound, Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): New Bedford, South: Westport Land Availability and Use. Sandy beaches bound the site on the south and east. Allens Pond lies to the immediate west of the site. Demarest Lloyd Memorial State Park is situated on Slocums Neck, just northeast of the site, to the east of Barneys Joy Road. With the exception of the park, most of the land in the immediate vicinity of the site is either low density housing, salt marsh or beach. Much of the open land in Dartmouth to the north and northwest of Slocums Neck is used for dairy farming. New Bedford, Massachusetts, is situated seven miles NNE of the Slocums Neck site. Fall River, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, lie 15 and 31 miles, respectively, northwest of the site.
Three houses are situated within the 3000 foot exclusion area.
A large barn is located in the open area in the southern section of the site. The exclusion area consists of open land which slopes up gradually f rom the beach to higher ground (45 foot elevation) on the broad ridgeline which runs along the center of Slocums Neck. The entire exclusion area appears suitable for the location of buildings and equipment associated with power generating facilities. A " low population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available at this site.
Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following t ab ic :
Distance (miles) Total Population 0-5 8,133 0-10 78,832 0-20 377,149 l 0-30 803,735 i l
There are no densely populated urban areas within a 5 mile radius of the site. A 10 mile radius encompasses much of New Bedford (population 101,777) and Fairhaven, Mass. (popula tion 16,3 32) . The 20 mile radius includes all of Fall River (population 96,898) and Somerset, Mass. ;
(popula t ion 18,088), Newpo rt, Rhode Island (population 34,562) and part l of Bristol, Rhode Island (population 17,860). Taunton, Mass. (pop ula tion l 43,756) and much of the Greater Providence area lie within a 30 mile radius f rom the site.
At all distances from the site, the population distribution for Slocums Neck is less than the 1972 maximum cumulative population for seashore l
. _ , _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . - __ __ _ . . _ . - ~ _ . . _- _. .
I sites as well as the AEC guideline.
Cooline Water. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for the Slocums Neck site. The tidal current of f South Dartmouth is generally of greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay.
A water depth of 30 feet is reached at a distance of approximately one-half mile to the south and southeast of the site. The waters to the east and northeast of the site (between Slocums Neck and Smith Neck) are considerably shallowar. The water quality rating for the coastal waters in the vicinity of the Slocums Neck site is " Class SA".
_ Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wa reham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-VI (MM), resulting f rom the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755.
A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value.
The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region.
Transmission. Transmission costs for the Slocums Neck site have been estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and $45 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
63 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line 20 miles of I circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2-72 miles of I circuit 345 kv line All of the required additional transmission lines are new.
Accessibility. The nearest major highways are U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 which run parallel through a point 9 miles north of the site. U.S.
Route 6 links Hartford and Providence with Cape Cod. Interstate 195 connects Providence with New Bedford.
The railroad nearest to the Slocums Neck site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 9.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line of fers a line to both Bos ton and Providence.
o The waters of f the aae. coast of Slocums Neck are open and of fer a sandy bottom to a distance of 200 to 300 yards offshore; therefore, i t appears feasible to barge the necessary equipment and reactor components to that shore.
,.anw 4 nc -- y x nr.' .- e ;;. -
,. y ,nn.-
r.
Region: IX Name: Stony Point Location: Town: Wareham State: Mass. .
Wa tersour ce: Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Onset Size: 390 acres; 3000 foot exclusion radius Land Availability and Use. Stony Point is situated on Great Neck, along the northern shore of. Buzzards Bay, near the western entrance to the Cape Cod Canal. Buzzards Bay borders the site on the south; the Widows Cove ;
and Cape Cod Canal, on the east; and Onset Bay on the north.
New Bedford, Massachusetts, lies 17 miles southwest of the site. ,
Plymouth is located 17 miles to the north. Providence, Rhode Island, lies 40 miles west of the Stony Point site; Boston, Mass., 50 miles NNW. i The major portion of this 390 acre site appears to be owned by the Sacred Heart Seminary. Based on a study of other ownership in the area, there are 12 to 15 owners that must be dealt with at the Stony Point site.
Private ownership is extensive in the area of interest. Numerous buildings are situated on the . individual tracts, and the property value appears to l be substantial. A " low population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available ;
at this site. ;
The 3000 foot exclusion area consists primarily of gradually sloping {
terrain which rises toward Tempes Knob, a hilly area in the southwestern corner of the site. About 20 acres of marshland are located along the ,
shoreline in the vicinity of Cedar Point.
The proposed Stony Point site is approximately 7 miles to the northwest of the major runway at Otis Air Force Base. In addition, the j
~
site will be a maximum of one mile from the centerline of this runway.
Population Distribution. Population data (1970) are shown in the following tabic:
Distance (miles) Total Population ;
0-5 19,324 D-10 49,069 0-20 269,529 !
0-30 636,249 A 5 mile radius from the site encompasses the Towns of Wareham ,
(population 13,516) and Bourne, Massachusetts (population 14,628). A 10 .
mile radius includes no additional urban areas with a population of greater e 9+,,- ( b e- P e ' g e - o+* gty--g- g -m g- ,,.re, ---eeav ee s=g-..- w- g- we,e-e-e.-,, e * -g v- ar-e e e n; .Y -a , w r+e we -er w au w g = - =,eva rt- e ew '+e--=--s*-see-r-meMee<-++w-w+ w e e ---k4 ee e n- -we w
than 10,000. A 20 mile radius includes the City of Plymouth (population 25,546), Middleboro (population 20,000), New Bedford (population 101,777) and Fairhaven, R1ssachusetts (population 16,332). The 30 mile radius encompasses parts of Brockton (population 89,040) and all of Tsuut.on (population 43,7 56), Somerset (population 18,088) and Fall River, Mas sach use t ts (popula tion 9 6,898) .
Cooling Water. Waters of Buzzards Bay lie to the south of Stony Point site. The Cape Cod Canal borders the site on the northeast. Based on the criterion of water availability, the use of once-through cooling may be ,
f easible for the Stony Point site. The spring tidal currents in the Cape Cod Canal approach 4.0 knots. However, typical currents in the upper reaches of Buzzards Bay in the vicinity of Wareham and Marion are considerably weaker than those occurring off Dartmouth.
The water depths are relatively shallow in the vicinity of the Stony Point site. The Stony Point Dike extends 2.0 miles to the southwest of the site. Water depths to the west of the dike are less than 20 feet.
To the east of the dike, the maximum water depth is 25 feet. A 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of 3 miles southwest of the site, in the approximate middle of Buzzards Bay on a latitude with Butler Point.
Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-VI (MM), resulting f rom the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. A site located in this region should expect an average New Englar.d design acceleration value.
The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region.
T ra nsmi s sion. Transmission costs for the Stony Point site have been estimated at $63 million for Unit 1 and $52 million for Unit 2. These j figures are based on the following routings: j for Unit 1 -
36 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 30 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 -
37 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new.
Accessibility. A series of light-duty and unimproved roads crisscross the proposed site area. Three miles north of the site, these roads join l
.- . . - - - .; ; 7.- . ,.,
Massachusetts Route 25 and U.S. Route 6, which of fer direct links to Boston and Providence, r es pe ct ively.
The railroad line nearest to the site is a Penn Central multiple track line which passes 2.5 miles north of the site. This line links Boston, Providence, New Bedford and andas on Cape Cod.
Buzzards Bay of fers direct water access f rom Rhode Island Sound to the Stony Point site. The site may also be approached from Cape Cod Bay via the 800 foot wide Cape Cod Canal. The Widows Cove on the east side of the site appears to be an excellent barge landing site which provides protected, sandy beach zones. The south shore of the Stony Point site also of fers a good landing site in the lee of the Stony Point Dike.
Other. A potential impact to the Stony Point site is its proximity to the Cape Cod Canal shipping lane. Dry freight and petroleum product tanke rs and barges utilize the canal extensively in traveling between Boston and N ew Yo rk. As of this time (1974), Liquid Natural Gas tankers have not been reported to frequent the canal, however, some LNG barge traf fic was noted in the first three months of 1974. The tonnage for January, February, and March 1974 was 12,000, 9,700, and 6,000 tons, respectively.
The only restrictions placed on any ocean going vessel entering the canal are:
- 1. That it must have a draf t not more than 23 feet.
- 2. That the height of the vessel cannot be greater than 135 feet above the waterline.
Region: IX -
Name: Allens Pond
^
Location: Town: Dartmouth State: Mass.
Ma te rsour ce : Rhode Island Sound; Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Westport; New Bedford South Land Availability and Use. Allens Pond, itself, bounds the site area (approximately 1330 acres) on the south. Horseneck Road forms the western site boundary. Horseneck Road and Allens Neck Road correspond to the northern boundary of the site. Jordan Road cons titutes the castern site b ounda ry. New Bedford, Massachusetts, is situated 8 miles northeast of the Allens Pond site. Fall River, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, lie 14 and 30 miles, respectively, northwest of the site.
With the exception of a plot of houses located in back of Horseneck Beach, to the southwest of Allens Pond, most of the land in the vicinity of the site is either low density housing, salt marsh or beach. Much of the open land in Dartmouth to the north of Allens Pond is used for dairy f a rming.
Land ownership investigations indicate that the major portion of the site property is unavailable for private purchase.
The topography of the Allens Pond site area is characterized by a gradual slope f rom higher hilltop elevations (105 feet) north of Horseneck Beach Road down to low lying saltwater marshland along the northern shore of Allens Pond. Two streams, one of which is intermittent, flow north-south across the site area to Allens Pond.
An exclusion radius of 2000 feet can be measured from the outer walls of the two reactor vessels.
Popula tion Dis tribution. Less than 30 houses are located within a 1 mile radius from the center of the Allens Pond site. Most of these residences are situated along the roads on the periphery of the site area.
The Allens Pond site lies in juxtaposition to the Slocums Neck site; therefore, there would not be a significant variation in their respective population distributions at radii of 1 to 30 miles from the site, and thus Slocums Neck population data can be applied to the Allens Pond site as well.
Cooling Water. Allens Pond, located to the immediate south of the site area, is not considered to be an acceptable potential source of cooling water, although the pond is connected to Rhode Island Sound by means of an inlet through Little Beach. Ins tead, it will be necessary to intake l
. .- . ~ _ - .-. . ,
O cooling water directly from Rhode Island Sound. This would'be accomplished by routing an intake to the site either f rom the south (of f Little Beach) or f rom the east (between Barneys Joy Point and Deepwater Point). The average distance from the southern edge of the site area across Allens Pond to Rhode Island Sound is 2300 feet. The minimum distance from the site area to the east across Slocums Neck to Rhode Island Sound is approximately 1600 feet.
The use of once-through cooling appears to be feasible for the Allens Pond s ite. The tidal current of f' South Dartmouth is generally of significantly greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay. To the south of the site, of f Little Beach, a water depth- '
of 30 feet can be reached at a distance of 3200 feet offshore. To the east of the site, in the cove .between Slocums Neck and Smith Neck, the water depth is conside rably shallower. .However, a water depth of 30 feet is reached at a distance of 3200 feet southeast of Barneys Joy Point.
Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter- and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located.within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virtually no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably TLV1 (HM), resulting from the Cape Ann earthquake of 1755.
A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value. .
The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region. ,
Transmission. Transmission costs for the Allens Pond site have been estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and 445 million for Unit 2. These i figures are based on the following routings: ,
for Unit 1 -
63 miles of I circuit 345 kv line 20 miles of 1 circuit 245 kv line for Unit 2 -
72 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All the required additional transmission lines are new.
Accessibility. Several light-duty and unimproved dirt roads run in roughly a north-south direction across the site; at the northern boundary of the site, these small roads join a series of medium-duty roads (Barneys Joy Road, Jordan Road, Horseneck Road, etc.). The nearest major highways are U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 which run parallel through a point 9 miles
. _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ . . . . . _ . _ _ - . . _ _ . _ . ~ . . , _ . . . _ - _ _ . - . - _ , . . _ _ . , . . . , - . _ . _ . . . . - _ , . . -
north of the site. U.S. Route 6 links llartford and Providence with Cape Cod. Interstate 195 connects Providence with New Bedford.
The railroad neares t to the Allens Pond site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 9.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line of fers a link with both Boston and Providence.
With the exception of the section of shoreline along Barneys Joy point, the entire coastline f rom florseneck Beach east to Deepwater Point of fers a sandy, relatively rock-f ree barge landing area.
n
[
Region: IX Name: Round 11111 Point Location: Town: Dartmouth State: bbss.
Watersource: Rhode Island' Sound; Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): New Bedford South Land Availability and Use. Hetty Green Street and a smaller, light-duty road border the site on the north. Smith Neck Road corresponds roughly to the western site boundary.
New Bedford, bbssachusetts is situated 4 miles north of the Round Hill Point site. Fall River, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island lie 15 and 30 miles, respectively, northwest of the site.
The eastern halfaof the exclusion area (1600 feet or more) consists ,
of flat, low-lying, open land. The western section consists of marshland and gradually sloping wooded terrain.
The major portion of this location (approximately 300 acres) was ,
originally owned by Society of Jesus of New England (known as the Jesuit !
, Order). The Town of Dartmouth has acquired for recreational purposes a sub-stantial tract of this land including a large section of the south beach area. The town land plus marsh and wetlands and exclusive housing bordering the north boundary of the site would likely preclude development of this site l for a power plant. l Population Distribution. Nearly 200 houses are located within a 1 mile radius of the Round Hill Point site. Most of these residences are located along Smith Neck Road, to the east and southeast of the site.
The Round Hill Point site is located less than 3.5 miles southwest of the Slocums Neck site. Due to the proximity of the two sites, there would not be a significant variation in their respective population distributions at radii of 1 to 30 miles from the sites. Therefore, the discussion of the i population distribution for 1 to 30 miles from the Slocums Neck site applies to l the Round Hill Point site as well. j i
l l
Cooling Water. Buzzards Bay lies to the east and northeast of the Round Point site; Rhode Island Sound, to the southwest. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for the Round Hill Point site. The tidal cur rent of f South Dartmouth is generally of significantly greater velocity than are the currents measured f arther up in Buzzards Bay. The water depth off the Round Hill Point site increases f airly rapidly. To the east of the site, a 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of 2000 feet offshore. To the south of the site, the 30 foot water depth is reached in as little as 30 f eet of f shore.
Geology and Seismicity. There is one instrumentally located epicenter and one intensity V (MM) epicenter located within the Wareham to South Dartmouth Region. Aside from these, there are virutally no other epicenters in the Wareham-South Dartmouth area. The maximum intensity experienced in this region was probably V-\1 (MM), resulting f rom the Cape Ann carhtquake of 1755.
A site located in this region should expect an average New England design acceleration value.
The bedrock geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists of late Precambrian and early Paleozoic felsic intrusive rocks. Some glacial outwash and till deposits are also found in the region.
Transmission. Transmission costs for the Round Hill Point site have been estimated at $76 million for Unit 1 and $50 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
71 miles of 1 circuit 345 kv line 25 miles of 2 circuit 345 kv line for Unit 2 -
77 riles of 1 circuit 345 kv line All of the required additional transmission lines are new.
Accessibility. Hetty Green Street, a medium-duty road, runs the length of the site area. A series of medium-duty roads connects the site with parallel-running U.S. Route 6 and Interstate 195 at a point 8 miles north of the site. U.S. Route 6 links Hartford and Providence with New Bedford.
The railroad nearest to the site is a multiple track Penn Central line which has its southern terminus in New Bedford, at a point 6.5 miles north of the site. The Penn Central line of fers a link to both Boston and Providence.
The rocky coastal waters to the cast of the Round Hill Point site would hinder water access to that eastern shore. However, the southern
. . _ . _ - - . . -_ ~ . . . . -. ._ . ..
shore of the site of fers a sandy, rock-f ree, relatively protected site for landing barget.
f
, . , . - , . - , - , , - , - . ,n,,, , - - ., , , - ,n- e.,e. - , m,.n-,n,, , , ,n, ~, ,, -
=
Region: IX -
Name: Warren Point Location: Town: Little Compton State: R.I.
-Watersource: Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Sakonnet Point Land Availability and Use. The major disadvantage of the Warren Point site is the number of residences located within the 1/2-mile exclusion area.
There are 50 houses situated on the relatively small 156 acre site. On that basis, the site must be rated " low priority".
In the 1990 Preliminary Land Use Plan, the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program recommends that the site be used for seasonal housing and recreation. Statewide Planning indicates that "the predominantly rural character of the Little Compton community must be considered in determining whether or not industrial development should be allowed". It is further suggested that the relatively remote location of the site does not favor industrial development.
Transmission Transmission costs for the Warren Point site have been estimated at $67 million for Unit 1 and $41 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 - 99 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 72 miles of 345 kv, overhead ,
t e
r Region: IX Name: Quicksand Pond Location: Town: Little Compton State: R.I. ,
Wa tersour ce: Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Tiverton; Salconnet ;
Land Availability and Use. Rhode Island Sound lies to the south of the ,
site. Quicksand Pond borders the site on the east. Maple Avenue constitutes the western boundary of the site. The northern site boundary runs just below Sisson Road.
The site is located in the Town of Little Compton, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The Rhode Island - Massachusetts border passes 0.7 miles east of the site, which is. situated on Rhode Island' Sound. Newpo rt , Rhode Island lies 8 miles west of the proposed site. Fall River, Massachusetts is situated 13 miles to the NNW of the site; New Bedford, tbssachusetts, 14 miles to the norther .; and Providence, Rhode Island, 26 miles to the >
northwest. .
The size of the Quicksand Pond site is 630 acres. The exclusion -
radius for the site could be as large as 4,100 feet. Eight houses are located within the proposed exclusion area.
The exclusion area consists primarily of gradually sloping tercsin which rises from the beaches at the southern end of the site to higher lard to the north. Most of the land is used for agriculture.
1 A major consideration for the Quicksand Pond site is the unavailability of the desired acreage. The site is presently owned by multiple private owners. One of the major land owners will not sell his p rope rty. In the Coastal Resources Center's Rhode Island Barrier Beach study, the bulk of the site area is identified as " private, limited development". Tunipus Beach, to the south of Tunipus Pond, is listed as -
a town beach, while the beaches to the east are privately owned.
In order to supply cooling water for the Quicksand Pond site, it is likely that intake and discharge conduits would be routed through or under the barrier beaches on the southern perimeter of the site. The Rhode Island Coastal Resource Center has made recommendations for use of the barrier beaches.The Quicksand Pond Barrier Beach extends eastward f rom Stony Point. At the western end, the beach is sandy but the pebble content increases to the cast. A low, well vegetated dune increases in height to the west. It is cut by many washovers. Isolated dunes reaching elevations of 10.5 ft. above MSL rise on either side of an active breachway about half way down the barrier. The pond is f ringed by marsh.
The land on either side of the barrier is privately owned. Ownership
'i f.T i7MNN E'*.7,"* N " 7. 71, ,_.y.y l.h ' "
ne -. y l 7.y . ,.7_ 7, ,,,. y y
. --_ - -- . . . - _ . .~ -.~ ~ -. . . .- - - . - - . - - - -.
i of the barrier is disputed between the town and the owner of the Stony Point head la nd. There is a privately managed public beach on this headland.
1 CRC's Study Considerations are as follows:
- 1. Development of this barrier should be prohibited.
- 2. The future of this barrler as a Conservation Area should be assured.
- 3. The existing public right-of-way should be improved to make public ,
access easier. Additional access points may be needed in the future.
- 4. Ef forts should be made to rebuild and stabilize the barrier dune. ;
All access to the beach across the dunes should be restricted to stabilized walkways.
- 5. Public use should be limited to light recreation. t Cooline-Water. The waters of Rhode Island Sound lie to the south of the quicksand Pond site; Tunipus Pond, to the west; and Quicksand Pond, to the east. -The use of either Tunipus Pond or Quicksand Pond for cooling purposes is not recommended, due to the possibility of deleterious ef fects on the saltwater pond environment; therefore, Rhode Island Sound would be the sole source of cooling water for the site.' The use of once-through cooling should be feasible for the Quicksand Pond site.
The water depth of f the Quicksand Pond site increases fairly rapidly. 3 A depth or 30 feet can be reached within a distance of 2,600 feet of fshore.
Transmiq31on. Transmission costs for the Quicksand Pond site have been -
estimated at $61 million for Unit 1 and $39 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings: ,
1 for Unit 1 - 84 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 - 67 miles of 345 kv, overhead Storm Exposure and Flooding. All south shore barriers are low and exposed to severe storm damage.
h i
t e
9- -9MSU99 usbs**- % 7 ##= Wb+ ya . y p e,pw a . - np 4m yg any,y , ,- & 4 <-np..,-,_s.p.,, as -ete,-,, ,-py.p-..--yw.w,q-c,.-~,- -
Region: IX Name: Gooseberry Neck Location: Town: Westport State: Mass.
Wa te rsou r ce : Rhode Island Sound, Buzzards Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Westport Land Ava ilability and Use. The site is located on the southern coast of Massachusetts bounded by Buzzards Bay to the cast and Rhode Island Sound to the west. The neck is approximately 4,000 f t long (N-S), 800 to 1,400 f t wide, and contains 85 + acres. The average cicvation is 10-12 f t with the high point slightly more than 20 f t. Three small bodies of water are located on the neck. Two U.S. Coast and Geodetic and one Department of Public Works Survey monuments are located on the site.
Three abandoned concrete coastal watch towers and the remains of a bunker are located approximately two-thirds of the way down the neck.
A road, which was paved at one time, runs to the tower area. No cicctric, telephone, or domestic wa ter services are available on the site, but electric and telephone services were observed in the nearby beach community.
The Goosebury Meck site is located in Westport, Massachusetts about 12 miles southwest of New Bedf ord, Massachusetts and about 16 miles southeast of Fall River, Massachusetts. Gooseberry Neck is an island in Buzzards Bay connected to the mainland by a causeway approximately 1,000 feet long.
The ground surface is l'eregular with rounded knobs, four small marsh ponds, and nostly gentle slopes except fo r s teep wave-cut slopes at the upper edge of the beach. A boulder-strewn beach surrounds the island; some sandy beach is present on the northeast side. The island is covered by grass and scrut growth; there are no tall trees.
1 The visual impact of a plant on Gooseberry Neck would be noticeable.
The containment building would be visible as far away as Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, to the west, and the Elizabeth Islands, to the east and south-east. The island is part of Horse Neck Beach State Reservation.
l Cooling Water. An advantage that the Gooseberry Neck site offers is the
' existence of deep water at a relatively short distance offshore. The most likely location of a diffuser discharge would be to the west side (t wa rd the ocean) of Gooseberty Neck, where a thirty f oot water dept h is reached in as little as 2550 feet offshore. Also, Gooseberry Neck appears to be a likely site for an onshore intake structure.
Transmission. The transmission for this site would be similar to that of
the Allen's Pond si*e, except, due to aesthetic considerations, it would likely be necessary to use underwater cable to reach the mainland.
Geology and Seismicity. The Gooseberry Neck site is underlain by boundary, silty, sandy till soil which mantles rock of probable Precambrian age at dapths estimated to be 10 to 50 feet below the surf ace. Some organic soil may be present beneath four small ponds on this island.
Two rock outcrops seen on the west shore consist of pink coarse-grained granite gneiss. In one outcrop the granite gneiss intrudes gray, f ine-grained diorite. These rocks are probably part of the Dedham Granadiorite. A small f ault having an apparent lef t lateral displacement of one-half inch was noted in one outcrop. A possible slickenside surf ace in granite gneiss strikes north and dips about 20 degrees to the east.
The glacial till is well exposed on the northwest shore and at the easternmost point of the island. This till appears to be a dense gravelly fine sand to silty sand with numerous cobbles and boulders up to 15 feet in diameter. The fines seem to be non-plastic.
No major faults are known to exist in the Gooseberry Neck area.
The nearest mapped f aults are located in Newport, Rhode Island and Tiverton, Rhode Island approximately 15 miles from the site. These faults are considered minor and inactive.
Accessibility. The only road access to the site is via a narrow (20 ft) causeway approximately 400 ft long, which is concrete paved and would require upgrading for construction. Some recent minor erosion was observed. The closest railroad line appears to be near Fall River. The best route to the area is Route 88. Route 88 is a wide double lane road, in good condition f rom the intersection of I-195 to the Horseneck Beach area. John Reed Road also appears to be in good repair from Route 88 to East Beach Road. The stretch of East Beach Road to the causeway is narrow and congested with beach houses, taverns, and obvious summer activities. Road access to the site would be hampered by beach traf fic during summer months. Addition of an alternate road is not feasible.
The bridge across East Branch would limit the weight of loads by truck. Construction traf fic would be hindered and cause a considerable impact on the Horseneck Beach area during the summer months.
Of f site construction storage would have to be developed due to the limited area available on the neck. A barge of f-loading f acility would be required for receiving all heavy loads and possibly other materials to keep truck traffic to a minimum. A large quantity of imported earth fill would be required, and barge delivery should be considered. A barge slip could be constructed on the Buzzards Bay side.
Other construction f acilities such as parking, change houses, warehousing, shops, and concrete batch plant would be limited for a one-unit site and very dif ficult for a two-unit site. The major labor market
would be Providence, Rhode Island, Fall River, New Bedford, and to some extent the Boston area.
Region: IX Name: Moonstone Beach Location: Town: South Kingstown State: R.I.
Wa t e rsour ce: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Kingstown Land Availability and Use. The 248 acre site consists of flat farm land ten to twenty feet above mean sea level. Salt marsh and a pond extend toward the beach. A barrier beach exists along the shore. An exclusion radius of 1250 f eet would be available.
Snug Harbor and Calilee lie two and one half miles east of the location. It is three fourths of a mile to the nearest summer resort housing.
The land is open; this brings in the problem of visual impact.
Howeve r, the problems inherent in acquiring the valuable site property, owned by at least five parties, may preclude the possibility of locating nuclear generating facilities on the site. In fact, contact with a major land owner revealed that the site is unavailable.
Transmission. The transmission from this site would be similar to that of the Charlestown site.
Popula tion Distribution. Population distribution is similar to Charlestown site.
Cooling Water. The estimated straight line distance f rom the proposed site to the 30 foot contour depth is 7,500 feet. The site is considered suitable f or a once-through cooling sys tem.
Geology and Seismicity. The bedrock depth is not known. The surface consists of glacial outwash. Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site.
Accessibility. Transportation access to the site would be considerably more difficult than that of the Charlestown site because it is separated f rom U.S. Route 1 by a mile of narrow, secondary roads which traverse a developed residential area.
E Region: IX Name: Weckapaug Location: Town: Westerly , State: R.I.
Ua t e rsour ce : Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Watch Hill Land Availability and Use. The 157 acre site is four miles to the .Wes terly-Pawcatuck area and one-half mile to Weckapaug. Quonochontaug Pond and Quonochontaug Beach lie to the NE and east of the site area. Block Island Sound is south. Site elevation is ten to twenty feet above mean sea level.
The 1,250 foot radius is extremely short and likely inadequate for licensing purposes. Due to the proximity of residential housing,'the exclu-sion radius cannot be extended without undue social impact.
Population Distribution. The combined population of the Westerly-Pawcatuck area is 22,500. Much of Weekapaug itself is summer residences. The population distribution of the Charlestown site is similar due to its proximity.
Cooling Water. The distance from the site to the thirty foot depth is 5,400 feet. Once through cooling is feasible.
Geology and Seismicity. The site area consists of glacial till and outwash underlaid with Narragansett Pier Granite. The depth of this is unknown.
Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site.
Transmission. The transmission from this site would be similar to that of the Westerly site (see RAI 300.17.c) except that the last mile of transmission would pass through a more populated area with correspondingly higher visibility in the coastal area.
Region: IX Name: Dunn Corner Location: Town: Westerly State: R.I.
Wa te rsour ce: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Watch Hill Size: 1800 acres (less than 50 acres usable) Exclusion radius: 3000 ft.
Land Availability and Usa. The area is somewhat removed f rom the coastline and lies northwest of Dunn Corner. The site is surrounded by swamp land.
The terrain between the site and the ocean consists of cas, hills 50-100 f eet high composud of glacial-till and boulders tot ard shore. There is glacial outwash, then a salt pond and a long barrier beach.
Westerly-Pawcatuck area lies west-northwest of the proposed site.
The area is bounded as follows: N-Westerly Bradford Road, N-Chapman Pond, E-Old Shore Road and S-Post Road.
Popula tion Distribution. The population distribution should he similar to that of the Westerly site for distances beyond 5 miles.
Cooling Water. The distance to the thirty foot depth is 16,500 feet.
Routing cooling water over this distance may be prohibitively expensive.
T ra nsmis sion. Transmission f rom the site would be similar to that of the Westerly site.
A c ce s s ibili ty . Dunn Corner is formed by the junction of Post Road, a heavy duty road, and Old Shore Road, a medium duty road (which has shown increased urban growth since 1975 as seen f rom aerial view) both in Westerly. The Penn Central Railroad runs within a mile of the pror 3 sed site.
)
i Region: IX Name: Westerly Industrial Park (State Airport)
Location: Town: Westerly State: R.I.
Wa t ersour ce: Block Island Sound USGS Quadrangle (s): Watch Hill Land Availability and Use. The 360 acre site area consists of very hilly terrain with elevations ranging f rom 50-100 feet. The land is bordered on the north by the Westerly Airport Industrial Park; on the west by Winnapaug Road, with the exception of street front homes; on the south by Shore Road; and on the east by Sand Hill Road. Proximity to the Westerly Airport may pose a problem since the plant would be located between the runway glide paths.
Water depths of 60 feet are attainable within 10,000 f eet of the preposed plant lecation, and access to the ocean does not appear to be impossible even though it entails crossing of Winnapaug Pond and some point along Misquamicut State Beach.
Popula tion Dis cribution. T*ne town of Westerly is approximately two miles f rom the pror.osed site. Its population is approximately 17,000. The outskirts o. Westerly are thought of as a low-population area, although r
it appears that some urban development has been occurring in the past few yours. Hisquamicut area is one mile from the proposed site.
Coolita Water. The distance to the thirty foot depth contour from the proposed site is 7,500 feet. Once-through cooling appears feasible.
Geology and Seismicity. The site consists of end moraine of very strongly collapsed mound and ridge and kettle topography. The depth of the bedrock is not known. There is some ledge rock on the area. Glacial outwash extends toward shore.
Seismicity should be similar to the Charlestown site.
Trarisnission. Transmission f rom the site would be similar to that of the Westerly site (see Question 300.17.c).
, , - . . _ , - _ , , _ , . - , _ , . , - - . . , - , _ - - - _ ~
Region: 1X Name: Sachuest Point Location: Town: Mid dle town , State: R.I.
Wa t e rsour ce: Sakonnet River - Atlantic Ocean USGS Ouadrangle(s): Sakonnet Point Ly d Availability and lise. The site rests on a broad, low promontory at the southeastern corner of Aquidneck Island. The surface altitude increases f rom sea level along the' coast to a 10 foot elevation within 100 of the coast, to a maximum on-site elevation of 45 feet on a hilltop near the center of the proposed site. A lesser hilltop of 35 foot elevation is situated i
in the northeastern part of the site.
The site is located in the town of Middletown, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The Sakonnet River lies to the immediate west of the site; Rhode Island Sound, to the south. The city of Newport, Rhode Island , lies 6 miles south of the site. Fall River, Mass".chusetts, is located 12 miles to the northeast; Providence, Rhode Island, 18 miles to the northwest of the site.
Sachuest Point could probably support limited permanent or seasonal housing. The site might also be used as conservation area, thus enlarging the existing conservation land (Norman Bird Sanctuary) which lies to the north of the site.
The size of the Sachuest Point site is approximately 200 acres.
The exclusion area encompasses all the land labelled as "U.S. Naval Reservation" (on the topographic map), plus a small tract of about 9 acres situated just north of the reservation. There are no residences on the site. Current land use precludes development for a power plant site.
Popula tion Distribution. There are less than 100 residents within a 1 mile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site l is approximately 1500 people. About 8300 people live within 3 miles of the site. The 2 and 3 mile radii include part of the Middictown, Rhode Island population. At 5 miles from the site, the population is 64,200.
The 5 mile radius encompasses mos t of the densely popula ted Newport-Middletown area. The population increases to 89,200 at a 10 mile distance from the Sachuest Point site. The 10 mile radius includes densely populated
! areas in James town and Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and Westport, Massachusetts.
I 1
l
- . . . . . - . . - ~ _ . - - .. _ . . .
i
\
Cooling Water. ThepotentialsourcesofcoolingwaterfortheSachuest Point. site are the Sakonnet River and Rhode Island Sound. Based on the criterion.of' water availability,- the use of once-through cooling appears ;
i f easible for the Sachuest Point site. The water depth off the site incre c3 rapidly; the 30 foot contour can be reached within 500 feet to the southesst; i the 60 foot contour, within 4000 feet. The water depths to the west of l the site (Sachuest Cove) and to the northeast are considerably shallower. ]
For this reason, intake conduits would probably be directed to the south 1 or southeast of the site, into deeper Rhode Island Sound waters.
Accessibility. A paved road runs along the western shore of the Sachuest Point site. Via local roads f rom the site, it is about 2.7 miles to the 1 junction of R.I. Route 138. Route 138 extends north for 11 miles to the l intersection of Route 24 in Tiverton, Rhode Island. Five miles farther i north, Route 24 intersects Interstate 195, which links with Interstate 95 in Providence, Rhode Island. -l The Sachuest Point site might also be approached from the west by :
~
using the 22 foot, two lane,1.5 mile long Jamestown Bridge and the four ,
lane, 2.25 mile Newport Bridge.
' The Sachuest Point site of fers direct water access from Rhode Island :
Sound. The site might also be approached f rom Providence by using the East Passage of Narragansett Bay, then heading east along the south coast of ,.
Aquidneck Island to Sachuest Point. ,
T ransmission. Transmission costs for the Sachuest Point site have been f estimated at $115 million for Unit 1 and $40 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
10 miles of 345 ky, underground and submarine 84 miles of 345 kv, overhead i
i for Unit 2 -
67 miles of 345 kv, overhead l
l l
[
l I
,-,.m ,.-,,-.-.,_.-mv,.ww,,,,, ..-..,,%v,_~.... ,,,,,,_cy . , - - - , , - , - . _ , . . , _.,.-.m -. . - - - .
o Region: X Name: Mackerel Cove Location: Town: Jamestown State: R.I.
Wa tersour ce: Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier ,
Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the southern end of Conanicut Island. Mackerel Cove and the East Passage of Narragansett Bay bound the site on the east. Hull Cove lies to the south of the site. Austin Hollow and the West Passage of Narragansett Bay lie to the west of the site.
The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 4.5 miles east of the site.
Providence, Rhode Island is situated 24 miles to the north of the site; Fall River, Massachusetts, 20 miles, northeast.
The size of the Mackerel Cove site is 245 acres. Only two houses are situated within the proposed 2200 foot radius exclusion area. Beavertail Road runs in a north-south direction to the immediate west of the site.
The site lies on a hilltop which ends abruptly in steep 40 foot clif f s on the east. The surf ace altitude increases f rom sea level along the coast to a maximum of 65 feet on the hilltop, then falls away gradually to the west. The land cover on the site consists largely of agricultural fields; there is also some dense, low shrubbery along part of the coast. Except for a 5 acre tract of marshland in the southern part of the exclusion area, the entire site appears to be suitable for the location of buildings or equipment associated with generating facilities.
The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program's Preliminary Land Use Plan for 1990 recommends locating seasonal housing in the vicinity of the Mackerel Cove site, thereby continuing the current trend in the area. The site is not presently zoned for industry. The remoteness of the site and the lack of public utilities can be considered impedements to the developments of the area.
[ Popula tion Distribution. There are less than 100 residences within a 1 mile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site is approximately 1800 people and includes more than one-half the Jamestown popula tion. About 4600 people live within three miles of the site. The three mile radius encompasses part of the densely populated section of l
N ewpo r t , Rhode Island. At five miles from the site, the population is 44,400; this figure includes all of Newport and the densely populated Narragansett Pict area. The population increases to 135,700 at a 10 mile distance from the Mackerel Cove site.
l The prevailing southwest wind is of particular importance for the Mackerel Cove site since it places downwind densely populated areas on nearby Aquidneck Island. A sector formed by a SW wind, plus or minus 10 degrees,
blowing of f the Mackerel Cove site contains 7400 people within a 5-mile downwind span. About 18,900 people live within a 10-mile downwind sector.
A 15-mile downwind sector contains 27,200 residents and encompasses parts ,
l of Newpo rt, Middic town, Tiverton and mos t of the popula tion of Portsmouth.
Cooline Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the immediate east of the Mackerel Cove site and constitutes the cooling water source f or the proposed site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible f rom an engineering standpoint.
The depth of the East Passage waters adjacent to the site increases rapidly to 60 feet in as little as 600 feet offshore. A 30 foot depth is reached at a distance of only 400 feet offshore. Due to this relatively fast increase in water depth, any dredging required for installation of intake and/or outfall f acilities would be minimized.
The clif f s along the shore of the Mackerel cove site are 40 to 50 f eet high. Therefore, operation of a power plant on the site would necessitate pumping cooling water up to the site level.
Transmission. Transmission costs for the Mackerel Cove site have been estimated at $71 million for Unit 1 and $41 million for Unit 2. These figures are based on the following routings:
for Unit 1 -
4 miles of 345 kv, underground and submarine 82 miles of 345 kv, overhead for Unit 2 -
81 miles of 345 kv, ove rhead Accessibilitv. Beavertail Road, running north-south, passes through the perimeter of the Mackerel Cove site. Three small roads branch of f Beavertail Road and run across the site to the coast of Jamestown. One and one-half miles north of the site, Beavertail Road joins North Main Road -- a hard-surf aced, two lane road which runs the length of Conanicut Island. Conanicut Island is connected to the Saunderstown area across the West Passage of Narragansett Bay by the 22 foot, two lane, 1.5 mile long Jamestown Bridge, and to the Newport area across the East Passage by the four lane, 2.25 mile long Newport Bridge.
The road distance f rom the Mackerel Cove site to the Jamestown Bridge is 5.6 miles. R.I. Route 138 connects the Jamestown Bridge with north-south l
running U.S. Route 1 at a point 2.6 miles from the western terminus of the
[
James town Brid ge. U.S. Route 1 leads to South County Trail, which in turn, l
joins Interstate 95 -- the major link between Boston and New York. The road distance from the junction of R.I. Route 138 and U.S. Route l to Interstate 95 is approximately 9.5 miles.
- - - . -m_.,m.__ _ . . _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_, , _ . _ ,
I i
No railroads reach Conanicut Island. The nearest rail link is the little used track which parallels the coast of Aquidneck Island. On the mainland to the west are the more important Penn Central tracks.
Vessels may approach the Mackerel Cove site f rom Rhode Island Sound by traveling up either the West Passage or East Passage of Narragansett Bay. A vessel using the East Passage may anchor in Mackerel Cove, whereas a vessel using the West Passage might anchor in Dutch Harbor or Shef field ,
Cove.
9 , , - + -- ,, . .r, ,.-,- v v y --.e-. 4 -- .,--w -,,,-.,-r- -c.v-, .,.n-,,,%,. . .,_,m , .. . , , - < - - - - - - - -
l l
i Region: X Name: Jamestown Island Location: Town: Jamestown State: R.I.
Wa tersour ce : Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier Land Availability and Use. Carr Lane, running east-west, lies to the south of the site. Conanicut Park is situated to the north. North Main Road borders the site on the west, and the East Passage of Narragansett Bay bounds the site on the east. The site is currently used for seasonal residential development and agriculture. However, the entire site lies within an 808 acre tract of land zoned for industry.
The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 5 miles southeast of the site. Providence, Rhode Island is situated 20 miles north-northwest of the site; Fall River, tbssachusetts,16 miles northeast.
Although the Jamestown Island site is zoned for industry, the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program reports that the remoteness of the site, the lack of public utilities, and the general character of Conanicut Island (Jamestown) can be considered as impedements to the development of the area.
The beach area at Cranston Cove in the southern part of the site is of recreational value, as is part of the site lying west of East Shore Road which is open to upland game hunting.
Recreational uses of the Jamestown Island site include the incorporation of the site in a proposed Islands National Park which would encompass areas on Prudence, Dyer, Hope, Dutch and Gould Island as well as several minor islands in Narragansett Bay.
The size of the Jamestown Island site is 333 acres. The proposed exclusion radius is one-half mile. Nineteen houses are situated within the exclusion area. East Shore Road runs in a north-south direction through the site. The topography of the site area is characterized by a uniform, gradual slope in the eastern part of the site, and by relatively flat terrain in the western part of the site. The surface altitude increases from sea level along the coast to a maximum on-site elevation of 55 feet at distances of 600 to 1500 feet inland. Land cover consists primarily of agricultural fields plus some hardwood and dense shrub cover. All of the site area appears suitable for the location of buildings or equipment associated with power generating facilities.
Popula tion Distribution. Approximately 100 residents live within a 1 mile radius of the site. The population within a 2 mile radius of the site is 300 people. About 2800 people live within 3 miles of the site; this 3 mile radius includes part of the populous Newport-Middletown area. At 5 miles
f rom the site, the population is 39,200; the 5 mile radius includes much of the Newport-Middletown area as well as Wickford, Rhode Island. The population increases to 117,000 a t a 10-mile dis tance f rom the site.
The Jamestown Island site is less than 4 miles f rom Rome Point.
Therefore, the far-field population data for the proposed Rome Point site would not be expected to vary significantly from the Jamestown Island site data.
Cooling Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the east of the James town Island site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible f or the Jamestown Island site f rom an engineering standpoint. The East Passage of fers the deepest waters in Narragansett Bay. Due to the relatively rapid increase in water depth on the eastern side of the site (30 feet of water in a 400-1000 foot distance offshore; 60 feet of water in as little as 800 feet of f shore) any dredging required for installation of intake and/or outf all f acilities would be minimized.
Geology and Seismicity. Bedrock at the site is classified as Pennsylvanian rock of the Narragansett Basin. This formation which is approximately 300 million years old underlies the whole Bay area and extends northeastward into Massachusetts. This sedimentary rock consists primarily of conglomerate, sandstone, shale lithic graywacke, graywacke and small amounts of meta-anthracite. These sediments range in thickness up to 11,000 feet.
They are folded and f aulted and were subjected to metamorphism in the Late Paleozoic period about 250 million years ago.
Transmission. Transmission of power f rom the Jamestown Island site might involve laying unde rwater 345 kv cable across the 1.9 mile distance f rom Jamestown to Rome Point. Though the cos t of the required unde rwater t ransmission would be relatively high, such a transmission route of fers the advantage of utilizing the Rome Point transmission right-of-way.
Accessibility. East Shore road, running north-south the length of Jamestown, passes through the Jamestown Island site. Conanicut Island (Jamestown) is connected to the Saunderstown area across the West Passage of Narragansett i Bay by the 22 foot, two lane,1.5 mile Jamestown Bridge, and to the Newport area across the East Passage by the four-lane, 2.25 mile Newport B rid ge .
l The road distance from the Jamestown Island site is 3.6 miles. l R.I. Route 138 connects the Jamestown Bridge with north-south running U.S. l Route 1, 2.6 miles from the western terminus of the Jamestown Bridge. Four l miles to the north, U.S. Route 1 intersects South County Trail. This road l in turn intersects Interstate 95 -- the major link between Boston and New i York -- at a poiat 5.5 miles further north. l l
The road distance from the Jamestown Island site to east-west running l Interstate 195 -- using the Newport Bridge -- is about 25 miles. Interstate 195 links with Interstate 95 in Providence.
No railroads reach the island. The nearest rail link is the little 1 l
l
used track which parallels the coast of Aquidneck Island. On the mainland to the west are the more important Penn Central tracks. -
The heavier power plant components cannot be transported over either the Newport of James town Bridges. Therefore, it is expected that heavy power plant components would be barged directly into the site or to accessible sections of the island such as Mackerel Cove or Dutch island Harbor, and then transported overland to the site. Vbssels may approach the Jamestown Island site by traveling up the East Passage of Narragansett Bay from Rhode Island Sound. The site is 7 miles north of Brenton Point, the lower end of the East Passage.
I 1
l i
1
f-Region: X Name: Melville - Carr Point Location: Town: Portsmouth State: R.I.
Wa t ersour ce: East Passage of Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Prudence Island Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the west side of Aquidneck Island and lies SSE of Prudence Island and Dyer Island. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay bounds the site on the west. Weaver Cove lies just north of the site along the Portsmouth coast. Lawton Valley Reservoir is situated 700 feet southeast of the site. West Main Road passes within 500 f eet of the eastern periphery of the site. A large residential housing area is lo_ated to the immediate south of the wite.
The site is located in the Town of Portsmouth, in Newport County, Rhode Island. The city of Newport, Rhode Island lies 6 miles south-southwest of the site. Fall River, Massachusetts is located 12 miles to the northeast and Providence, Rhode Island,18 miles northwest.
The size of the Melville - Carr Point site is 233 acres. Of this total acreage,173 acres along .he coast fall within the U.S. Naval Reservation boundaries. Seven houses are situated within the one-half mile radius exclusion area. Two roads and the New York - New Haven - Boston line of the Penn Central Railroad pass through the site.
The site topography is characterized by a low-lying coastal strip having a gradual slope, and by a somewhat more steeply sloping inland section which rises to a 100 foot elevation in the southeastern part of the site.
Twenty-eight acres in the eastern part of the site (Lawton Valley) are either water area or are too steep for the location of buildings or equipment associated with power generating f acilities. The remainder of the site appears to be suitable for plant facilities. A " low-population zone" of 1.5 miles would be available at thfs site.
Industrial development is the land use with the greatest potential f or the Melville - Carr Point site. A 435.6 acre tract of land located north of the Melville - Carr Point site is zoned for industrial use. The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program reports that, on the basis of existing development in the area, soil conditions and topography appear suitable for the construction of large industrial plants.
Popula tion Distribution. Approximately 900 people reside within a one mile radius of the site. The population within a two mile radius of the site is 5000; this figure includes much of the Portsmouth population. At five miles f rom the site, the population is 59,800. The 5 mile radius encompasses much of the densely popula ted Newpo rt area. The population within a 10
l l
mile radius increases to 161,800 and' includes part of the very densely l '
populated Fall River, Massachusetts area plus areas in Swansea and Westport -
-Massachusetts. At 15 miles from the site, the population is 391,100 and '
I includes populous areas in Warwick and North Kingston, Rhode Island, and S ome rs e t , Massachusetts. .
For the Melville - Carr Point site, the prevailing southvest wind ,
is of particular importance, due to the proximity of densely populated areas in Portsmouth and North Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Fall River, _
Cooling Water. The East Passage of Narragansett Bay lies to the immediate west of the Melville - Carr Point. site. The use of once-through cooling appears feasible for this site from an engineering standpoint. ,
Dyer Island lies 3200 f eet northwest of Carr Point. The proximity of that island and the shallow water which surrounds it, pose a problem involving installation of intake and/or outf all f acilities. To minimize the amount of dredging required, cooling water intake and discharge conduits could be directed to the west, of f the southern end of the Melville - Carr Point site, where the water depth increases to 30 feet at a distance of 600 feet of f shore.
L Accessibility. A paved road runs along the Portsmouth coast and- passes through the site. Two other smaller roads enter the site from Rhode Island ,
Route 114 (West Maine Road), which runs tangent to the eastern periphery of the site. R.I. Route 119 extends' north for 2.3 miles. to R.I. Route 24, an expressway which joins Interstate 195 in Fall River, Massachusetts.
The road distance from the junction of Routes 114 and 24 to Interstate 195' is 9.2 miles. Interstate 195 joins Interstate 95 in Providence, Rhode Island.
The site may also be approached f rom the southwest by using the Jamestown Bridge and Newport Bridge. The road distance via these bridges f rom U.S. Route 1, the primary coastal route in southern Rhode Island, _ to the Melville-Carr Point site'is approximately 14 miles.
The New York - New Haven - Hartford line of the Penn Central Railroad passes through the site.
Vessels may approach the Melville-Carr Point site by traveling up the East Passage of Narragansett Bay from Rhode Island Sound. Ext ens ive ,
docking f acilities are maintained by the U.S. Navy at Melville, 1.25 miles north of Carr Point. The heavier power plant components cannot be transported over the Jamestown, Newport or Mount Hope bridges. Therefore, it is expected that these components would be barged directly to the Melville -
Carr Point site.
_ . . - . . . . _ , . . . . . . - _ . _ . , _ _.._- _._ _ _.~. _.._ ___ _ _ -
Region: X Name: Fort Va rnum Location: Town: Narragansett State: R.l.
Watersource: Narragansett Bay USGS Quadrangle (s): Narragansett Pier Land Availability and Use. Several buildings exist on the 225 acre site; however, only one represents any appreciable value. A cemetery located on the west side of another lot.would not require relocation since it f alls outside the 1500 f t.
exclusion area. (The area is presently used as a training center for the Rhode island National Guard).
The coastline is protected by ledge and undoubtedly these strata extend f urther inland. Site elevations range from 20 to 40 f t. above mean sea level.
One of the site advantages is its availability to deep water (50 f t. depths at 3000 f t. of f shore). Fur the rmo re, Whale Rock, which is now an abandoned lighthouse site could support intake structures at the source of deep cold water.
One possible obstacle for transmission access is the Pettaquamscutt River.
Otherwise, our West Kingston substation is only 10 miles to the west. An alternate transmission line possibility would be to the north, and connecting to the existing Rome Point right-of-way. This distance is approximately 8 miles.
Bonnet Shores lies one and one-half miles north; Narragansett Pier is two miles south of the proposed site. These two relatively high population areas lie within the area designated as low population zone.
Cooling System. The distances to the thirty foot depth is 2,400 feet; to the fif ty foot depth is 3,600 feet. Once-through cooling appears feasible from an engineering viewpoint.
Geology and Seismicity. There are rock outcroppings on the site sloping toward the shoreline. The shoreline shows bedrock which probably drops of f toward the riddle of the West Passage of the Bay. T. t is covered by gravel, sand, and sediment for about 100 feet at mid-channel. The presence of Whale Rock may indicate a shallow bedrock ridge toward Bonnet Point.
Seismically, the site should be similar to the Rome Point site.
Accessibility. Ocean Road, a heavy duty highway (U.S. Route 1) runs north to south and essentially parallel to the site area. Light duty roads extend out to the site.
_. . . _ _ . _ . .. ... . _ _ m ___ _ ._
[
Region: XI' Name: Block Island Location: Town: ' Block Island State: R.I.-
Wa tersour ce : Atlantic Ocean USGS Quadrangle (s): Block Island Land Availability and Use. Block Island is located about 8 miles from the Rhode Island coast to the south of Point . Judith, Rhode Island. ' The . island is a popular summer visiting place and tourism represents the major economic a ct ivity.
No specific site.was evaluated.
Cooling Water. Deep water is available adjacent to the shoreline making it possible to use short lengths of intake and discharge piping for a once-thcough cooling system. An intake could be constructed either. onshore or -
offshore. If an onshore intake were used, a canal would be dredged or excavated to.the site from the shoreline. An offshore discharge with'a
' dif fuser would be at least 1000 feet from the shore in a depth of 30 to 60 feet.
Geology and Seismicity. No detailed evaluation of seismicity was made.
However, it is estimated that a below average New England design acceleration value would be' applied to this site.
It is anticipated that a thick overburden layer (about 1000 feet) would be encountered.
Transmission. Transmission costs have been estimated at $204 million for Unit 1 and $37 million for Unit 2 for a total of $241 million.
Accessibility. Barge delivery would be required for all access.
Construction forces would be dif ficult to attrac. because of the lack of a bridge. If ferrying were selected as an alternative, many non-productive wages would be paid.
, - , , . . . . , ..,_,_,m,,.om , . . . . , ..,,.,..-yrm--. ,-,,,..-,,-y .,m... . - , . , - ,..-...,m ._,-,m,
i I
I Name: Shef field Vicinity Hawletts Road Location: Town: Sheffield State: Mass.
1 Watersource: Housatonic River !
l USGS Quadrangle (s): Ashley Falls Land Availability and Use. The site is located on the east side of the l Housatonic River, 2.9 miles north of the Massachusetts-Connecticut border. '
Cooling Water. The site of a proposed impoundment lies on a natural plateau at elevation 795 feet; land rises from the plateau on all sides. The proposed impoundment is located 2300 feet from the river, which is at elevation 645 feet.
On the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the following !
conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once = through cooling en the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Shef field sites cannot support wet tower requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impoundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There does not appear to be an existing upstream impoundment of suf ficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up during low flow periods.
- 4. Several locations have been identified which could serve as possiblu plant sites for wet cooling towers with an impoundment.
- 5. The Housatonic River flow may be adequate to support wet / dry towers year round.
If it is assumed the site is excavated 15 to 25 feet in order to increase the capacity of the impoundment, the wa ter availability f rom two alternate impoundment schemes can be summarized as follows:
Water Depth Flood Level Above Grade Excavated (minus) Total Water Supply Yblume Excavated 820 f t. 25 20 45 50 days 4.06 million contour yd3 810 ft. 15 15 30 30 days 2.7 million contour yd3 The excavation cost, alone, of the first scheme equals $23 million.
The excavation cost of the second scheme equals $16 million.' These figures are based on an excavation cost of $6.00 per cubic yard (ALil) and assumes the excavated material is earth, not ledge.
Popula tion Distribution. The cumulative population distribution is tabulated b elow: I Radius (miles from site) 1 2 3 5 10 20 30 Cumulative population 1256 5024 11,304 31,400 125,600 502,400 1,130,000 Accessibility. The site is bordered by a medium-duty road to the west a nu a light-duty road to the east. U. S. Route 7, running north-south, passes 1.5 miles west of the site. The Penn Central Railroad parallels the Housatonic and passes 1.6 miles west of the site.
l l
l
Name: Smith Hollow Location: Town: Sheffield State: Mass.
Watersource: Housatonic River USGS Quadrangle (s): Ashley Falls Land Availability and Use. The site lies east of the Housatonic River and four miles north of the Massachusetts-Connecticut border.
popula tion Distribution. The population distribution is similat to that of the Shef field, Hawletts Road site.
Cooling Water. The location of the site impoundment is a large, north-south running draw named Smith Hollow. Soda Creek is channeled into the draw, which is naturally swampy. The proposed impoundment is at elevation 705 f eet, and lies a distance of 3200 feet from the Housatonic, which is at elevation 645 feet.
It is proposed that Smith Hollow be flooded to the 750 foot contour.
No excavation is proposed for site impoundment, other than that required to excavate enough earth to use in constructing the dam. Water asailability and dam sizes for two alternate impoundment schemes are tabulated below:
'lood Level Water Depth Water Supply Dam Length 750 45 58 days 2400 feet 730 25 25 days 2000 feet On the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the f ollowing conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once-through cooling on the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Sheffield sites cannot support wet tower requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impoundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There does not appear to be an existing upstream impoundment of sufficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up during low flow ,
periods.
- 4. The Housatonic River flow is adequate to support wet / dry towers year round.
Ac ces s ibili ty_._ U.S. Route 7 runs 1.1 miles west of the site. Medium-duty and light-duty roads pr ovide direct access to the site. Penn Central Railroad passes 1.2 miles to ti e west. (
l
Name: Three Mile Pond Location: Town: Sheffield State: tbss.
Wa tersour ce : Housatonic River USGS Quadrangle (s): Great Barrington Land Availability and Use. The site is found in a broad valley five and one-half miles southwest of Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
Population Distribution. The population distribution is similar to that of the Shef field, Hawletts Road site.
Cooling Water. An existing impoundment occupies approximately 17 percent of the area which would ultimately be flooded. The proposed impoundment area is at elevation 904 feet, and lies 11,500 feet from the Housatonic River, which is at eleva tion 655 feet.
No excavation is required to increase the capcity of the flood area up to the 950 foot contour. The Three Mile Pond impoundment would only be used during periods of low flow. During most of the year, it is expected that 100 percent of the cooling water will be drawn directly from the Housatonic River. Therefore, in order to reduce annual pumping costs, it is proposed to locate generating facilities on the river, rather than at the impoundment.
Water availability from the Three Mile Pond impoundment is summarized below:
Flood Level Water Depth Water Supply Dam Length 950 feet 46 feet 227 days 2300 feet On the basis of the river flow and cooling water requirements, the f ollowing conclusions are drawn:
- 1. Once-threugh cooling on the Housatonic is impossible.
- 2. The river flow available to the Shef field sites cannot support wet towe r requirements for twelve months a year without creation of an impoundment to serve as a water supply during periods of low flow.
- 3. There does not appear to be an existing upstream impoundment of sufficient size to supply water for wet tower make-up during low flow periods.
- 4. The Housatonic River flow is adequate to support wet / dry towers year round.
Ac ces sibili ty . A three-lane highway and the Penn Central Railroad run 2.75
miles west of the impoundment and 1.0 miles from the plant site. Both the plant site and the impoundment area are served only by light-duty roads.
t p
v-- - - . . . ._-
_ _ _ .. . . ._. _ . . _ . . . = -
I Name: Gerrish Island Location: Town: . State: Maine ,
.Watersource: Atlantic Ocean i
Description. The Seabrook Environtnental Report, Appendix M, Decket Nos.
50-443, 50-44 /; , was applicant's source of information.
t i
i i
1 1
1 300.14 Selection of candidate site-plant alternatives (ER p. 9.2-8)
The ER lists the criteria used in selecting candidate site-plant alternatives. Describe the actual application of these criteria to the selection of candidate site-plant alternatives. In other words, show why each potential site was rejected or accepted.
RESPONSE: The response to RAl 300.13 describes the methods by which some 42 potential sites were identified.
Table 300.13-1 lists those sites which were considered as Potential Sites (i.e., sites within the candidate areas that have been identified for preliminary assessment. ..USNRC, Regula to ry Guide 4.2, Revision 2). Attached to that response are brief site descriptions for those sites not included in the list of candidate sites (ER Section 9.2).
The deferral process for potential sites, was a judgement based on all available information for each site considered.
Some sites were deferred very quickly, while othmrs were given more study prior to a decision. Table 300.14-1 ptovides, for each deferred site, the major problems identified with each deferred potential site. In each case, one or more of the major ,
problems were considered serious enough for site deferral.
These items may be compared to ER Table 9.3-1 for comparison with the attributes of the Candidate Sites.
o TABLE 300,14-1. List of Deferred Potential Sites and Reasons for Deferral Region Site Reasons for Deferral I. Firs t Connecticut Lake (NH) High transmission costs of $312 million Railroad and local roads need significant upgrading Slow construction due to severe winters Labor availability problem due to remoteness Dif ficult access for large plant equipment II. Montague-Northfield Conflict with proposed Montague Station (See Response to RAI 300.5)
III. Pontook Reservoir (NH) High transmission cost approximately of (Dummer Site, Seabrook) $300 million Mountainous terrain No rail or water access Labor availability problem due to remoteness Local roads need significant upgrading Slow construction due to severe winters I V. Somerset Reservoir (VI) No specific site identified Site not in region of interest (See RAI 300.9)
Probably inadequate water available for evaporative cooling of two units I V. Harriman Reservoir (VT) No specific site identified Site not in region of interest (See RAI 300.9)
I I V. Dunbar Brook Poor construction access Insufficient area for constructing 1
~ ^-
.-- ._ n .._ -
Table 300.14-1 (Continued) l Region Site Reasons for Deferral two 1200 MW Units Flood protection required More suitable site (Bear Swamp) in the Candidate Area I V. Rowe-Ya nke e Extensive excavation required for constructio of two 1200 MW Units More suitable site (Bear Swamp) in the Candi-:
date Area.
V. East Pepperell (MA) Private ownership - at least 8 individual (Boston Edison - Site 1) owners Potential for residential development Population exceeds 500 people per square mile beyond 17 mile radius from site Closed cycle make-up water must be pumped six miles Local roads in relatively poor condition Approximately 315 acre site somewhat restricted Natural draft cooling towers could be viewed from surrounding flat terrain Accessibility problems for large plant equipment V. Salisbury (MA) Relatively small 300 acre site -
LPZ radius limited to approximately one mile High popula tion densities Long intake and discharge conduits to offshore region Nearby estuary j i
l
Table 300.14-1 (Continued)
Region Site Reasons for Def erral High transmission costs of $167 million Extensive encroachment of salt marshes necessary for raising plant grade for flood protection Nearby recreational and preserve areas VL . Gloucester (MA) High population density High circulating water system pumping penalty due to 100 f t MSL elevation High transmission costs of $400 million due to extensive underground cable VI I . Plymsuth Sites (tiA) Problems with regional transmission system balance (See response to RAI 300.7)
VIII . Elizabeth Islands (MA) Land availability questionable Possibly 1000 f t of overburden (poor founda; 'an conditions)
Labor force would have to be ferried to site Problem of evacuation planning High transmission costs Problems with regional transmission system balance (See response to RAI 300.7)
IX. Slocums Neck Restricted 260 acre site due to nearby perpetual easement property with Massachusetts Audubon Land unavailable Proximity to Slocums River estuary IX. Stony Point (MA) Restricted 390 acre site (Boston Edison Site 19)
Difficult transmission routing through highly -
Table 300.14-1 (Continued)
Renton Site Reasons for Def erral popula ted area Transmission balance problems (See response to RAI 300.7)
Otis Air Force Base approximately 7 miles from site Cape Cod Canal traffic with hazardous cargo passessite IX. Allens Pond (MA) Seve ral land - owners. Availability doubtful (Near Boston Edison Site 23)
Potential of residential development Flood and storm protection required Filling of wetlands required Local roads require upgrading IX. Round Hill Point (MA) Restricted 303 acre site nearby residential (Near Boston Edison Site 22) areas Wetlands impacted Town beaches within exclusion area Site flood protection required Potentially difficult transmission routing IX. Little Compton (RI) Exclusion radius of 2000 t'eet encompasses (Warren Point) approximately 56 houses Possibly extensive unde rwater transmission req ui r ed Site area predicted to be deficient in freshwater in the 1980's IX. Quicksand Pond (RI) Site unavailable
Table 300.14-1 (Continued)
Renion Site Reasons for Def erral Site conflicts with current and future land use patterns IX. Gooseberry Neck (MA) Owned by Commonwealth of Massachusetts as part of State Beach reservation Site size marginal for ona " nit. Extensive dredging and fill required for second unit Major recreational reserva tion ,
Site vulnerable to flooding and storm damage Local roads in relatively poor condition IX. Moons tone Beach (RI) Land privately owned. Small exclusion radius (1250 ft)
Site unava ilable Flood and storm protection required Area has potential of residential development Part of land donated as preserve IX. Weekapaug (RI) Limited to approximately 1250 ft exclusion radius Mear high population densities in the Wes te rly-Pawca tuck a rea Site area relatively small IX. Dunn Corner (RI) Near (1.5 miles) high popula tion densities in the Westerly-Pawcatuck area (population 22,500)
Insufficient land (less than 50 acres usable)
IX. Westerly Airport Exclusion radius limited to approximately Industrial Park 1200 ft.
Near high population densities in Uesterly/
Pawcatuck area (popula tion 22,500)
Table 300.14-1 (Continued) g gion Site Reasons for Def erral Adjacent to active airport X. Macke rel Cove Population exceeds 500 people per square mile 5 to 10 miles from site Special emergency evacuation plans may be required _ for island Offshore structures would have to be laid in deep (90 f t) water with strong currents Estuarine wa ter source X. Jamestown Island High displacement - 19 houses in 2600 ft exclusion radius Undesirable unde rwa ter transmission required in relatively heavily traveled navigation routes Island freshwater deficiency predicted in 1980's Relatively high population distribution Estuarine water source X. Melville-Carr Point Very high population distribution. Most of Portsmouth and part of Newport R.I.
lie within 3 miles of the site. Densities exceed Indian Point's at 5 miles.
Estuarine water source X. Fort Va rnum Exclusion radius limited to 1500 feet. Site area 225 acres Large number of property owners (36) would result in large displacement and problems of acquisition Estuarine water source X. Sachuest Point Relatively high population density (refer to Figure 9.2.3) Special emergency evacuation plans may be required for island.
Site unavailable.
i l
Table 300.14-1 (Continued) -
l Region Site Reasons for Deferral XI. Block Island No specific site identified High transmission costs Possibly 1000 f t of overburden Labor force would have to be ferried to site Area of large summer tourism trade Problem of evacuation planning Gerrish Island Not in region of interest. See response (tfE) to RAI 300.9.
High transmission cost. See response to RAI 300.10 Sheffield (MA) Insufficient water without an impoundment Three Atile Pond Smith Hollow Not in candidate area F
. , . . . , ,w,.~,. . ~ , . , , - . . ~.,.m,. .r~,.... . -.. . . . ,. . . . - , . . ~ _ . . . . . , -
o 300.15 Gil? /Erving Sites (ER p. 9.2-12)
- a. there prime or unique agricultural land onsite? .
- b. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be impacted by construction and operation of the plant at Gill or Erving or by associated transmission lines?
- c. Would floodplain development be involved? What would be the likely consequences of such development? >
- d. Would.the transmission lines impact any place of historic, cultural, or recreational importance? Would they involve loss of a unique place or opportunity? Give details where appropriate.
- e. Would cooling towers create a safety hazard from fogging or icing?
- f. What would be the likely aesthetic impact of the plant, at Gill or Erving, and associated transmission lines, compared to the aesthetic . impact of the plant and lines for the proposed site?
- g. Would the project be consistent with zoning and planning commission guidelines?
RESPONS E: a. Agricultural Land .
A soil survey for Franklin County, Massachusetts was issued in February 1967 by the Soil Conservation Service and the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. Based on this survey, it appears. that prime farmland d ,as occur on the proposed site in the towns of Gill and Erving, and in some cases, is being managed as such.
Of the 360 acres located in Erving, about 40% of the soils can be' considered as prime farmland types, and of the 350 acres -
located in Gill, about 30% can be considered prime f armland.
Despite this, only a portion could be used as such for some has matured into a late field or woodland habitat. Prime farmlands based on soil type and their corresponding acreage
' are listed below:
,,, - _..-._r,-- - % -_.- - - ...~. - _ m - - - ...- - m m,,.4... - ,. -,- - ,..
Soil Name and Desc ription Estimated Acreage Agawam fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 30 Agawam fine sandy loam, 3-8% slope 22 Buxton silt loam, 0-3% slope 6 Hadley very fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 100 Hadley very fine sandy loam, overflow, 0-3% slopa 45 Ninigret fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 3 Sudbury fine sandy loam, 0-3% slope 7 Sudbury fine sandy loam, 3-8% slope 25 Walpole and Wareham fine sandy loams, 0-3% slope 5 Winooski very fine sand loam 10 The disruption of prime farmlands as a result of plant siting would not be substantial in either town when considering those areas of high agricultural use to the south and west.
Unique Farmlands No lands which fall under this category are located onsite based on the 1967 soil survey and initial site evaluation. Areas classified as unique farmlands in Massachusetts are cranberry bogs, orchards and blueberries,
- b. Threatened or Endangered Species Initial analysis of the Gill /Erving stie and the transmission corridors indicate that no threatened or endangered terrestrial flora or fauna would be impacted. Analysis of the Connecticut River from which the cooling tower makeup water would be drawn indicate that the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) does habituate the water below the site in the Holyoke Pool.
At present, a fish ladder is being constructed at the Turner's Falls dam which will allow a number of species into that portion of the Connecticut River used by the Gill /Erving site. It is not felt that the ladder will allow the shortnose sturgeon to gain access to these waters due to its lethargic nature and potential inability to climb the ladder.
- c. Floodplain Development The normal river elevation at the site is approximately 180 feet (normal range of 184-17 6 f t. ) . The normal floodplain is approximately 20 feet above the normal river elevation and the maximum (estimated) flood was recorded at 49.2 feet in 1936.
A Probable Maximum flood analysis at Vernon Vermont Hydroelectric f acility,12 miles upstrea.n indicates that this dam is inundated unde r the PMF flow. The river control feature which establishes the backwater curve that inundates the Vernon Dam is located
approximately 0.5 miles downntream of the site just above the confluence of the Millers River at French King Rock. This backwater curve results in a Pond elevation at Vernon of 251.8 MSL (controlled River). Therefore, as a result of the backwater curve from the French King Rock narrows the PMF elevation will be a few feet less than 251.8 tiSL.
Because most of the land with suitable slope on the Gill site is Flood prone and because of poor foundation conditions, it is unlikely that the Gill site would be suitable for the construction of a nuclear facility.
At the Erving Site, on the east side of the river, there would be no floodplain development. The slope of the bank is steep and PMF elevation is achieved within 300 feet of the river at the southwest corner and within 1500 feet at the northwest corner.
Relative to associated transmission lines, no floodplain development is anticipated. If any construction is necansary in wetlands, use of swamp mats, e.g. , would mitigate any impact.
As such, there would not be unit loss of wetlands, except for the actual areas of the poles,
- d. Transmission The associated transmission lines for the proposed Gill /Erving site (Figure 300.15-1) would consist of three 345 kV circuits, generally to be constructed on wood pole H-frame structures averaging A5 feet in height except as noted below, and are planned as follows: ;
(a) From the Gill /Erving bus structure, Erving/Northfield, ;
Massachusetts, two circuits of approximately 1 mile each j in length would be constructed easterly on a new right-of-way approximately 350 feet wide, with a median strip between '
the two circuits, to Northeast Utilities Northfield Mountain Station, Northfield, Massachusetts. l I
(b) One circuit of approximately 29 miles in length from the Northfield Mountain Station would be constructed on an existing right-of-way, in general 300 feet wide, to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow (also a Northeast Utilities Substation, i
both having 345 kV f acilities) as follows:
(1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly the proposed circuit would parallel two existing Northeast Utilities 345 kV circuits of similar cons truction (Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation, Hinsdale and Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow), as well as the proposed circuit in c. below, on an existing I
^
550 feet wide right-of-way to a point approximately.
1250 feet northeast of the summit of Poplar Mountain, at which point the two existing 345 kV circuits separate.
(2) For the remaining approximately 28 miles southerly, the proposed circuit would parallel the existing Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation'345 kV circult, on an existing right-of-way 300 feet wide, to Ludlow Substation.
(c) One circuit of approximately 40 miles in length from the Northfield Mountain Substation on an existing right-of-way, in general 150 feet wide, to Agawam Substation, Agawam (also a Northeasi "tilities Substation which is to be upgraded to -345 kV capacity regardless of this project) as follows:
(1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly the proposed circuit would parallel two existing Northeast Utilities 345 kV circuits of similar construction (Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation, Hinsdale and Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, Ludlow), as well as the proposed circuit in b. above, on an existing 550 feet wide right-of-way to a point approximately 1250 feet northeast of the summit of Poplar Mountain, at which point the two existing 345 kV circuits separate.
(2) For approximately 2.6 miles further southerly the proposed circuit would parallel the Northfield Mountain Station to Berkshire Substation 345 kV circuit on an existing right-of-way 300 feet wide to a point approximately 1000 feet northeast of where the Central Vermont Railroad crosses Federal Street (Route 63) in Montague, at which point the existing 345 kV circuit turns westerly toward the Montague Plain.
(3) For approximately 1.3 miles further southerly the proposed circuit would be constructed on an existing unoccupied right-of-way 150 feet wide to a point approximately 1250 feet north of Dry Hill Road in Montague, where Northeast Utilities Montague to Amherst, to Granby 115 kV circuits and Montague to Amherst (2) 69 kV circuits, on doubic-circuit steel lattice towers, 150 feet wide right-of-way, meet the unoccupied right-of-way.
(4) For the remaining approximately 35 miles southerly through Sunderland, Leverett, Amherst, Granby, South Hadley, Chicopee, West Springfield and Agawam to Agawam Substation, the proposed circuit would be constructed
- , - .. . . - - - .. . - .- =. - .- . .
4 upon rights-of-way, in general varying between 100 and 150 feet in width, upon which are existing circuits of lesser voltages. According to location, steel poles would be required. Some existing structures may be relocated or removed. Some right-of-way widening may ,
be required which, for the highly urban development 'i
. of the Chicopee, West Springfield segments, would create severe impacts.
- 1. Historic Impact ;
(a) For the proposed circuits from Gill /Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date_ to the National Register of uistoric Places.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would not be any impact on sites
. listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the '
National Register of Historic Places, to the best of our knowledge.
(c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would be a visual impact on two sites. listed in the National Register 'of Historic Places, as follows:
"Chicopee, City Hall, Market Square (7-30-74)"
"Chicopee, Dwight Manufacturing Company Housing District, Front Depot, Dwight, Exchange, Chestnut Streets (6-3-77)".
From the 147 feet high campanile tower on the City Hall, in looking northerly over the Dwight Manufacturing Company Housing District to the nearest point of visual impact, where the l proposed circuit would cross Massachusetts Route 116, a distance l of approxima tely 4000 feet, it is probable that the upper parts ;
of the proposed structures would be visible. The stairs in j the tower currently are unsafe and access to the tower is not j permitted. There would not be any visual impact on the of fice building portion of the City Hall. From the Dwight Manufacturing Company Housing District, a large mill complex of buildings j of typical 19th century New England architecture, there is a 1 probable visual impact in looking northerly a distance of l approximately 3000 feet to that segment of the proposed circuit j between Massachusetts Route 116 and Interstate Route 90 l i (Massachusetts Turnpike).- There are many companies located l l
within the mill complex and access to the upper floor was not l obtained at this time. Currently there are structures for circuits of lesser voltages on the right-of-way. No other sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National
Register of Historic Places would be impacted by the associated transmission lines from Northfield Mountain Substation to Agawam Subs tation.
- 2. Cultural Impact (a) For the proposed circuits f rom Gill / Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on cultural sites.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would not be any impact on cultural sites.
(c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would not be any impact on ,
cultural sites.
- 3. Recreational Impact (a) For the proposed circuits from Gill / Erving to Northfield Mountain Station, there would not be any impact on recreational sites.
(b) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation, there would be the following impacts on recreational sites:
(1) There are two segments of a state forest in Montague that would be traversed by the proposed circuit. Due to the hilly terrain, dense woods and lack of development in the area, impact would be minimal.
(2) An open area used by a sportsman's club might be visually impacted.
(c) For the proposed circuit from Northfield Mountain Station to Agawam Substation, there would be the following impacts on recreational sites:
(1) It would abut the recreational fields of three schools.
(2) There would be a slight visual impact upon one school's recreational fields.
(3) It would abut one municipal playground.
(4) It would traverse one priva te " Pool and Tennis Club".
(5) It would have a visual impact upon two municipal swimming pools.
~_~. - -
I t.
(6) It would traverse one state park. Due to the hilly terrain, dense woods and in general, the lack of development, the impact would be minimal. ;
(7) It would cross the Connecticut River very near a public boat ramp adjacent to Interstate 90 -(Massachusetts i Turnpike) . ;
(8) There might be an impact upon a municipal conservation ,
area depending upon final right-of-way locations.
It is unknown at this time whether there would be any visual impact to one municipal playground, one sportman's club or five schools recreation areas, in addition to those
' enumerated above. The existing structures for the circuits of lesser voltages currently on the right-of-way were not visible from these locations. This may be due to their l
- height as compared with the proposed circuit's structures or it may be due to the deciduous trees screening the ,
structures.
- 4. No " unique place or opportunity" would be lost due to the project's associated transmission lines. However, as- j discussed f urther under 300.15(f) aesthetic impact, any attempt to construct the proposed 345 kV circuit to Agawam ,
would, in some areas, possibly result in the taking of
^
' residential prope rty. ,
t
- e. Cooling Towers Fogging and icing hazards from evaporative cooling towers could '
occur in two ways. The first is usually localized icing effects as a result of " drift", mechanically entrained water droplets which are generated inside the tower and carried along with the air to be exhausted to the atmosphere. The second way is for the cooling tower plume to be formed at or near ground level, f or descend to the surf ace, causing ground-level fog and possibly icing.
From published reports it appears that potential fogging and icing ef fects depend not only on local meteorology and terrain, i but also to a great extent on the type of cooling tower being ,
cons ide red.
Carson (1976) reported that observations at operating power stations with natural draf t cooling towers rarely indicated ground-level fogging or icing. He also cited reports from England which indicated that only two or three times a year
- did a few detached f ragments of visible plume touch the ground ,
f rom relatively short (375 feet) natural draft cooling towers.
1 i
t 1
i
_ _ e sewe* + + -m-war w e 3,e
Another report from England, he further reported', noted no drizzle or drif t observed f rom natural draf t cooling towers.'
These observations are supported by other studies (Spurr 1974; Krame r e t al. 19 76) .
Carson (1976) also investigated mechanical draf t cooling towers.
He concluded-that the fogging potential of these shorter-(50 to 80 f t) towers is much greater than that'of larger natural draf t cooling towers (350 to 500 f t). He reported that there are indications of frequent. plume down-wash, but that plumes
~
often quickly evaporated or lifted again due to their buoyancy.
Potential ef fects for circular mechanical-draf t cooling towers probably lie somewhere between the more typical linear mechanical-draf t towers and' natural draf t cooling towers, according to Carson (1976).
Thus, from the above discussion it can be concluded that natural draf t cooling towers would cause little, if any, safety hazard.
Fither type of mechanical draf t tower (s) could potentially have some localized, periodic ef fects on local roads, U.S. Route 2, the railroad tracks passing through the site and other nearby features. It should also be noted that there is no commercial shipping traf fic in the Connecticut River.
- f. Aesthetics A quantitative or semi-quantitative comparative evaluation of the aesthetic impact of site f acilities was not performed during initial site selection surveys but, as noted in the response to RAI 300.18, Applicant did consider aesthetic impacts in the site selection screening process. These conoiderations were primarily concerned with potential cooling tower visual impacts and the length of new transmission lines required.
Provided below (Tables 300.15-1 and 300.15-2) is a comparison of the visual impact which the project would have at the Cill/Erving site and the Charlestown site. The assessment assumed the facility would be located at the Erving site with two 550+ f t natural draf t cooling towers. At the Charlestown site, the proposed f acility would exist with the highest structure reaching approximately 200 f t. (MSL).
Visual receptors were identified f rom existing data to a distance of 7 to 10 miles from the sites. Site area visits, the Montague Station Environmental Report and topographic maps were the prime data sources for the Erving site and the ER and site area visits were used for the Charlestown site. The visual receptors were selected as representative of potentially visually sensitive areas such as preserves, highways, towns and historic sites.
The analysis shows that the Erving site is obscured by terrain
~
and the dense forests to the east. To the south, west and north, however, there are several vantage points.
The Charlestown site analysis shows that the relatively low ..
profile of the proposed buildings is only visible from some nearby areas and out into Block Island Sound. The most potentially sensitive receptors would be the seasonal beach users.
The description of the Charlestown transmission system and $
associated impacts is in ER Section 3.9. Relative to the associated transmission lines for the Gill /Erving site:
(a) For the two proposed circuits from Gill /Erving to Northfield <
Mountain Station (300.15.d(a) above), 0.8 miles in length on a new right-of-way, each would cross relatively open land and one road (Route 63), separated by a median strip.
Due to the proposed circuits f rom the Gill /Erving site being i parallel to each other, they were treated as 1.6 circuit miles in Table 300.15-3.
i (b) From the Northfield Mountain Station to Ludlow Substation (300.15.d(b) above),. approximately 29 miles in length, the proposed circuit would have the following aesthetic impacts: !
4 (1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly, wherein the proposed circuit would parallel two existing and another proposed 345 kV circuit on an existing 550 feet wide -
right-of-way, there would be only woods and an electric transmission right-of-way traversed. There are no open fields, wetlands, roads, railroads or rivers to j be crossed or abutted. Due to the high crown, high ;
density woods, the hilly terrain and lack of l development, impact would be minimal other than for the clearing required.
(2) For the remaining approximately 28 miles southerly. j to Ludlow Substation, paralleling an existing 345 kV l circuit on a 300 foot right-of-way, there would be ]
approximately 26.0 miles of woods to be traversed 1.0 i mile of open fields and 0.5 miles of wetlands to be crossed or skirted. Twenty five roads would be crossed including Interstate 202. With the exception of Routes 2 and 9, the roads have a limited, rural use. Two rivers and two railroads-would be crossed. As in the prior segment visual impact would be minimal. It is an area of very' low population density. The existing clearing would be widened approximately 130 feet.
(c) From the Northfield Mountain Substation to Agawam Substation,
..--m_ - . _ ~.__,_._._.....-_..-._...,-._,...._......._._..,_._.;___
(300.15.d(c) above) approximately 40 miles in length, the proposed circuit would have the following aesthetic impacts:
(1) For the initial 1.3 miles southerly, wherein the circuit would parallel two existing circuits, as well as another proposed circuit on an existing 550 feet wide right-of-way, there would be only woods and an electric transmission right-of-way traversed. There are no open fields, wetlands, roads, railroads or rivers to be crossed or abutted. Due to the high crown, high density woods, the hilly terrain and lack of development , impact would be minimal other than for the clearing required.
(2) For the next 2.6 miles southerly, paralleling an existing 345 kV circuit on a 300 feet wide right-of-vay, approximately 2.1 miles of woods and 0.5 miles of open fields would be traversed. Two roads, one railroad and one river would be crossed. This segment '
also is densely wooded; visual impact would be minimal.
The existing clearing would be widened approximately 130 f eet.
(3) For the next 1.3 miles southerly, the proposed circuit would be constructed on an unoccupied right-of-way 150 feet wide, traversing approximately 1.1 miles of woods and 0.2 miles of open land. No roads, railroads or rivers would be crossed. The open fields at the southerly end of this segment would provide a view of the proposed circuit to travelers on Route 63.
Ilowever, this same area is traversed by four existing 69 kV and 115 kV circuits on double-circuit sttel lattice towers crossing Route 63 whereas the proposed circuit's H-frame structures would have a wooded hill for a background. Clearing would be necessary for mos t of this segment.
(4) For the remaining 35 miles to Agawam Substation the aesthetic impacts of the various segments are as follows:
(aa) From this point of intersection with the two double circuit towers right-of-way to the Leverett/Amherst town line on a right-of-way 150 f eet wide, a distance of approximately 8.1 miles, the proposed circuit would traverse approximately 6.4 miles of woods,1.1 miles of open land and 0.6 miles of wetlands would be crossed or skirted. There are seven road crossings and one river crossing. The circuit would parallel a railroad, in use for f reight, for most of this segment. There would be an increased visual impact on traf fic on Route
- 63. Clearing would be required if additional widening
t o !
of the right-of-way is needed in this segment; it might also require the taking of a house. Possibly some replacement of existing structures would be necessary. !
(bb) From the Leverett/Amherst town line to Bachelor Road, Granby, on the existing 150 feet wide right-of-way with its two double circuit towers, a distance of approximately 10.1 miles, the proposed circuit would traverse approximately 5.0 miles of woods, 4.0 mile =
of open land, generally meadows, 0.1 miles of wetlands, and ' l.0 miles of low density residential development ;
at Cushman and at Amherst Center. Fifteen roads would be crossed as would one railroad and one river.
Widening of the right-of-way at some street crossings would be difficult; taking of some homes may be neces sa ry. At a point approximately 0.7 miles north of Bachelor Road, _ a right-of-way for Northeast Utilities ,
Amherst-East Hampton (2)' 69 kV circuits turns westerly to cross the Holyoke Range. The above segment to Bachelor Road has a higher visual impact than those to the north especially with the open-land and ,
development of the Amherst area. To the best of our r knowledge, there would not be any impact upon the University of Massachusetts, Amherst College or Hampshire College a) t aough it is possible that the proposed circuit could be seen from the 38 story library building at the University of Massachusetts. As above, possibly some replacement of existing structures would bt necessaty.
(cc) From Bachelor Road, Granby to the South Hadley/Chicopee city bounda ry, on the existing right-of-way, either 100 feet or 150 feet wide, a distance of approximately 6.0 miles, the circuit would traverse approximately >
1.7 miles of woods which in some locations have residential development near the right-of-way, 3.5' l miles of open land, as above generally meadow land, !
0.5 miles of wetlands, 0.3 miles of heavy urban 'l development and a 500 foot span across Lake Aldrich l in Granby. Fifteen roads would be crossed including ;
Interstate 202. No railroads or rivers would be ,
trave rsed. This segment has an increased visual impact over the prior section, especially with the urban development near Chicopee. Most of the segcent, however, is rural, of low density population. ' Widening of the right-of-way would be dif ficult. As above, probably replacement of existing structures would be necessary; currently there are steel towers with a wide steel crossarm to carry the two circuits.
(dd) From the South Hadley/Chicopee city boundary to the
Chicopec/ West Springfield city boundary' (middle of Connecticut River), a distsace of approximately 5.4 miles on rights-of-way of varying widths, approximately 2.5 miles of wooded terrain, 2.8 miles of heavy urban development and 0.1 miles of river crossing would be trave rs ed . Twenty five streets would be crossed including Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) as well as one railroad. There would be high visual impact ,
throughout this segment even in the wooded portions due to the heavy urban development abucting these areas with attendant views of the proposed circuit's structures above the overstory. From Fairmount Substation south there would probably be required a replacement or removal of existing structures of circuits of lesser voltages. Widening of the right-of-way could not be carried out without taking of residential property in several locations. As much of this area was laid out in the 19th century, i.e. ,
small lots, narrow roads, an attempt to construct the proposed circuit underground would also be difficult.
All five major streets crossing this part of Chicopee in a southerly direction are heavily travelled. At several locations residential yards and gardens are in the right-of-way. No site's associated transmission If nes have impacts of the magnitude of this segment of the circuit from Northfield Mcuntain Station to Agawam.
(ee) From the Chicopee/ West Springfield city boundary (middle of Connecticut River) to Agawam Substation, a distance of approximately 5.3 miles on a right-of-way either 100 feet or 150 f eet wide, the proposed circuit would traverse 0.8 miles of woods, 0.2 miles of open land, 0.8 miles of heavily developed urban land, 3.2 miles of residential land and 0.3 miles of river crossings including the remaining half of the Connecticut River not in 300.15.f(dd) above and the Westfield River.
Twenty two roads would be crossed including Interstate 5, 20 and 91. No wetlands are crossed but the main line of the former Boston and Albany Railroad is crossed. There would be a high visual impact throughout this segment especially in the prevailing residential areas. The existing 115 kV circuits would probably have to be retained which would create various problems in the approximately four miles of urban and residential land to be traversed.
To summarize, approximately 70.8 circuit miles would be required f or the Gill /Erving Site, of which there are 48.5 miles of woods, 12.1 miles of open land.1.7 miles of wetlands, 4.2 miles of limited residential development, 3.9 miles of heavy urban
-: -_ 1
1 development and 0.4 miles of river crossings totalling 7 river 1 crossings and the crossing.of Lake Aldrich. There are J
' approximately 113 street crossings including six interstate and 11 state highway crossings. There would be 6 railroad ;
crossings. New rights-of-way would total 29.4 circuit miles . I and existing rights-of-way of 41.4 miles, including the 1.3 )
miles of unoccupied right-of-way in Montague. The impact of ;
parallel circuits is minimal f or the Gill /Erving site due to
- he sbort distance, 2.0 or 1.6 miles respectively, of double circuit construction, as compared with Rome Point, Westerly or Charlestown. However, none of the other sites' associated transmiasion lines have impacts of the magnitude of the proposed circuit to Agawam.
As a basis for comparison of the associated transmission lines for the Charlestown' site with that of che alternate site, Table 300.15-3 is provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of. terrain traversed as well as irpacts have been doubled. The data were compiled f rom a consultant's study, analysis of USGS topographic maps and field analys is. Types of terrain crossed. are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed rights-of-way.
Comparison of the Charlestown and Gill /Ervin2 transmission shows similar right-of-way mileage, 70.6 and 70.0 miles ' respectively, with Gill /Erving being almost entirely on existing right-of-ways. However, the Charlestown transmission would be preferable .,
when compared to the impact of Gill /Erving on approximately eight miles of residential and urban development. <
- g. Zoning It is anticipated that power plant structurca would be located' in the Town or Erving, Massachusetts. Therefore, Erving's zong by-laws apply. The entire Town of Erving is zoned as a Village and Rural District. Industrial use is allowed subject to certain conditions such as public water and/or sewerage service, ' direct access to either Route 2, Route 2A or Route 63, etc. It is Applicant's understanding that the Erving zoning by-laws could allow a power plant as a permitted use at the Erving site.
Ref e rences fo r 300.15.a. , b. , d. . f.
P
- 1. Soil Survey - Franklin County, Massachusetts, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service February 1967
- 2. Soil Conservation Service, Massachusetts. (pe rsonal ,
conversation of 8-4-78) Subject. Classification of prime and unique farmlands of Massachusetts.
- 3. Soil mapping units used in Massachusetts that are prime j
farmlands -by Soil Conservation Service, 29. Cottage St. ,
Amhe rs t , MA 01102.
- 4. Important farmlands in Rhode Island, (definitions) of prime j
& unique. by R. I. Community Development Committee. June 28, 1977.
- 5. Massachusetts Division Fish & Wildlife (personal' conversation of 8/2/78). Listing of threatened and endangered wildlife (Inventory of Mass. Invertebrates).
' 6. Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2, Final Environmental Statement, February 1977 U.S. Nuclear Reg.
Comm. Doc Nos. 50-496, 50-497 ,
- 7. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Title 50 CFR Part 17 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; February 7,1978, Species according to range distributions, and updated through August 21, 1978.
- 8. Federal' Register June 16, 1976 Endangered and Threatened Species (pla nts) .
- 9. Federal Register, . Part V, July 14, 1977 Endangered and '
Threatened Wildlife & Plants (Republication of list of spe cies) .
I
- 10. Rare & Endangered Plant and Animal Species of Massachusetts.
Mass. Division of Fisheries and Game; February 1973.
- 11. Special Status Species of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and , Wildlife May 17, 1978.
- 12. Threatened Species of Massachusetts,1975. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. ,
- 13. Fish and Wildlife in Limited Numbers in Massachusetts; by '
Paul Mugford, Mass. Division Fish & Wildlife.
- 14. An Inventory of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (Vertebrate)
Resources..by: Paul S. Mugford, Mass. Division of Fish &
Wildlife; 1975..
- 15. Federal Register, February 7,1978. National Register of Ilistoric Places, and updated through August, 1978.
Ref e rences fo r 300.15.e.
- 1. Ca rs o n, J.E. 1976. Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative I
w m em a g w e .* w n w + t-s e n ew s o w e -y ** *y > ve w -- r,-,v-*w --*-eww+, .-+-ev- w~--=ww w eewrw< w
Cooling Systems. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 111. (ANL/ES-5 3).
- 2. Kramer, M.L. , M.E. Smith, M.I. Bu f fer, D.E. Seymour and T. T. Frankenbe rg , . 1976. Cooling Towers and the Environment. J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 26(6): 582-584.
- 3. Spurr, G. 1974. Meteorology and Cooling Tower Operation.
Atmos. Env. 8: 321-324.
sq , v + - > p , v- - , -- -.+- , + ,- , --
m ~ ,
Table 300.15-1. Potential Visual Impacts of the Erving Si'te East Location and Distance View
! Northfield Pump Storage Intervening terrain and tall Proj ec t (1 mi) trees partially obscure view.
Erving State Forest (1.5 mi) Very extensive terrain, limited access and dense trees greatly obscure view.
Wendell State Forest (4 mi) Terrain (1000-1200 f t mountains) and dense trees greatly obscure view.
Town of Erving (4.5 mi) Dense trees and intervening terrain (800-1000 ft) greatly obscure site.
Northfield State Forest (5 mi) Terrain (1200-1400 ft), limited.
access and dense trees greatly obscure view.
Orange State Forest (7 mi) Intervening terrain (800-1100 ft)
Warwick State Forest (7 mi) and dense trees greatly obscure Town of Orange (8 mi) view.
Mt. Grace State Park (8 mi)
State Highways Rt 2 (east-west) Site obscured by terrain and trees.
Rt 63 (north-south) Highway passes site. Site visible in many locations.
5 Table 300.15-1 (cont.)
South Town of Millers Falls (1.5 mi) Site visible passing over Conn.
River.
French King Bridge (Historic)(0.5 mi) Site visible fror. several locations.
Wendell State Forest (3.3 mi) Intervening terrain (800-1000 ft) and tall trees greatly obscure site.
Montague State Forest (4.5 mi) Intervening terrain (600-800 f t) and tall trees partially obscure site.
Town of Montague (5.5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
Others obscured by trees and other objects.
Mt. Toby State Forest (7.5 mi)
Interstate 1-91 (North-South)(8.5 mi) Intervening terrain (400-600 f t) and New Salem State Forest (9 mi) tall trees partially obscure site.
Agricultural lands (9 mi) 1 Site visible from some locations.
State Highway 63 (North-South) Site visible from some locations.
State Highway 47 (North-South) Site visible from some locations.
Table 300.15-1 (cont.) -
i
' West Montague State Forest Site visible from some locations.
(0.5 mi) Intervening tall trees and terrain (Stacy Mountain)
Turners Falls Airport Site visible from most of (2 mi) airport.
Barton Cove (Nature Trail) Dense trees obscure some of site.
(2.5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
Town of Turners Falls (3 mi) Site visible from several Indian Buttlefields (Historic) locations.
(3.5 mi)
Town of Greenfield (5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
Bank Row (Historic)(5 mi)
Foet's Scat Corner (historic)(5 mi)
Rocky Mountain Mountain Park (5 mi) Site partially obscured by tall trees.
Old Deerfield Village (Historic) Site partially obscured by tall (7 mi) trees and intervening terrain, Town of Deerfield (7.5 mi) Site partially obscured by intervening terrain.
Interstate Route 91 (North-South) Site visible from some locations. i (5 mi) Intervening terrain and tall i State Rt. 2 (East-West) trees.
U.S. Route 5 (North-South)(4.5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
State Route 10 (North-South) Intervening terrain and tall (4.5 mi) trees.
1
_w m
Table 300.15-1 (cont.) '-
North Montagne State Forest Site partially obscured by (0.5 mi) dense trees and terrain.
Grassy Hill State Park Site partially obscured by dense (2.5 mi) trees and terrain.
Mount Hermon School Site very visible to the south.
(4.5)
Town of Northfield (6 mi) Site visible from:some locations.
Home of Rev. D. L. Moody (Historic) Site visible from some locations.
(7 mi)
Northfield Green (Historic) (7.5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
Northfield State Forest Site mostly obscured by tall (7.5 mi) trees and intervening terrain.
State Rt. 10 (North-South)(5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
State Rt. 63 (North-South) Site visible from some locations.
State Rt. 142 (North-South)
.,m.,, y U eh + m- *
- mh
Table 300.15-2. Potential Visual Impact of the Charlestown Site East Location and Distance View Charlestown Town Beach (1.5 mi) Site visible.
Green Hill Beach (2.5 mi) Intervening trees and dunes.
Site visible from some locations.
Flat Meadow Cove (2 mi) Site visible.
Perry Pond Road (1.5 mi) Site visible from some locations.
State Highway Rt. 1 (East-West) Site obscured to within 1/4 mile of So. Kingston-Charlestown town line.
Pt. Judith - (9 mi) Site visible from some locations Residential areas near Sandy on days with good visibility.
Hill Cove Other areas east of Green Hill Site obscured by terrain and (3+ mi) trees.
9
- 2...,,w=-gaw + , - -, , . - - , *- q w y s w +v, , w , ,v--r <v<--+-.m-teww---ww-- ,,---r3,m-+,t--* ' - - - - - - - +rm* =- c. ~ = -,-r- < * *
- m-a * + = -w w-v e we---n'**'-evi +-ter er e *v r e=
- t Table 300.15-2 (cont.)
South Ninigret Fond (0.5 mi) Site 'isible Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge Site visible (1 mi)
East Beach (1 to 1.5 mi) Site visible from north side. Dune crest for beach sanduhers.
nrovides southside screening Charlestown Breachway (1.5 mi) Site visible.
Block Island Sound (1 mi) Site visible.
l l
l 1
l
- m. _ - _ . , , . . , _ . . , . _ . . , _ , _ _ _ . , _ . , , , . . . , , _ _ , , , , , . _ . . . _ _ _ . , _ , , _ . _ _ . , ,_,__..,..,_,...._1
. = - . . . - ~
Tabic 300.15-2 (cont.)
West State Highway Rt. 1 Site visible from some locations.
Ninigret Pond (0.5 mi) Site visible.
Residences on west shore of Ninigret Site visible from most loca',1cus.
Pond (2 mi)
Quonochontaug Pond and west Site mostly or completely obscured.
(2.5+ mi)
Woody Hill Management Area (4 mi) All areas obscured by terrain Town of Westerly (7.5 mi) and/or tall trees >
Kimball Bird Sanctuary (1 mi)
Westerly State Airport e
I 4-,.m... . , , . . - . . . . - . . . ~ . . . . . , . . - ... . . . . . . . , . . . - . . , . , - . . . _ . . - . .._- . -_ - . . , . . . - . - . . . . - - - - ~ . -
Table 300.15-2 (cont. ) i.
North Fort Ninigret (1 mi) Site partially obscured by trees.
Town of Charlestown Site mostly obscured by trees and terrain.
Residential area (Narrows Lane) Site visible from some locations. I (2 mi) ,
i U.S. Highway Rt. 1 Site visibic as highway passes site.
Royal Indian Burial Ground Site obscured by trees and terrain.
(2.5 mi)
Burlingame State Park (1.5 nd)
Indian Cedar Swamp Management Area (2.5 mi) @/
l
.- _~~ - n.- . - - - . _ , - ._ . _ _
Table 300.15-3. Charlestown and Erving/ Gill Site's Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles.
Category Charlestown Erving Terrain - Woods 65.0 48.5 We tlands 13.9 1.7 Open Land 9.2 12.1 Other - 0.4*
Residential 0.4 4.2 Urban -
3.9 Total Circuit Miles: 88.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-New 77.3 1.6 Right-of-Way Existing 11.2 69.2 Total, as above: 88.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 0.8/each Right-of-Way Single Circuit 52.7 69.2 Total Right-of-Way Mileage: 70.6 70.0 Impacts:
Historic Sites 3 2 Cultural Sites - -
Recreational Sites Definite 4 12 Pos s ib le - 9 Unique Place or Opportunity - Several
- River Crossing I
l 4
f
}
i l
'V E R M O N T N E 17
_&1
\\
I ~
\( s v)
H A N P S H I R E
.e -
/ _' - '{, ,.
j k / ._
$~/
J --/ , .
..h S , -.-
6 , .
J. 3'
- d Y
- ;y - h Northfield
..l W~i g, g g
--,jp - -
g
=- L
~ .
l-M, \bW" g "' R'5% q9{f,=.c.&f.4:gt_._-~,7- $. 5 .
{[ .R
_ s N O., -
p, h
O .: v ' : . . ;_
[
j-, y ;
p t .----. -
M,. L, g -
.. . . O.g --- :
._.t_ W 3
T- %
ew . Asb f!. e h!- ?
t> N 4 - ---
,.=.'*.' - -
.. m 1
V . . -
/
l4[~-S m'.RQf~ = ..:' LBfj~f ~l' * '4*;;T%pp,$y J ~~
- [ -~~~ a LQ S/S p
~~
s -
]R t
% )~ _ .
. c x( ,
Asamaa sjs
~,
._ w g h >.
'~
+.
" v\ f
.l>
w ./.w&
~-'\,'.'.-~.--~'-
. .N p
~"-l '
H ,1+. _ D E 7
-J5y :_N --A igk ' .6. ' s__
/.
^ " - -
11 ! g- - -- f y . m
_ k= ,' p .
t --
\
2 I44 I Lf i
-i s
y@" _ 3 y _f . 7 Oga
, Q_ I y
Farnum 4 , ,. \~'~ 'T ,
) . ..
k i,.,,,, h5/s 4 ,4,,, ,,, .
p'O ' N=ts] _:
4 C 0 N N E C T l C U T q. -- -h'~ ~~-h. b l, g , ' !
Card
~~~
~ I'"E .~ '\---
.3
' ~ ~
S t reet x
Count (
83
,. .,, 3
, p
'"'r--
4 - _ '
.----$ 'j s/s p,. id ' ' _ ]-gg ;
sig .=> 6- . A 3 *s, E -. -
, Y. g7 d _ _-
River II .. s
~~~
s- mr - a
, yr n
't2 D_
4- j T,',4,7 -
- Y p~ .n%p ye. reint y v
. s e ,,
nanrvener
?. f,r d v f'
- D,s*c .
' ' ' ' ~ '
H. .: 2-q/ -::.
1 sr jw .-' s Figure 300.15-1. Composite Proposed ~~
d ., g,t .
Transmission Systems for Gill /Erving, ' ~ ~ "
Rome Point and Westerly Alternate Sites. .
O %
t_______.______ __ ___
.- -~ .- - . . . - . = - . ..
300.16 ' Rome Point.(ER p. 9.2-19)
- a. Is there prime' or unique agricultural land onsite?' ,
- b. Would the project (including associated transmission , lines) involve floodplain development or loss of wetlands?
- c. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be impacted by the project (including ' associated ' transmission lines)?
- d. Would the project (including associated transmission lines) impact any place of historic, cultural, or recreational importance? Would it involve loss of a unique place or oppo rtuni ty ? Give details where appropriate.
- e. . Would cooling towers create a safety hazard f rom fogging or icing?
- f. Would the plant be threatened by external missiles, hazardous materials or flammable gas?
- g. What would be the aesthetic impact of the project?
- h. What would be the impact on community services?
- i. Would the project be consistent with zoning and planning _
commission guidelines?-
i RESPONSE: a. Agricultural Land An Interim Soil Survey Report for North Kingstown, R.I. was issued by the Soil Conservation Service in 1973. Based on this survey, it appears that some lands designated as prime f armlands -
are found on the Rome Point site. Of the 240 acre site area, about five percent are of this type. Prime farmland soil types and the corresponding acreage is listed below:
Name and Desc ription Acreage Sudbury sandy loam 10 Deerfield loamy fine sand 10 Unique Farmland Through combined analysis of the North Kingstown soil survey and land use characteristics, it is believed that no unique farmland exists on the Rome Point site.
_..i!.,,-._,a..w...,_-.,...,,..,.,_,._._,__.,_,__.,,,__ _ _, _ _ _ _ _
- b. Floodplain Development Rome Point is situated on the west bank of Narragansett Bay and is subject to flooding f rom sea water. The type of storm that affects this area most severely is the hurricane. The 1938 hurricane is termed the most severe in the New England area during the period of tidal gage records. The Newport, Rhode Island tidal gaging station experienced a flood level to a maximum elevation of 10.8 feet above mean sea level (MSL)(normal tidal range is 3.5 f t). The Army Corps of Engineers reported a value of 11.8 f t above national geodetic vertical datum (NG\0) along the eastern bank of East Passage which is part of Narragansett Bay.
Maximum elevation at the Rome Point Site is roughly 120 feet (MSL) in the southwest corner and it slopes downward to sea level over a horizontal distance of approximately 4200 feet.
A detailed site layout has not been prepared,' but the site coastline is subject to storm flooding. If the plant were ;
situated in the coastal floodplain, flood protection would be required.
Wetlands can be classified by looking at either the vegetation, soil type or a combination of both. The Rome Point site has about 60 acres of its 240 acre total as either very poorly or poorly drained soils. These soils, according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service are typical wetland soils and are all located in the northern section of the site. The soile of this type on site are Pawcatuck Peat (tidal marsh) soil, Walpole sandy loam and Scarboro sandy loam, each having characteristic high water tables.
Relative to associated transmission lines, no floodplain development is anticipated. If any construction is necessary ,
in wetlands, use of swamp mats, e.g. , would mitigate any impact. !
As such, there would not be unit loss of wetlands, except for l the actual areas of the poles. )
l
- c. Threatened Species Inf ormation gathered on the terrestrial and aquatic environments I associated with the Rome Point site to date indicates that no l threatened or endangered terrestrial flora or f auna would be ;
impacted by the construction of a power plant. Although it i is believed that some species of mammals and birds may cross (
by the site, none frequents the areas of the site.
1 At or near the proposed right-of-way at the Taf tville, Connecticut crossing of the Shetucket River, for the proposed circuit from the Rhode Island / Connecticut State Line to Card 1
I i
l i
l
Street Station, there may be a location for Prunus allegheneiens is,t Prior to construction of the associated.
transmission lines, knowledgeable personnel would walk the proposed rights-of-way to be sure there are no threatened or endangered species present. If located, construction would '
be performed in a manner to prevent any impact.
- d. Historic Place Impact The Rome Point site is owned by Applicant thus there would not -
be any loss of historic, cultural or recreational importance.
Within approximately one-mile of the site center, the following historic, outdoor recreational, conservation and open space has been inventoried.1,2 -
Location and Distance Description Plum Point Beach (south) Private f acility (2 ac.)
Plum Beach Club (south) Private f acility (0.8 ac.) 1 Silas Casey Farm (south)* Private (360 ac.)
Hamilton School (northwest) Local school (7.1 ac.)
Bissel's Cove Launch (north) Private Bissel Cove Natural area ,
- National Register of Historic Place i The only historic site listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National Register of Historic Places which might be impacted by either the station or transmission lines would be the North Kingston, Wickford Historic District, roughly bounded by Tower Hill and Post Roads as f ar North as Mill Cove -
and South to Lindley Ave. (12-31-74). From an elevation of 10 feet, i.e., on the second floor of some structures, the top 25 f eet of the projected 17 5 f t containment structures and substantially more of the natural draf t cooling towers, if required, would be visible from a distance of approximately 13,000 ft. Neither the George Douglas House in Allentown, Rhode l Island nor the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace on the Silas Casey Farm, both in Saunderstown, Rhode Island would be impacted l despite their relative proximity to the associated transmission lines and site.
The projected transmission system for the Rome Point site is described below.
No sites of significant cultural importance would be impacted i by either the Rome Point to Kent County, Rome Point to Big River Junction or Rome Point to Card Street Station proposed 345 kV j circuits, to the best of our knowledge.
i For the proposed Rome Point to Kent County 345 kV circuit, one ,
l l
1
. school's recreation fields would be traversed by' the line.
By mutual consent the recreation field has been developed on our right-of-way pending f uture needs of the utility. To the best of our knowledge, no impact is anticipated on recreational sites for the Rome Point to Big River Junction proposed 345 kV circuit. For the proposed Rome Point - Card Street 345 kV circuit, land associated with a Boy Scout camp would be trave rs ed.
No truly " unique place or opportunity" would be lost due to the project, to the best of our knowledge.
Transmission Sys tem The associated transmission lines for the proposed Rome Point site (Figure 300.15-1), North Kingston, Rhode Island, four 345 kV circuits, generally to be constructed on wood pole, H-f rame structures averaging 85 feet in height, are planned as follows:
- 1. One circuit of approximately 12.5 miles in length to Kent County Substation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island (300.16.d(a)-
(b) below).
- 2. One circuit of approximately 11.4 miles in length to a print 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known as Big River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet the Sherman Road - Kent County 345 kV circuit. (300.16.d (a)(c)(d) below.)
- 3. One circuit of approximately 53.7 miles in length to Northeast Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, Connecticut (300.16.d(e)-(h) below.).
- 4. One circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length from West Farnum Substation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island to Millbury Substation, Millbury, Hassachusetts (300.16.d(i) below.).
Detailed description of the proposed segment of the above circuits is as follows:
(a) From the proposed Rcine Point site, North Kingston, Rhode Island, two circuits of approximately 2.9 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on an existing unoccupied right-of-way 300 feet wide to be widened to 350 feet, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a junction point on the existing West Kingston-Kent County right-of-way approximately 7 50 feet southwest of Secret Lake.
(b) From the above junction point near Secret Lake, one
T circuit of approximately 9.6 miles in length would be constructed northerly on the existing West Kingston -
Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to Kent County Substation, East Creenwich, Rhode Island.
(c) From the ebove junction point near Secret Lake, one ,
circuit of .approximately 0.8 miles in length would be constructed southwesterly on the existing West Kingston - Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to a junction point just south of Kettle Hole Pond, North Kings ton.
(d) From the above junction point near Kettle Hole Pond, one circuit of approximately 7.7 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide . to a junction point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter known as Big River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet the existing Sherman Road - Kent County 345 kV circuit.
(e) From the proposed Rome Point. site, one circuit of approximately 3.4 miles in length would be constructed westerly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to a junction point on the West .Kingston - Kent County right-of-way approximately 0.6 miles northwest of Congdon Hill, North Kingston.
(f) From the above junction point near Congdon Hill, one circuit of approximately 1.6' miles in length would be constructed southwesterly on the existing West Kingston - Kent County right-of-way, 200 feet wide, no widening required, to a . junction point just west of where Slocum Road crosses the right-of-way in North Kingston.
(g) From the above junction point near Slocum Road, one circuit of approximately 17.7 miles in length would be cons tructed wes terly on a new right-of-way,150 feet wide, to the Rhode Island / Connecticut state line at a point opposite Hopkinton, Rhode Island and 0.6 miles northeast of Shingle Mill Pond, Connecticut.
This point is also common to the Charlestown to' Card Street Station Line on the Westerly to Card Street Station Line.
(h) From this junction point near Shingle Mill Pond, one circuit of approximately 31.0 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly, approximately 11.2 miles paralleling existing rights-of-way and 19.8 miles of new rights-of-way, generally 170 feet wide, to the 4
'%'--., , , , . .g- An= .
sprm.,,- p
. _ - _ - - - - ~ . . .. . - . _ -
t existing Northeast Utilities Card' Street Station in Lebanon, Connecticut (See ER Section 3.9.18.2 " Direct ,
Route".) '
(1) From West Farnum Substation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island, one circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on the existing right-of-way, averaging 250 feet wide, paralleling two 115 kV circuits and replacing a 69 +
kV double circuit line, to M111 bury substation, Millbury, Massachasetts. As this circuit is also required for the Charlestown Project, no further s analysis is made of it in this discussion of alternatives to Charlestown.
- e. Cooling Towers I
Applicant's response to RAI 300.15.e discussed the relative differences of dif ferent types of cooling towers on the 1 Gill /Erving site. This discussion is also applicable to the l Rome Point site. The only general difference would be that cooling towers for the Rome Point site would be somewhat larger due to the required use of salt-water for make-up. 1 Those site specific features which could potentially be af fected [
by fogging or icing are: (1) State Route 1A; (2) the Jamestown ;
Bridge; (3)' local residential areas to the north and south; !
(4) and, local shipping traf fic through the West Passage of '
Narragansett Bay. ;
Additional information about salt water cooling towers is in the response to RAI 300.19.
1
- f. Hazards Applicant conducted a recent survey of potential hazards near the Rome Point site. The data collected are summarized below. !
Highways. No usef ul data are maintained on possible hazardous over-the-road shipm'edts near the site.
Reference:
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Department. Pers. Comm. 1978.
State of Rhode Island, Department of Public Utilities, Transportation and Planning. Pers. Comm. 1978.
Waterways. Vessels entering and leaving (approximate)
Narragansett Bay between 6/30/77 to 7/1/78.
350 tankers (petro, oil, etc.) ,
i l
l
.__ . % w e m e w. . a n mi , e, o c .5 e .+w .*, - .=.v. wir ee- .+w o -ow v .w. e + o w + . -r, . m .+ .. + s -+ w +**
200 barges (gasoline, oil, etc.)
3-5 barges (caustic soda) 600 non-tankers (general cargo) 14' mineral carriers 6-8 LPG (all foreign ships, 400-600 ft long)
Reference. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Providence, R.l . Pers. Comm. ' 197 8.
1 Gas Lines High pressure 8 in. line 2 miles NW High pressure 12 in. line 2.5 miles W High pressure 16 in line 5 miles NW Regulator Station 5 miles NW LNG storage facility 5 miles NW Four regulator stations 5-10 miles of site Reference Operations Department, Providence Gas Company. Pers.
Comm. 1978.
Airways. T. F. Green State Airport is located approximately 13 miles to the north of the site. The total number of operations in 1977 was 241,075. Total operations for the first six months of 1978 was 139,890.
Quonset State Airport is located approximately 2 miles north of the site. In 1977, the airport listed 39,562 aircraf t movements. These were categorized as 29,747 civil transient (private, corporate, etc.), 78 for fixed-base operators, 9,579 1 military movements and 158 other. Monthly values for the first six months of 1978 are similar with the exception that fixed- )
base ope rators were ave raging approximately 1,000 movements.
Ref e rence. State of Rhode Island, Department of Transportation, i Division of Airports, Warwick, R.I. , September,1978. j 1
Applicant believes that with adequate safeguards, for example, a secondary containment as accounted for in Table 9.3-1 (Rev.
5), Rome Point is a viable alternate candidate site.
- g. Aes thetics Applicant conducted a historical study in 1972 for the then proposed Rome Point Station. The study included an analysis of aesthetic impact based on a 240 ft. high containment structure. As can be seen f rom this analysis (attached) by projecting 550 i foot natural draft cooling towers into the visual analysis, the only noticeable change would be from the Sarah Browning flouse, Old School, Hamilton Mill and Wickford Historic District. These are in addition to the obvious
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - .. __ . _ _ _ ~ _ - . . .. _ __ _
visib'ility of these _ structures out into Narragan'sett Bay.
Relative to the' associated transmission lines:
(a) From Rome Point to Kent County Substation (300.16.d(a)-(b) above), the initial 2.9 miles would be on an existing unoccupied right-of-way - and the remaining 9.6 miles, totalling 12.5 miles would be on an existing right-of-way. l It would traverse 5.8 miles of woods, 2.9 niles of wetlands, 2.5 miles of open land, 0.7 miles of woods on one side /open land on the other side and 0.6 miles abutting a residential ,
area. The circuit would cross an arm of Spirit Lake, the Maskerchugg River and the main line of the former New York. -
New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approxinately seventeen-roads would be crossed including Interstate 1, lA and 95.
As the proposed circuit would parallel Route 4' for approximately five miles in East Greenwich, which has extensive traf fic on it, there would be visual impact in this segment.
(b) From Rome Point to Big River Junction (300.16.d(a), (c),
(d) above), the initial 2.9 miles would be on an existing ,
right-of-way, the next 0.8 miles are 'also on an existing righ t-of-way and the final 7.7 miles, totalling 11.4 miles would be on a new right-of-way. It would traverse
- approximately 8.4 miles of woods, 1.5 miles of wetlands and 1. 5 mile s - of ope n la nd. The circuit would not cross
~
any rivers but would cross the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately' thirteen roads would be crossed including Interstate l'and 1A. Af ter traversing two sizeable agricultural open areas south of Huckleberry Hill, North Kingston, tbt circuit would traverse extensive woods in an undeveloped area until reaching Big River Junction.
(c) From Rome Point to Rhode Island / Connecticut state line (300.16.d(e)-(h) above) the initial 3.4 miles would be on a new right-of-way, the next 1.6 miles would be on an existing right-of-way, and the remaining 17.7 miles, totalling approximately 22.7 miles would be on a new right-of-way. It _would traverse approximately 19.5 miles of woods, 1.1 miles of wetlands and 2.1 miles of open land. The proposed 345 kV would cross the Mattatuxet River, the Chipuxet . River, the Wood River and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
Approximately 22 roads would be crossed including Interstate 95, 1 and 1A.
(d) From the Rhode Island / Connecticut state line to Card Street Substation, (300.16.d(g) above) the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on existing Northeast Utilities rights-of-way for
, , ,, , , y- _.3%-,~ . . . _ , o . E m--,+.w-y,', - , , - ,,..-m-Mrr,m, . ..mn%..,e...w .._--.,,4.' .---.s..........J...... r-2
approximately 11.2 miles and approximately l'9.8 miles of new rights-of-way would be necessary, totalling 31.0 miles.
From an analysis made in 1975 by a consultant, approximately 18.2 miles of woods would be crossed,' 6.8 miles of wetlands, 5.7 miles of open land and 0.3 miles of residential land.
There would-be a high visual impact in crossing.the Connecticut Turnpike and near Route 97 (See Charlestown ER Sect ion 3.9.18.2) . Twenty-six road crossings are.
req ui red.
To summarize, exclusive of the Wes t Farnum to Millbury Substation proposed 345 kV circuit, approximately 77.6 circuit miles would be' required, 40.9 miles on new rights-of-way and 36.7 on existing righ ts-o f-way. Approximately 51.9 miles of wooded terrain would be traversed,12.3 miles of wetlands, 11: S miles of open land, 0.7 miles of wooded land on one side /open land on the other side and 0.9 miles of residential land would be impacted. There are six river crossings by single circuits. There are three railroad crossings by single circuits. Seventy-eight street crossings 'are required including two single circuit crossings of Interstate 95, one single circuit crossing of Interstate 1 and Interstate 1A, and a double circuit crossing of Interstate 1 and of Inters tate 1A. Recognition should be made of the one parallel segment of these circuits, namely from Rome Point to a junction point south of Secret Lake (2.9 miles).
As a basis for comparison of the associated transmission lines
~
^
for the Charlestown site with the. alternate site, Table 300.16-1 has been provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of terrain traversed have been doubled.
The data were compiled f rom a consultant's study, analysis of USGS topographic maps and field analysis. The proposed West Farnum Substation to M111 bury Substation 345 kV circuit has not been included in the attached data. Types of terrain crossed are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed righ ts-of-way .
Comparison of Charlestown to Rome Point shows that Rome Point would require more right-of-way mileage, 70.6 vs. 74.7 miles, and would have a higher visual impact than Charlestown's circuits. 7
?
?
, , - - _ -m__.,,=. ,, _ . , , ~ _ . .
I
- h. Community Services The impact on community services would be generally similar to that of any other ncw nuclear f acility in a rural residential area and comparable to the Charlestown site in some respects.
As discussed in ER Section 8.2.2.1, most of the labor force will come from the State of Rhode Island, especially Providence.
the closer proximity of Rome Point to Providence will f acilitate commuter traf fic. Alternate major sources of skilled labor are Bridgeport (Conn. ), Worcester (Mass. ) and Boston (Mass).
The Massachusetts labor force would be somewhat closer to Rome Point. Thus, impacts during construction might be somewhat less than at Charlestown site.
Other areas requiring consideration include local growth, tax base demand for housing, impact on utilities, law enforcement, traffic, fire protection and schools. Applicant believes that with proper planning, any significantly adverse impacts could be mitiga ted.
- 1. Zoninn Approximately 89 acres of the total site area is zoned industrial district which includes power plants as a permitted use subject to a number of minimum requirements (i.e. , setback from propert lines or zoning lines, open space, maximum lot coverage by structures, etc.) and performance standards regulating noise, vibration, smoke, waste, etc. The remaining site acreage is zoned rural residential which does not include power plants as a permitted use.
Studies have not been performed to determine if the 89 acres zoned industrial are sufficient area for locating the NEP 1&2 units nor has the construction and operation of a nuclear plant been analyzed for compatibility with the zoning by-law perf ormance standards.
Ref erences for 300.16.a and c.
Same as ref erences 2 through 10 for questions 300.17a. and b.
and:
- 1. Interim Soil Survey Report for North Kingstown, Rhode Island U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; 1973
- 2. Soil Conservation Service, R.I. (personal communication of 8-11-78).
Subject:
Rome Point soil survey and prime and unique f armlands.
Ref e rences for 300.16.d
- 1. Seavey, G.L.1975. Rhode Island's Coastal Natural Areas:
Priorities for Protection and Management. Coastal Resources ,
Center, University of Rhode Island, Marine Technical Report No. 43.
- 2. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1976. Pla n f or Recreation, Conservation and Open Space. Project: SOR 44-00110, Report No. 28.
- 3. Federal Register, February 7,1978, National Register of Historic Places, and updated through August, 1978.
I j.
Table 300.16-1 Charlestown and Rome Point Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles Category Charlestown Rome Point Terrain - Woods 65.0 51.9 Wetlands 13.9 12.3 Open Land 9.2 11.8 Other - 0.7*
Residential 0.4 0.9 Urban - -
Total Circuit Miles: 88.5 77.6 Righ t-o f-Way-N ew 77.3 48.6 Right-of-Way - Existing 11.2 29.0 Total, as above: 88.5 77.6 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17 9/each 2.9/each Right-of-Way-Single Circuit 52.7 71.8 Total Right-of-Way Mileage: 70.6 74.7 Impacts:
Historic Sites 3 -
Cultural Sites -
Recreational Sites Definite 4 2 Possible - -
Unique Place or Opportunity - -
- Woods and open land i
l i
I i
v+4 e,w+-- e . , , ,_ , _ _ _ , _ , _ _ __ _
i ATTACHMENT to R AI 300.16.g "
1972 ROME POINT HISTORICAL STUDY Subject to a request made by the Atomic Energy Commission (dated 7/14/72) for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a study was made to determine the possible visual impact of the proposed Rome Point f acility upon the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace. Along with this study, the Company further investigated 14 additional sites recommended by the Rhode island Historical Preservation Commission to the Department of Community Af f airs in a "Special Report on Rome Point". All 15 houses and buildings are considered to be of " distinguished quality" and historical significance as reported in the paper. "An Opinion on the Rome Point Project" by Winslow Ames, a f aculty member of the University of Rhode Island and a resident of Saunderstown where most of the historical sites are located. Ames lives approximately two miles from the proposed project site.
Although some of these recommended historic structures have been modified architecturally or are now being used commercially, we considered all of them.
Since some of these sites are in close proximity to one another, five groupings or basic observation areas will cover all fif teen sites:
The Gilbert Stuart Area -- Gilbert Stuart Birthplace; (Looking N.E. ) McLeod's House; Snuf f Mill; 17th Century House on Gilbert Stuart Road The Saunders town Area -- House of Jamison (2), South Ferry (Looking N) Church, Church Post Road Robinson Site & Peabody Sterns House Browning Area -- Abutting Project, Sarah Browning (Looking N) House Hamilton Area -- Old School, Mill Building (2)
Wickford Area -- Wickford Historic District (Looking S)
(Looking E)
A brief description of the proposed project area is provided for background information. .
This 223-acre site is bounded on the west by Route LA; the north by private land and Bissel Cove; the south by a private field, and east by Narragansett Bay. The most activity in the area seems to come from Quonset Point Naval Air Station three miles to the north followed by 4 % v , . a. ., - m.
d residential housing development in the general vicinity at a rate above the State's average. A two-lane expansion of the Jamestown Bridge just south of the project is proposed for 1974.
The site has common ocean side climatic vegetation stunted by extreme ,
wind conditions on a relatively flat area. The sandy and stony soil is quick draining promoting drought tolerant species that are generally salt resistant.
The site area averages 15 feet above MSL and the height of the containment is estimated to be 240 feet high. As a result, the estimated top height of the structure is 255 feet above sea level.
With this in mind, we have attempted to make an appraisal of each of the five historic observation zones looking in the direction of the site.
The profiles on the attachments were done ta scale, taking the most prominent high points on a line of site basis.
The Gilbert Stuart Area -- 1-1/2 miles from the project The project structures will not be seen f rom the Gilbert Stuart House (a national historic landmark) because of the deciduous tree line (even without leaves) and hills. This also follows for the Snuf f Mill and McLeod's House. However, because of the open field at the intersection of 1A and Gilert Stuart Road, the 17th Century house, located on a 150-foot hill, could be a vantage point to observe the project. Howeve r, this appears to be highly unlikely, since trees will screen visual contact. (Attachment No.1).
The Saunderstown Area This observation area averages over 2-1/3 miles f rom the project.
This summer colony includes the Peabody-Sterns House, 2 houses of Jamison, the South Ferry Church, the Church on Post Road and the Robinson House.
The observation zone from most of these are blocked by Barber Heights.
j (Attachment No. 2). The two Jamison houses could render a view of the p roje ct from their upper level windows.
The Browning Area This structure is 1/2 mile south of the site and is at 120 MSL.
This observation area will lend visual notice to the upper half of the structure. However, because of some contemporary remodeling and very recent efforts with respect to historical classification, this site will have to be more closely looked at. (At tachment No. 3) .
The Hamilton-Belleville Area This area includes an Old School used presently for commercial upholstering and two mill buildings, one in Hamilton and one in Belleville all west of the site. From Belleville, the two-mile line of sight to the e
proje ct is blocked by a ridge 400 f eet away. From Hamilton,' howeve r, because of the low flat terrain, the upper half of the containment will be seen f rom the Old School and mill building. (Attachment No. 3).
The Wickford Historic District Area This area is approximately 2-1/2 miles northwest of the proposed site. Because of the close spacing of buildings in this historic district, only views f rom the shores of Wickford Cove or upper floors of buildings will give notice to the upper half of the containment structure. l In conclusion, of the 15 sites involved, the Gilbert Stuart Historic Landmark will not have a visual point of view and only five of the other 14 proposed sites will lend some degree of visual notice to the project.
l
4 AN OPINION ON THE ROME POINT PROJECT By Winslow Ames Houses and buildings of distinguished quality near the Rome Point site:
- 1. Old School, c. 1865, of f Weaver's Road in Wickford (formerly the Wickford Weavers' Shop).
- 2. House for Owen Wister,1905, of f Rt. lA.
- 3. House by Peabody & Stearns on Waterway.
- 4. McLeod's llouse on Gilbert Stuart Road.
- 5. Gilbert Stuart Birthplace (1755), Gilbert Stuart Road A National Historic Landmark.
- 6. Snuff Mill (17 57), Snuf f Mill Road.
- 7. South Ferry Church on South Ferry Road, Saunderstown.
- 8. House by Jamison, Crowfield Road of f Rt. lA, Saunders town.
- 9. House by Jamison, Crowfield Road of f Rt. l A, Saunde rs town.
- 10. Baptist Chur ch,1840, Hamilt'on.
- 11. Church,1810, Pos t Road.
- 12. Late 17th century house, Gilbert Stuart Road.
- 13. Hannah Robinson House, 1710, Saunders town.
- 14. A group of fine mill buildings in Hamilton and Belleville.
- 15. Sarah Browning flouse, Saunde rs town.
These buildings are located by number on the accompanying map of North Kingstown.
SPECIFICS ON MAJOR SITES Observation Distance & Direction Visual Obstruction i
Area Location Elevation to Rome Point Distance Gilbert Stuart Gilbert Stuart House 20' 9,000' NE 100' McLeod's House 40' 8,500' NE 200' Snuff Mill 90' 8,000' NE 1,000' 17th Century House 140' 12,000' NE 700' Saut..ars town Two Houses of Jamison 120' 12,000' N 4,000' h South Ferry Church 50' 12,000' N 500' Post Road Church 80' 12,000' N 1,000' i Robinson House 70' 14,000' N 1,000' Peabody & Sterns 30' 12,000' N 1,000'
' Browning Sarah Browning House 125' 3,000' N 3,000' Hamilton and Belleville Old School 20' 4,000' SE 600' Mill Buildings 3
Hamilton 10' 5,000' SE 1,000' Belleville SC' 11,000' SE 800' Wickford Historic Discrict 10' 13,000' SE 3,000' 1 ..
m - _ , . _ _ m _ . - _ . _ m
- =
- t ;=fa * .L ., ' e E* U1
,. ] ,} I,,t 5
[l Jf31 l .3 e '"d) .
worowo navn ,
.I ,,
^ koY h.". Y C, N h $
, *.&.n ,:b ~v// . 'i f j'7
. / &'*',,'/
Y,
, 'e
, ,h x.,q
.3,l,.. / s p-w, a> '
,;)a ;.
i v" /,,, ,h.,..,//gg,'6.1,,A
,/,-~ f ' ,,,\ ara. + . .
. 3l
- *.,l ..]s.'
.* . P l
{I'h **Mm'~,, l., ./ -
.4. .**
,., W'ho .'d h. f t. 7 ~ '
'~s, s,...
- k. N.N. ,wn. .
. .A +.sd.
s . , . o ,,a H t
. . -s '
'x . : .s 4 m s-. y4.,: ... s s. -
i
%..s,;:,y;d .,, . f . ,>9;.:a. g/.
., s-
.s, e%
.s
., I, g .,, ; ' a f' e.. g, s,' . N
'% ... '^ $ ' " O .r: '.* > \ P '. . % %
K .9 jf.q =1 C'h ,
i ,,:
. 1 py;"~~..., .
k's ',Q , y[ & st.) h' a r..... 2 i M n. 7, % .g. .:/ s,m u~,pte M. p, :,s. .8. - .L ,.~ 6,p. S.. M: +,$6. . .,<..Q:.,s.!s #$v1c_4:. }7 e s
. ., , . + . . . \
~ . . . . . ,
s .
.......- .- i
~ . .eh.,
y . s&. . .D .,. .. -
- n.
2.
.n.
gi ~ ~ 3 Q. <: m *:p~w ..,.~ :;m~5..., p'A'j:of<h+ ,. a :,.. .,i .
. .ty:.-l: .
n._.
f . r.
Ma . %, ,, Q
. u./J. c, . .
y 2. .p. .c /._.)a_ .
_, i.m,, e. - . . . , e., e , c..e T .s ; .,. ;m.1.. ,1 . 3. e .
r.). ., ! !r .: . . .w. .N . r_ , c .
Vy e <' .g ~.
...-. ..x - ;. .,. ;.: . :.w. v.. ~,p n.m.4.. .wp...
x . .. , . . . . .s .
.y-n.:a u,a.v. ,
m
.. -n ..
..; 1_;v7 ,
r .y / "%'
~ ~ ~
o.
. ; ,,. ,3 - " gg.n~., 7., ,af 'l C f f.d / 4/,d ..
. . ,) '.m' . /
( .{ ..:. y/:,Q;n s~,,4.
. ,. i
%g,,,.. .t,ig,. .
.o
~
. g .. ....*.,4
~~~~.,
_-- ~_ .
. . g
- S9 /
. ., w%
N. T
- w. . , ~.. .. . . .s/
,/
O \ Wx,,D, N.MN'- . 2,p
' 0' Yu
n % ,,,
f ,._,...g"-
- x. ~
%C s y o.....e.
4 '. .. .
., (.
<. , .' r' y'.\:. Q . , &. u s , ,,
.s
..\se ,q ,.t.c.
b oM r;e l ,n..-. .ya. 8,g w n< - p n.s..
, ,, v:.
m, , . . ,a . .r.... . >:.;.y s ;., A i..7 y,c. .,., u. . =
/ .
ni,$r.".. .n.,m . . :e, .p ,9.f uP c a
.., ;~ vi. -
Q N
) 1: y s. 1 3 .i ,
g,..;v g, ( N e ..r..,,cQ. ,< ' ww, ., ~
..,. . s ..
....,o..,,*., . .t:
.a. r n
a
,/ (r/ g
. .l- . ,k .,
e... .. , . .\
C of;
'.,h et %ct ** v e.u.:>,'."h .i,t,l 1
~\ :
s r
(ck. l stag a . .m
-4.,im. n,,,ro.c.e.
_ t,' .y'l.
. w,.,c , . .I e,b y e
- g. ~ .LN.. .s. .s v
. . . . -e ',,
- s. I . . i ... .a. -
.i.
2 1 g.. =..:
- g. . r.,A :i.y .,. A H - ; . . K .~ ..%.c.n, :;i/,,.4
. . c.O* ,,
p,
,y g/ , a . u,.:..}s.
- 4, .
e,
- p. < , .i,y r
- ,\
j;3-s. ~ *
- r' *** ;n(-]' . :, \ .
h ,'.* *s * ',' " ' g, ,,,,,
'\ , /. s / ~
.~~.,\ . .u .
\;. s %'at . ..
I . ' ' } ;* ~ . ,
j' , ^ j.
^%s ,,. - 7a W. ,. .
e
. * = E .'h i
' s' .. .. .
,% d f
',!
- D 3
")
u
.p,7 z. ,
s.e
, -.x? So.Mkrch$at ArdA-. ....
. ..a a . v*.u . . ~ , ,
..l N.
.r.
.O< M <>b .
,7,
....~:n . :. .. .. . . g
.f.. . .;,., v ... 4
. . . j l
.s..-..-...
p 3 %; % .r f_ .. . s, - ..',.,.i 3 ,,, ,
y ,l,, ~~~~*
% E 'N
-./
1
' f,
. ~[ ' ' 3 I ' [. i.f., t..
l ,
- u. ,.,**.
.b .r.,., d
. ~., q s... , ,,
w; - ., t n -
, p. . , y g , . j. 3 g '. .
4 . . . . .
- 4. . d e.i. -
.,r _ . s. y //
. . .f1. /, . .1 fia .....a...
- w. j ,/
y', ' 3 .p # _ . . _ _ i .Ar.w.'i Ah%'
% w A
,,3,..
. k, s.<u r e 8 r.eet-f.;jW <y . e.
+ ,,u. -
._ c.m. f .(L i . . ... .. m .m . ,- . ..., ,, c.m s -
.t,
- u .. - -
e
- - *
- Lb., w.s
~ -(*
. p esa .
_ _. . < 5 - . , es . vv.%o e..t e o. ,'c . ' . . .
.,..A'
... o .4'*' ,., ;. [ ,;
a.. . . ..
.i , "'s . . ,,/ ;. '
_ ., .. j' ' h, t
e 5
a 4
- e C,>J
\,-
/
i e-.. ,
.se A
a.J r<
- .h %5 Qb e4 4., ( O e
('-* I e4 .e .e ,4 m j et, *!, v
.m
- .- .- .. ,, 1
'*d*4 1
s.- e u s. - \
O f.I 9 l
/ e a . a*
j I
. .a o i .J O I t' 5: 4 i 6 '.
" '*l "I ] t' c;,
I
. e o L
+ i 6. 8/i l t I s- .
1 1
I t
o I e
/ *s.
6 of a
f.5
,1, ,
4
.s. l -J c.,
L. '.. +-e M t I 4/ f
- er, g, F 'u O d
")
d L e. f:
-e+ l1 *1. ee af: U fA O s-.e I,*
Z P* . e*.
se t.ted, o . j k s h l M
eD s fl
$ *)
- 1
- 7 u' :.3 ") G W se to % H Q t t st) */1 s SJ V 48 u +. s Si 'c'7. as I c.,?
r,
..e J:
'- 46 le m
68 f!#
8J Ce is L..
t() 1.L.
O l 1
I +J f.
L r.
es 0 - C;
- u. C j <.;
.r..
c r3 r; o
.a F C a
! O
- A WJ C* L:
e . 7-t .. e
(;, ## p I MM 11
- J 14 ea 1p p p u * .f. 'cs y g:
. L '.4
) V '.
.a .f.:.
. L .A a L. t.
",1 w tJ t.. O 6 R G L. k Co ls I L, 60 les s 's [. -4 C M.*
s f. Go f *s
. e f>
- 41
- I f. fr C L O f* 8.- (J "J f" O C 4
.es (Y.
n C+: .e" , D, O f) se. *** 6a { t* Q s* C ,o O M i 'D.D (*
- , o *1 e <n so l y o
- 3 75 3 fl Li Gi w .e, I c .be . e
) e ,. n! .f, o e.,
o +. .
.L U It - 6' */ El 4 +8 1 f.
,(. W .T. . : ft I l F dJ
- .) +> C, e"s G .v l La . a 6 y C. Le e
% .m. %. % ( te m. O OL f. s'. O *
- L p M se l
p 6 4.J 41 l S" *
.8 *
- 4e .I- 6s j "2 b J GdO Jtar', 4 2 *- 4, Mu i -" kt .H
., e O, q ... O -a t O ts 0 Os L 1s "w OF 7. LA. .L*
- 3 Xe
.C (; *g C. *
- . *O 48 Ci g-A1 p ee &# +1 (J e' 48 i+ r Ga d G.s di
' % te qJ L &- GJ (J f, t t) 1. te WU U C C E ', '"*J
(, sg C d C 40 1 " (b es v < v o. e ~ w iti wa e g . efta F -* r: .
- f* d o c. ..o i:,a O
.a .O t's ..O e 4# $I M C 4J U 4# $ '8 f6 0 90 (0
p ..O.e ft
- .*.CJco >e '*
. c4 as y 4) p e.a eb e< *6 1e Uy e.6 .U m U 4)
N e c v ae ee o in
.o m 0.
e g ae4 ei .oe* in a y b0 Q M l b0 i
re n o
- .me
- m e.e * == e b*
9 m - M e, M e a, g a ::- 4, :s - ,
i p
mes, s te mee.
te in f) * *e in an p een
.'g', ,
C.5 > [C > C *,- C ;*
q t r*
k >==
+
, i 3 9 ' '
- 3 ** ' I ',,'g l%6-y g ,q 7 m - sh.! sih , ,. g,
- , .< .+.g <
- s '- , r- %
4
- 1
- w,. k rf.(
A-
- e. y e o . .
~;AUCti'- M. 2 W .
TJ $ 19. 0L *:. T2~.t N . . r.1 f
e Txo Houses cf Janicon
- - ~ ^ ~ " ~ >
^
__ .y . _ . - .
I Observation E!es nien 12i' F.et - i s..i or '^'a s t rrt i en 170 Feet Flant Nat \'isible Visual Cbst ructien L'is t ance 4,0v reet : Listar.ce to neve Point 12,000 Feet
% :th Fe r ry Giurch : Fost Rd. Cnurch ; Rebin30n Fonse ; Teabodv St err.s
~
. r
- Obsert atica Elevaricn 33 Teet ; _ i ght of C5s
$ t- -
1.'0 Teet Pl a.r t ' Jot \ :s ib le Fett; Dietsn u a - Fcint 12,000 Fret Visual Obstruction Listance 4
O e
The height of the Reine Point centsinment is ~'55 feet ubeve ses :evel. O .I 2]
E 4
/
.;[. s co e - r = 1.nec-q e
s.
,~.
9
- p. _ _ __.. , _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . . - - - - . . a_ . ._.- - .w
~ - -
~ y
... - m.
. Y.
l.
, ;i
- %T A!TACliMENT No. 3 A r
niE EROWNING. !!A"ILTON AND WICFFORD ARE A5 Sarah Browning Hcusc I
_ >l ,
Obseivation Elevation 120 feet ; t!cight af C1'struction 120 Feet Visus 1 Obstruction Distance 1,500 Feet ; Distance to Rome Paint 3,000 Feet Top 135 Feet Seen, q Old SchocI Observation Elevation 20 b -- licight :f 35struction 40 Feet Visual Obstru: tion Distance M0 Feet; l'is t an ce to Fome Point 4,000 Feet Tcp 102 Feet Scen.
~
O-lI. llamilton Mill -
Observation Elevation 19 Feet ; Height of 05st ruction 13 Feet Visual Obst ruction Distance 1,000 feet ; Distance to I:ome Point 5,000 Feet Iop e5 Feet seen.
2 Belleville Mill Plant Not ',isible Observatica Elevation 30 Feet; lleight of Gbstruction 3C Feet Visu-l Ct:structica Distance 800 1 -t; Distance to Rane Pcint 11,000 Feet Wickford liistoric District g .
e . . . .
- -~
Observation Elevation 10 Feet ; Fei ght of Cbstruction 40 Feet Top 105 Feet seen.
Visual Obstruction Distance 3,000 Feet: Distance to Faae Foint 13,000 Feet o L j[
The height of the Rome Foint containment is 253 feet dove sea Ictel. p Scale: 1" = 1,000*
- g e
9 c ,S.
. ..Y".
-a
',- " {a .M
(.
1 l
1 I
1 l
l 300.17 Westerly Site (ER p. 9.2-20A)
- a. Is there prime or unique agricultural land onsite?
- b. Are any threatened or endangered species likely to be i impacted by the project? I
- c. Would the project impact any place of historic, cultural, or recreational importance? Would it involve loss of a unique place or opportunity?
- d. Would there be a threat from external missiles, hazardous materials, or flammable gas?
- e. What would be the aesthetic impact of the project?
- f. Would the project be consistent with zoning and planning commission guidelines?
RESP 0MSE: a. Agricultural Land An Interim Soil Survey conducted for Wes terly, R.I. in 1975 indicates that the site is composed of soils ranging f rom poorly drained peat and muck with 12-51 inches of organic matter over a mineral material to ve ry sandy and s tony soils, these being excessively drained and lying over a mixed outwash and coarse glacial till. Of these soils, a little more than one percent of the 400 acres or 5.5 acres could be considered as prime fe rmla nds. These are located on the northern edge of the site and due to this, pose no problem to the siting of a plant here.
A list of the two types of prime farmland soils found and their corresponding acreage are listed below:
Soll Name and Description Estimated Acrer.ge Enfield, well drained silty soils over 5 stratified sand and gravel Belgrade, moderately well drained .5 deep silty soils over stratified sands and gravel.
Unique Farmlands Unique f armlands are characterized by soils which fill the requirements of prime f armlands as well as supporting a high value crop for food, feed, fiber and forage. No unique f armlands a . _
=
have been located on the Wes terly, R.I. site.
- b. Threatened or F.ndaneered Specten Through an initial site transmission right of way evaluation and terrestrial survey, no threatened or endangered species of flora or f auna are believed to be impacted by the project.
Should further analysis be required, then a detailed site evaluation would be conducted to ensure that no impact on such species would occur. Species determined to - threatened or endangered were derived f rom those found on the Federal Register and compared to site evaluations as well as to those species described in ER Section 2.2.
At or near the proposed right-of-way at the Taf tville, Connecticut crossing of the Shetucket River, for the proposed circuit from the Rhode Island / Connecticut State Line to Card S treet Station, there may be a location for Prunus ;
alleghenciens is . Prior to conutruction of the associated transmission lines, knowledgeabla pe sonnel would walk the proposed right-of-way to be sure their are no threatened or I endangered species present. If located, cons truction would J I
be performed in a manner to prevent any imoact.
- c. Impact on Historical Places Because of the proximity of the Westerly site to the Charlestown f site, the ER more than adequately addresses this subject for i the Westerly site. See the following ER references for l appropriate information. I Site Area Land use Page 9.2-20A (Rev. 4)
Site location (map) Figure 9.2-6&20 Site Area map-5 mile radius Figure 1 Parks and Recreutional Areas Figure 2.1-17 i i
Within 10 Miles of the Site Existing Land Use Map 0-5 Mile Figure 2.1-15 Radius Regional Historic, Scenic, Page 2.6-1 (Rev. 4)
Cultural and Natural Landmarks Historical and Archaeological Figure 2.6-1 Sites within a 5 Mile Radius Relative to the associated transmission lines for the proposed )
Westerly site (Figure 300.15-1), four 345 kV circuits, generally i to be cons tructed on wood pole H-f rame structur es averagirg l 85 feet in height, are nianned as follows:
- 1. One circuit of approximately 43.5 miles in ler.gth to Northeast utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon,
__ . - - , , ... . . . .__ . , _ . _ . , . . - ~ ~ . . _ . . . - - , - - .~
Connecticut (300.17.c.(a)-(e) below).
- 2. One circuit of approximately 19.3 miles in length to a point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known as Big River Junction, wherein the proposed circuit would meet j the Sherman Road - Kent County 345 kV circuit. (300.17.c.(f)- ;
(h) below).
- 3. One circuit of approximately 29.9 miles in length paralleling the proposed circuit in 2 above to Big River Junction for 19.3 miles and then continuing approximately 10.6 miles to Kent County Subs tation, East Greenwich, Rhode Island (300.17.c(f)-(i) below).
4 One circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length from Wes t Farnum Substation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island to Millbury Substation, Millbury, Massachusetts. (300.17c (j ) below) .
Detailed description of the various segments of the above circuits is as follows:
(a) From the proposed Westerly site, one circuit of approximately 1.8 miles in length would be constructed in Westerly on a new right-of-way 150 feet wide to an existing unoccupied right-of-way at Old Shore Road (Dunn's Corner, Westerly).
(b) From Old Shore Road, one circuit of approximately 4.2 miles in length would be constructed northerly on an existing unoccupied right-of-way 125 feet wide to a junction point at the Connecticut Tie Line right-of-way east of Peter Hill, Rhode Island.
(c) From the above junction point, one circuit of approximately 1.1 miles in length would be constructed easterly, parallel to the Connecticut Tie Line right-of-way, widening it f rom 125 feet to 225 feet, to a point just east of Ashaway Bradford Road, near South Hopkinton.
(d) From the above point near South Hopkinton, one circuit of approximately 5.4 miles in length would be cons tructed northerly on a new right-of-way 150 f ee'. wide to the Rhode Isla nd / Connect icut State line at a point east of Shingle Mill Pond, opposite Hopkinton. This point is also common to the Charlestown to Card Street Station Line and the Rome Point to Card Street Station Line.
(e) From the above point on the state line, one circuit of approximately 31.0 miles in length would be constructed north-westerly, approximately 11.2 miles paralleling existing rights-of-way and approximately 19.8 miles on
. - - - - --n-_.--. n,_. .-
I new rights-of-way generally 170 feet wide t'o Northeast Utilities Card Street Station in Lebanon, Connecticut.
This is the " Direct Route", per the Phase 11 studies for the Charlestown Project (See ER 3.9.18.2). t (f) ' From the proposed' Wes terly site, two circuits. of approximately 8.2 miles in length would be constructed northeasterly on a new right-of-way 350 feet wide, with :
a median strip. between the two circuits, .to. a point 0.3 .;
miles northeast of crossing the Penn Central Railroad and '
the Pawcatuck River in Charlestown.
(g) From the above point in Charlestown, two circuits of ;
approximately 7.3 miles in length, consisting of
~
approximately '4.1 miles of Link C2,1.0 niles of Link C3 and 2.2 mileo of C4 as proposed for the Charlestown Project (see.ER 3.9.9.2 - Link Descriptious) would be constructed northerly on a new right-of-way .350 feet wide, with a median :
strip between the two circuits, to a point 0.1 miles wes t of Gardner Road and 2.2 miles south of Ten Rod Road in Richmo nd.
t (h) From the above point in Richmond, two circuits of
- approximately 3.8 miles in length would be constructed northerly on a new right-of-way 350 feet wide, with a median strip between the two circuits, to a point 0.3 miles south of Rainbow Pond in Exeter, known as Big River Junction, where the proposed circuits would meet the existing Sherman Road to Kent County Substation 345 kV Line.
(i) From the Big River Junction above, one circuit of '
approximately 10.6 miles of Link E-5 as proposed for the Charlestown Project (see ER 3.9.9.2-Link Descriptions.)
would be constructed northeasterly on the existing Sherman Road to Kent County Substation right-of-way 250 feet wide to Kent County Subs tation, East Greenwich. Rhode Island, parallel to the existing 345 kV circuit.
(j ) From West Farnum Subs tation, North Smithfield, Rhode Island, one circuit of approximately 21.0 miles in length would be constructed northwesterly on the existing right-of-way, averaging 250 feet wide, paralleling two 115 kV circuits and replacing a 69 kV double circuit line to M111 bury Substation, Millbury, Massachusetts. As this circuit is ,
also required for the Charlestown Project, no further analysis is made of it in this discussion of alternatives ,
to Charlestown.
- 1. Historic Impact To the best of our knowledge, the only historic site listed, i
l l
nominated or pending nomination to date in the flational Register of Historic Places to be impacted would be the "Charlestown, Historic Village of the Narragansetts in Charlestown. Bound by R1 Route 2/112 on the east, US Route 1 on the south, Kings Factory Road on the west, and RI Route 91 on the north (5 73)". As this is a densely wooded, hilly or wetland, undeveloped area, impact nor the associated transmission lines (300.17.c(f) above) would be minimal. Neither the Joseph Jef frey House, Carolina, Rhode Island vicinity, the Hopkinton Historic District, Hopkinton, Rhode Island or the Governor Jonathan Trumbull House in Lebanon, Connecticut would be impacted despite their relative proximity to the proposed transmission lines.
- 2. Cultural Impact No sites of significant cultural importance would be impacted by the Westerly to Card Street, Westerly to Big River Junction or Westerly to Kent County proposed circuits, to the best of our knowledge.
- 3. Recreational Impact For the proposed Westerly to Card Street 345 kV circuit, land associated with a Boy Scout camp would be traversed. For the two proposed Westerly to Big River Junction 345 kV circuits, there would be some impact wherein the right-of-way crosses two Rhode Island " Management Areas", however, impact would be minimal due to the topography, the presence of woods, and lack of development. Actually, by the removal of the overstory as required for the right-of-way, the impact could be f avorable.
For the one proposed 345 kV circuit, continuing from the Big River Junction vicinity to Kent County Substation, there would be the crossing of a watershed area, parallel to the existing 345 kV circuit, of the proposeed Big River Reservoir.
- 4. No truly " unique place oc opportunity" would be lost due to the project.
- d. Hazards Applicant recently updated and verified potentially hazardous activities near the Charlestown and Westerly sites. ER Section 2.1.4.3, Existing Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Site, should be consulted for this information. Also see NEP 1 & 2 PS AR Section 2.2. j
- e. Aesthetic Impact The station on the Westerly site would be relatively well l screened from the surrounding area. Ross Hill Road, to the ,
east and north, Route 1 to the south, and Woody Hill Road to l 1
1 1
l l
1 N - -- -
. u. ret.r . - e m. .__ . _ . . ,w
the west are all screened by the sloping moraine and 20-30 foot t
trees which border the roads. The most likely viewing location would be f rom vessels in Block Island Sound. The tops of the containment structures may be visible from selected beach locations. The site structures would also likely be visible from the population center of the Town of Westerly to the west of the site.
Rela tive to the associated transmission lines:
(a) From Westerly to the Rhode Island / Connecticut State line (300.17c (a)-(d) above), approximately 7.2 miles would be on new rights-of-way and 5.3 miles, totalling 12.5 miles, would be on existing rights-of-way. For approximately miles two through six, this circuit would have high visual impact and would involve extensive wetlands cons truction.
It would traverse approximately 7.0 miles of woods, 3.5 miles of wetlands, 2.0 miles of open land and about 250 feet of open water (at Dam Pond). The proposed 345 kV circuit would cross the Pawcatuck River and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
Approximately thirteen roads would be crossed including Interstate Route 95.
(b) From the Rhode Island Connecticut state line to Card Street Substation (300.17 c.(c) above) the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on existing Northeast Utilities rights-of-way for approximately 11.2 miles and approximately 19.8 mile of new rights-of-way would be necessary totalling 31.0 miles. From an analysis made in 1975 by a consultant, approximately 18.2 miles of woods would be crossed, 6.6 miles of wetlands, 5.7 miles of open land and 0.3 miles of residential land. There would be a high visual impact in crossing the Connecticut Turnpike. Approximately 26 roads would be crossed as well as two rivers. (See ER Section 3.9.18.2).
(c) From Westerly to the Big River Junction (Sherman Road -
Kent County line vicinity), (300.17c.(f)-(h) above) for two proposed circuits, approximately 19.3 miles of new rights-of-way would be utilized. It would consist of approximately 17.2 miles of woods, 1.9 miles of wetlands and 0.2 miles of open land. The proposed 345 kV circuits would cross the Pawcatuck, Beaver and Congdon Rivers, Indian Cedar Swamp and the main line of the former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Approximately seventeen roads would be crossed. Note that in Table 300.17-1, all impacts have been doubled to reflect the two circuits' impacts. The new right-of-way is 19.3 miles times 2 circuits or 38.6 for this link of the total 65.6 miles of new right-of-way. l l
(d) From Big River Junction vicinity to Kent County Subs tation. I (300.17.c(1) above), the proposed 345 kV circuit would be on an existing right-of-way for its entire length, approximately 10.6 miles. Approximately 9.0 miles of woods, 0.5 miles of wetlands, 0.9 miles of open land and 0.2 miles of open water (Carr Pond) would be traversed. The proposed 345 kV circuit cross the Maskerchugg River. It would crosa ,
I nine roads including Interstato Route 95.
To summarize, exclusive of the West Farnum to Millbury proposed 345 kV circuit, approximately 92.7 circuit miles would be required, 65.6 miles on new rights-of-way, 26.5 on existing rights-of-way. Approximately 68.6 miles of wooded terrain would be crossed,14.6 miles of wetlands, 9.0 miles of open land, 0.3 of residential land and 0.2 miles of open water would be impacted. One river is crossed by three circuits, two are crossed by two circuits and three by one circuit. Eighty two toad crossings including two crossings of Interstate 95 by single circuits would be required. As in 300.17.e(c) above, recognition should be made of the impact of two parallel circuits to Big Rive r Junction (19.3 miles) .
As a basis for comparison of the associated transmission lines for the projected site with the alternate site, Table 300.17-1 has been provided. Where rights-of-way would have two proposed parallel circuits, types of terrain traversed have been doubled.
The data were comp 11r.d f rom a consultant's study, analysis of USGS topographic mars and field analysis. The proposed West Farnum Substation to Millbury Substation 345 kV circuit has not been included n the attached data. Types of terrain crossed are approximations to give the general nature of the proposed rights-of-way.
When comparing Charlestown to Westerly rights-of-way, it is evident that Westerly would require more right-of-way, more construction in wetlands and a longe r double circuit righ t-o f-way.
i Zoning i f.
The site area in Westerly is located in an A-1 Agricultural District. The Westerly zoning by-law prohibits uses employing atomic processes in an A-1 district and therefore an amendment would be required prior to proceeding.
l
t References for 300.17.a, b, e and e
- 1. Interim Soils Report Soil Survey Westerly, R.I. by Daniel G. Spanger, U.S. Dep t. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Se rvice, Wes t Warwick, R.I . ; March 1,1975.
- 2. Rhode Island Important Farmland Soils (3 pp.) by Soil Conserva tion Service, 222 Quake r Lane , Wes t Warwick, R.I .
02893.
- 3. Important Farmlands in Rhode Island, (definitions) of Prime and Unique by R.I. Community Development Committee, June 28, 1977.
- 4. Soil Conservation Service, R.I. (personal communication of 8-4-78) Subject - Classification of Prime & Unique Fa rmla nds .
- 5. Soil Conservation Service; R.I. (personal communication of 8-28-78) Subject - S.C.S. List of Threatened & Endangered Species.
- 6. Threatened Wildlife of the United States, 3/74, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Unit.
- 7. State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of Continental U.S. , House Document No. 94-51, Washington, D.C . ; 19 7 5.
- 8. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Part 17 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; February 14, 1978.
- 9. Federal Register June 16, 1976, Endangered and Threatened Species (pla nt s) .
- 10. Fede ral Register, Part V, July 14, 1977 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife & Plants (Republication of List of Species).
- 11. Federal Register, February 7,1978, National Register of Historic Places, and updated through August, 1978.
1
t Table 300.17-1 Charlestown and Westerly Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles Category Charlestown Westerly (300.17)
Terrain - Woods 65.0 68.6 We tla nds 13.9 14.6 Open Land 9.2 9.0 Other - 0.2 Residential 0.4 0.3 Urban - -
Total Circuit Miles: 88.5 92.7 Right-of-Way-New 77.3 65.6 Right-of-Way-Existing 11.2 27.1 Total, as above: 88.5 92.7 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 19.3/each Right-of-Way-Single Circuit 52.7 54.1 Total Right-of-Way Miles: 70.6 73.4 Impacts:
Historic Sites 3 2 Cultural Sites Recreational Sites Definite 4 5 Possible - -
Unique Place or Opportunity - 1
- 0 pen Water
300.18 Information used in si*e selection (ER Section 913)
What sources of data and information were used in the site-selection process? How was this information used to predict site-specific costs and impacts associated with site acquisition, site preparation, and plant construction? Why weren't socio-economic (including aesthetic) impacts considered in at least the last stage of the selection process?
RESPONSE: A bibliography of major reference sources is provided in Table 300.18-1. This list does not include additional personal ref erences used by engineers and scientists who participated in the various site surveys nor, does it include all the information available f rom the long association of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and New England Electric Sys tem personnel with New England electric generating stations and regional resources.
ER Section 9.3 shows site specific estimated differential costs for three major categories: (1) circulating water system, (2) heavy equipment transportation, and (3) transmission. The circulating water system costs are based on standard architect / engineer preliminary design concepts. Various site data were supplied to Applicant's consultants f rom documents in the reference list.
Consultants were commissioned to conduct transportation and
~
access studies to various site areas (see reference lists).
Additional information on access was supplied f rom experience at other projects, such as New England Power's Bear Swamp Project.
Responses to RAI 300.13 and 300.14 describe the process by which data were evaluated.
Inherent within the site selection process used, socio-economic inf orma tion was considered. Using the example list on page 8-1 of USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, it can be seen that socio-economics was considered.
Tax Revenues. Certain sites with proposed or operating new generating stations (or within the same town) were considered (Montague, Yankee Rowe, Pilgrim at Plymouth). Local communities already receive (or would anticipate receiling) substantial tax benefite from these stations. Thus by deferring these sites, tax revenues will be created for other localities.
Temporary and Permanent New Jobs Created. The study recognized labor availability problems in many regions. Where there was poor labor availability, for example Region III, new jobs would be created both for the few resident workers and those imported from other areas. The site surveys also recognized the potential
I for competition between projects, for example, the Montague Station and any other potential site in Regions II and IV (see response to RAI 300.5).
Enhancement of Recreational Values . New England Power has many generating projects where public recreation has been enhanced.
For example, at Brayton Point Station, a boat launching ramp is available to the public. At the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage P roj e c t , a visitor's center, picnic areas and hiking trails are available. Much of the property at the Yankee Rowe power plant, partially owned by New England Power, is available for public hiking, carping and hunting. Table 300.18-2 is a Recreation Inventory of facilities sponsored by Applicant.
It was evident during the site screening that some sites, Sachuest Point and Quicksand Pond for example, could be used for conservation purposes (see site description in Attachment of response of RAI 300.13).
The proposed NEP 1 & 2 also would include a multiple land use plan for the site. Thus, Applicant constantly endeavors to make positive public use of its proj& cts.
Creation of Improved Local Roads, Uaterways or Other Transportation Facilities. As can be seen in responses to RAI 300.5 and 300.14, and in ER Table 9.3-1, transportation access was an important consideration in the siting survey. It was recognized that some alternate sites would require extensive upgrading of local roads or rail facilities. While these upgradings would enhance local transportation, they would also increase the cost of the f acility; a cost ultimately passed on to the consumer. As Applicant strives to provide the least expensive reliable power possible to its consumers, the need for extensive local road upgrading was considered a drawback to siting in a particular area.
Residential Displacement. Residential displacement was considered very important in the site survey for two reasons.
Having to move many f amilies creates a ve ry undesirable social impact and makes the purchase of property for a site more difficult. It was partially for these reasons that among the potential sites considered (see response to RAI 300.13) were property owned by Applicant. Additionally, it can be seen in the Reasons for Deferral (response to RAI 300.14) that sites which had a large number of property owners, signifying higher residential displacement, were generally deferred from cons ide ra tion.
Aesthetics. Aesthetics have been a consideration in two main areas, cooling towers and transmission lines. It is not clearly called out in criteria and guidelines because these areas are l
i 1
1 l
J
.pr-considered in more quantitative terms with respe'et to other cons ide ra tions . For instance, long transmission lines carry a high construction cost and involve greater electrical losses than do short ones; there are reliability considerations, and there are aesthetic considerations. All of these considerations tend generally in the direction of keeping transmission lines as short as possible, although the generalization cannot be carried too far. As can be seen by reference to ER Section 3.9, aesthetics is a consideration in planning routes. The objective measure usually used is the construction cost of new facilities. Although it does not specifically reflect all considerations involved, it is a reasonable gross indicator and was used in comparisons.
Similarly, cooling towers represent an added cost for cons truction and an added operating cos t. Again, there are impacts on reliability and there is the aesthetic consideration of structures which dwarf the containment buildings or have visible plumes, or both. As can be seen by reference to ER Section 10.1.5, and 10.1.6, aesthetics is a definite consideration in Applicant's view. The objective measure used, capitalized operating penalties plus added cons truction cos ts, does not include aesthetics in a quantitative manner, but it does penalize the aesthetically intrusive toweta.
Since the objective measures in use operated in the direction of minimization of aesthetic intrusions, no additional specific quantitative measure was adopted to account for aesthetics.
TABLE 300.1R-1 References Aquatec Inc.1974. Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Ve rnon ,
Ve rmo nt . Annual Reports Prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power C o rpo ra tion.
Bigelow, H.B. and W. C. Schroede r.195 3. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.
2nd Edition, Fishery Bull. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Service 53(74).
Bos ton Edison Company, 1973. Pilgrim Station Unit 2 Environmental Report.
Brown, G.A., et al. 1974. Power Plant Site Considerations at Charlestown, Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report Series N u mbe r 2 3.
Bos ton Edison Company, Marine Ecology S tudies Rela ted to the Operation of Pilgrim Station, Semi annual reports.
Ca rso n, J. E. 19 7 6. Atmospheric impacts of Evaporative Cooling Systems.
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,111. ( AN L-ES-5 3 ) .
Cla rk, J. And W. Brownell., 1973. Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental Issues. American Littoral Society Special Publication No. 7. American Littoral Society. Highlands, New Jersey.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Community Af fairs. Pers. Comn L. A. Simio, 1974. Letter Relative to Seasonal vs. Year Round Population Data for Cape Cod.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources, Map of State, Federal and MDC Properties.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works. Highway Maps of Towns by County.
Cahagan Cons truction Corporation. 1954. Rome Point Seismic Survey for the Narragansett Electric Company.
Higgins Erectors and Haulers Inc. 1971. Heavy Hauling Route Survey for New England Power Company, Bear Swamp Project.
Hitach i, L td . 19 71. New England Power Company, Bear Swamp Pump Storage Project Transportation Plan of Runner, Valves and Shaf t.
Krame r, M.L. , M. E. Smith, M. J. Buf fe r, D. E. Seymour and T. T. Frankenberg, 1976. Cooling Towers and the Environment J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 26(6) 582-584.
C. T. Main Inc. 1970. Preliminary Report Study of Rail and Road Transportation for Bear Swamp Project.
l l
l l
l l
f Marine Research Inc. , G. C. Matthiessen.1974. Letter to Yankee Atomic Electric Company Rela tive to the Marine Ecology of the Slocums Neck Site.
Marine Research, Inc. 1974. Rome Point Investigations. Prepared for New England Power Company.
Ma rshal, N .B . 1966. The Life of Fishes. Uorld Pub. Co. , New York, 402 P.
Millstone Point Company.1973. Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 Environmental Report. Docket No. 50-423.
Mobile (011 Corporation) Travel Map. 1972. Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
National Academy of Sciences. 1972. Water Quality Criteria with National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.
Narragansett Electric Company.1973. Rhode Island Plant Siting Survey, Memoranda.
New England Power Company,1966. Comerford Reservoir Data Sheets.
New England Power Company,1966. Sherman Pond Data Sheets.
New England Power Company,1968. Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project (and Proposed Recreational Plan).
New England Power Company.1974. Harriman Reservoir Data Sheets.
New England Power Service Company.1974. Somerset Reservoir Data Sheet.
New England Power Service Company,1969. First Connecticut Lake Data Sheets.
New England Power Service Company,1972. Rome Point Historical Study.
New England Power Company. No date. Moore Station Information sheet.
Northeast Utilities, no date. Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Station, Statistical Data.
Northeast Utilities Company. 1975. Montague Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2. Environmental Report. Docket No. 50-496 and 50-497.
Nichols, D.E. and K.H. Yang. 1972. Design Features of Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Project. ASCE Reprint 1687.
Nucleonics Week. 5/10/73. AEC Plant Site Requirements to Set Allowable Population Densities.
Piper, H.B. and F. A. Heddleson. 1973. Siting Practice and Its Relation to Population. Nuclear Safety 14(6): 576-585.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1973. Seabrook Station Environmental Report Docket No. 50-4 43 and 50-444.
Raytheon Environmental Research Laboratory. 1971. Rome Point Dye Survey Data Analysis and Math Modeling.
Spangle r, M.B, 1974. Environmental and Social issues of site choice for nuclear nmet plants. Energy Policy, March, 1974.
dpur r , G . , 19 74. Meteorology and Cooling Tower Operation Atmos. Environ.
8:321-324.
State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Pubiic Works and highways. 1972.
Proposed Layout of Interstate Route 93, Littleton, N.H. to Waterford, Vt.
(Map).
State of New Hampshire, Public Utilities Commission, Pers. Comm. W.E. Melvin.
1974. Sch matic of Boston and Maine Corporation Rail System.
State of New Hampshire, Of fice of Tourist Information. Map of State and Federal Parks and Forests.
State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways. (no date) Railroad Lines - Map.
State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1972. Rhode Island Census Tracts (Map).
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.1974. Public Rights of Way Map.
State of Rhode Island, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.1974.
Wa ter Quality Standards.
State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1970.
Preliminary Land Use Plan.
State of Rhode Island, Map of State and Federal Parks and Forests.
State of Vermont, Of fice of Vermont Tourist Information. Map of State and Federal Parks and Forests.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1972. Evaluation of Alternate 3 Cooling Water Systems at Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station. l l
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Alternate Site Studies Construction Labor and Transportation Information (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp, Comerford Sites).
Stone and Webster Corporation. 1974. Alternate Site Study, Moore Site.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Alternate Site Study, Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp and Comerford Sites).
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Hydrological and Meteorological Studies, Atlernate Site Studies New England Electric System (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp and Comerford Sites).
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. NEES/ Yankee Alternate Site Stedy, Rowe, Massachusetts.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Moore Site.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Remote Site Location Transportation Feasibility Study (Dunbar Brook, Bear Swamp, Moore Reservoir and Come rford Sites) .
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1974. Preliminary Construction / Transportation Report, Gooseberry Neck Site, Westport, Massachusetts.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1975. Alternate Site Studies, Transportation Study - Shef field, Adams and Fall Mountain.
University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service.1970. Environmental Protection Checklist and Guides for Site Selection.
University of Rhode Island.1972. Rhode Island Marine Bibliography. Marine Technical Report No. 3.
I l
University of Rhode Island.1973. Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory - Cape Hatteras to Natucket Shoals.
l University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center. 1973. Rhode Island I Barrier Beach Study.
United Engineers and Cons tructors, Inc.1975. Site Study Report, New England !
Power Company, 2-Unit Nuclear Plant, Gooseberry Neck, Massachusetts (and i Addendums).
l United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Engineering Studies on Dunbar Brook and Bear Swamp Sites.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Ve rmo nt l
l l
Yankee Nuclear Power S .& tion, Docke t No. 50-271.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (NRC). 1973. General Environmental ~ Siting Guides for Nuclear Power Plants Topics and Bases (Draf t).
U.S. Environmental Protection Aor <.y and Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Division of Water Pollution Control.12/71. Summary of Wa ter Quality StandatJs for the Interstate Uaters of Massachusetts, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 12/71. Summary of Water Quality Standards f or the Interstate Waters of New Hampshire.
United States Department of Commerce. 1970. Census of Population.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. Tidal Currents Tables 1973 - Atlantic Joast of North America.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. Tide Tables 1973 - East Coast of North and South America.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 19711 Water Resources Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.
U.S. Deparimcnt of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks. 1972. U.S. Naval Air Sta"_ ion, Auxiliary Landing Field, Charlestown, R.I. Existing Conditions Map.
Weston Geophysical Research, Inc. 1971. Deerfield River Nuclear Power Plant Site Evaluation for Yankee Atomic Electric Company.
Weston Geophysical Research, Inc. 1973. Geological and Seismological Evaluation of Fourteen Sites, New England Area.
Weston Geophysical Research, Inc. 1974. Geologic and Seismological Evaluation of Three Regions, Massachusetts Area.
Wright and Pierce, Topsham, ME. 1973. Property Map of Littleton, New Hampshire.
Yar.kee Atomic Electric Company. 1971. Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station Preliminary Site Evalua tion.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company. 1974. Biological and Thermal Conditions of the Deerfield River.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company. 1974. Memorandum, Preliminary (Engineering) ,
Layouts for Moore Reservoir Site. -
Site Aerial Photographs.
I' 1
{
l i
i l
l l
NEW EHGLAND P0WER C0MPANY RECREATION INVENTORY JANUARY 1 I977 TABLE 300.18-2 52" d
O
$ d $ S ed e
$ $ h s;ges0 m
m ae2 $m - aa asm= wses" 5
w HYORO--CONNECTICUT RIVER CONNECTICUT LAKES k$$hh!$$hhh$$h
- 1. Second Lake Das Picnic Area 3 1 1 1 lu
- 2. Gravel Pit Picnic and Boat Launching Area (2nd) 3 1 1 1 20 20
- 3. Island Picnic Areas (lat) 4 2 2
- 4. First Lake Dam Boat Launching Area 3 1 1 20 20 HOORE
- 5. East Concord-Gilman Boat Launching Area 1 10 10
- 6. North 1.ittleton Picnic Area 1 1 1 1 30 20
- 7. Dodge Hill Picnic and Boat Launching Area 10 4 4 2 1 1 20 10
- 8. Pattenville Picnic and Boat Launching Area 8 3 2 2 1 20 10
- 9. Island Picnic Area 1 1 1
- 10. Visitors' House 3 3 2 50 1
- 11. Waterford Picnic and boat Launching Area 9 2 6 2 1 1 25 15 COMERFORD '
- 12. Waterford Bridge and Boat Launching Area 1 1 5 1 5
- 13. Pine Grove Picnic and Boat Launching Area 8 2 4 2 1 100 100 1
- 14. Line Gate Picnic Area 1 1 Mc!NDOES
- 15. McIndoes Dam Picnic Area 1 1 2 8 1 Wil0ER
- 16. Wilder Picnic and Boat Launching Area 18 4 18 2 1 1 50 50 1
- 17. Olcott Falls Boat Launching Arsa 1 1
- 18. Fisherman Parking--Access 40
- 19. Visitors' House 2 100
- 20. Gilman Canoe Rest Area 1 1 1 1
- 21. Lebanon Picnic Area 7 2 5 1 30 1
- 22. Hartland Falls Picnic Area 3 1 3 1 30 1 BELLOWS FALLS
- 23. Charlestown Picnic and Boat Launching Area 6 4 2 2 1 1 50 50
- 24. Herrick's Cove Picnic and Boat Launching Area 26 5 17 4 1 1 100 50
- 25. Charlestown Canoe Rest Area 1 1 1 1 1
- 26. Pine Street Boat Launching Area 1 10 10 1 VERNON
- 27. Governor Hunt Picnic and Boat Launching Area 9 8 2 1 18 6 1
- 28. Vernon Glen Picnic Area 9 11 2 1 20
- 29. Hinsdale Canoe Rest Area 1 1 1 1
- 30. Stebbins Island Canoe Rest Area 2 1 1 1 1 HYDRO.-DEERFIELD RIVER SOMERSET
- 31. Streeter Island Picnic Area 1 1
- 32. West Island Picnic Area 5 2
- 33. Somerset Dam Picnic Area and Trail 36 30 6 4 1 7 150 30
- 34. Flood Dam Picnic Area and Trail 1 1 2 5 HARR IMAN
- 35. Mt. Mills-West Picnic Area 7 2 2 10
- 36. Holly Stark Picnic and Boat Launching Area 2' 1 10 5
- 37. Ht. Mills-East Picnic and Boat Launching Area 37 9 3 4 2 1 3 200 75
- 38. Castle Hill Picnic Area 5 3 2 1 10 5
- 39. Jacksonville Picnic Area and Swimming Area 37 15 6 2 200
- 40. Harriman Dam--Clory Hole Spillway 2 1 4
- 41. Sherman Picnic Area 6 2 1 10 4 BEAR SWAMP
- 42. Dunbar Brook Picnic and Information Area 20 5 2
- 43. Monroe Forest Trailhead 9**15
- 44. Visitors' Center 2 40
- 45. Fisherman's Access Area
- 46. Public Hunting Area LOWER DEERFIELD 47 Zoar Picnic Area 39 23 2 50
- 48. East Charlemont Picnic Area 10 6
- 49. Stillwater Bridge Picnic Area 4 5 STEAM PLANTS
- 50. Brayton Point Picnic and Boat Launching Area 10 1 6 2 1 200 100 1
- 51. Lynn Harbor Picnic and Fishing Area 12 12 2 1* 1 40
- 52. Salem Harbor Fishermens Pier 1 20 TOTAL 371 100 143 67 4 9 23 22 1741 595 7 3 4 4
- Approximately 2.000' Timber Bulkhead at Shoreline Available for Pubite Fishing.
- aNine alles of hiking trails in the Monroe State Forest--Construction financed by New England Power Company--built, operated and maintained by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Managemect, Division of Forests and Parks.
gv 2/16/77
300.19 Selection of Charlestown Nuclear Plant-Site (ER 'p. 9.3-1)
According to Table 9.3-1, a station at Rome Point would cost
$7 million less than at Charlestown. The only disadvantages listed for Rome Point are higher population density and possible ,
(not necessarily probable) salt drift. The discussion on p. ,
9.3-1 doesn't make it clear why the balance of these factors I tipped in favor of Charlestown. Please clarify.
RESPONSE : The Rome Point site was very thoroughly considered for nuclear power development during the early 1970's, prior to the proposed facility at the Charlestown site. Preliminary feasibility studies were conducted. Two 913 MWe units were proposed with once-through cooling using the West Passage of Narragansett Bay as the water source. The Environmental Protection Agency conducted a preliminary review of the potential marine ecological impacts of the project and indicated that they would not sanction a once-through cooling system at that location1 . Thus, if Applicant were to continue the Rome Point facility, the rejection of a permit for once-through cooling and the potential use of salt water cooling towers was a distinct possibility.
A report evaluating alternate cooling water systems for the Rome Point site had been prepared by an engineering consultant 2 Salt water spray canals, natural draft towers and mechanical draft towers were qualitatively evaluated for environmental impacts. Potential " measurable" or "significant" ef fects were indicated for (1) salt drif t impact on-site and off-site, (2) potential fog and noise impacts, and (3) the aesthetics of the system. Thus, the environmental acceptability of a saltwater closed cycle cooling system was also identified as a potential licensing obstacle.
An additional problem which existed was that there was little operating experience with saltwater closed-cycle cooling water systems. In fact, a recent survey indicates that there is only one operating seawater (salinity greater than 26 ppt) closed-cycle system in existence, which happens to be 96 MWe with a low capacity factor3 . The largest brackish water closed-cycle cooling system is reported to be 850 MWe3 Thus, there was, and is, a high degree of operational risk involved with building a power facility the size of NEP 1 & 2 using seawater (average salinity about 30 ppt) for closed-cycle cooling system makeup.
Also considered somewhat disadvantageous is the limited size of the property owned (240 acres; 1400 foot exclusion radius) and the probable need for a double containment at an estimated cost of $25 million.
For the above reasons, the Rome Point site was and is considered to be less satisfactory than the proposed Charlestown, R.I. site.
i
t References
- 1. Letter f rom C. Corkin II and P. Bedrosian of the Environmental Protection Agency's Committee for Power Plant Siting and Operation to E. A. Plumley, Vice President, New England power Service Company, dated March 12, 1973.
- 2. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1972. Evaluation of Alternate Cooling Water Systems at Rome Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2. Submitted to Narragansett Electric Company.
- 3. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.1978. Ocean-Sited Plant.
A Survey of Operating Experience with Saltwater Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems. Prepared for the Utility Water Act Group, Edison Electric Institute.
l
)
l l
l j
350.19 Section 3.1, External Appearance in addition to the information stated in the ER, Regulatory Guide 4.2 requires the applicant to describe efforts made in locating facilities on the site to use existing terrain and vegetation to achieve seclusion and site screening as appropriate to the topography. In addition, the architectural design ef forts made to integrate the facilities into their environmental setting '
and to create aesthetically pleasing buildings and grounds should be noted.
A. The applicant should submit evidence of compliance'with this requirement.
i B. The color scheme for the siding (as shown on the cover),
i.e., red and yellow, needs justification, in view of the aesthetic considerations intended in Regulatory Guide .4.2 and with the national goal of assuring aesthetically pleasing surroundings (Public Law 90-190, NEPA Section 101(b)2).
The applicant should provide an assessment of the visual ef fects on the station and transmission lines on nearby valued cultural, scenic, historic park and recreation areas.
This should include consideration of aesthetic impacts to transportation corridors and nearby residential areas. ;
Since the plant, including basic architecture, will be a replicate of the proposed Seabrock Station, by definition the applicant has not complied with or given consideration
- i to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3; i.e.,
describe efforts made to integrate the facilities into their environmental setting (the Seabrook Station does not have the same environmental setting).
C. In order for the applicant to describe the architectural design efforts made to integrate the facilities into their !
environmental setting and to create aesthetically pleasing buildings and grounds, he must first identify the aesthetic 6 amenity resources of the site and environmental interf aces as specified in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Regulatory Guide 4.2.
RESPONS E: The placement of the station on the site was primarily based on the superior foundation conditions at the present location.
This specific location yields an adequate exclusion radius.
The NEP L&2. PS AR Figures 2.5-14 and 2.5-17 can be consulted for an illustration of the site plot plan with bedrock contours.
It can be seen in these figures that the bedrock is very near the surf ace and is of high quality at the station location. '
These bedrock conditions will f acilitate construction thus decreasing construction related environmental impacts and costs.
, ~ _ . . _ ,.,a _ , _. __. . _. a. _ - . w_ . . . _ _ . . . . . , - _ .c " , _ . . , . . . . . . . .. a .
~ - ~ . . - . .- - . - . ._. .- . _ - . . . . .. - -
t h.
The axial orientation of the 9te. ion was optimized due to two ,
f acto rs. The most important are that the circulating water system piping and structures avoid unnecessarily complicated I yard piping and construction impacts on brackish pond-4E (ER Figure 2.2-4) are mitiga ted. Also, the present orientation decreases tne length of the underground transmission from the station to the electrical substation.
Due consideration has been given to the proposed site land use '
and aesthetic appearance. Applicant has proposed an extensive site restoration program. The site presently has many airport buildings, structures and residences which are in poor maintenance and/or have been badly vandalized. As can be seen in ER Figure 4.1-1, construction related activities will be primarily confined to those disturbed areas; grading and landscaping af ter the construction period will leave these areas in a more visually pleasing state than currently exists.
In developing this plan, extensive efforts have been made to leave undisturbed natural habitats (ER Figure 2.1-16).
Applicant's proposal for the management of the natural areas can be fot.nd in Natural Area Management Plan for the Charlestown Rhode Islapd Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Site. ;
t It should also be noted that Applicant has deviated significantly from normal power plant design practice in order to minimize' ,
aesthetic. impact. All permanent power lines to and f rom the plant are to be placed underground and the electrical substation ,
is in a well-screened location, invisible from the shore and U.S. Route 1. Also, for reasons of aesthetics among others, e a once-through cooling system is proposed rather than cooling-towers.
Applicant commissioned'an artist to provide a color rendering of the completed project. The perspective used was chosen because it offers a raised vantage point accessible to the general public. The artist suggested that the red and yellow siding would be complementary to each other and the site area; Applicant agrees. These colors are applied as ribbons to the top and middle of the turbine buildings. This effect visually reduces the height of the turbine 'ouildings by continuing the flow of the horizon line. The horizontal qualities of the buildings are thus emphasized. ;
As part of RAI 300.15.f Applicant provides a visual impact analysis of the major important visually sensitive areas near the site. This response includes information on the aesthetic impact of the transmission lines.
Applicant described in great detail its studies to select ;
-A . =_. . - , - n,-- + -aw, ~w ,, ~ . wa ~
1 appropriate transmission routing. Please refer to ER Section 3.9 and Requests for Additional Information in ER Appendix F.3.
We especially ref er you to ER Section 3.9.7.5 or transmission Visual and Scenic Features and Section 3.9.18.3 for more detailed comparison analyses.
t 9 e
OCTOBER 1978 Revised Transmission Section For Each Candidate Site Listing In Environmental Report Section 9.2.4 I
- 1) Transmission for Comerford Site
- 2) Transmission for Moore Site
- 3) Transmission for Gill /Erving Site
- 4) Transmission for Errol Site
~
- 5) Transmission for Bear Swamp Site
- 6) Transmission for Rome Point Site
- 7) Transmission for Westerly Site i i
1
- 8) Table 1 Transmission Requirements for Alternate Sites Described in Environmental Report Including Costs
- 9) Table 2 Right-of-Way Requirements for Alternate Sites Described in Environmental Report
'l i
l I
UC10BCR 1978
, Transmission for Comerford' Sito Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345kV of cach of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comorford on existing right of way. One of these is extended 8 miles into Scobic substation on existing right of way. The other is extended '25 miles to Sandy Pond Substation on existing right of way. In addition, 34 miles of 230kV is converted to 345kV between Comerford and Granite, using existing right of way. Another 43 miles of 115kV is converted to 345kV between Granite and Essex, on existing right of way.
Stepdown transformation is installed at Comerford and Granite.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit includes 110 miles of 345kV from Comorford to the Wyman Pumped Hydro site, 58 miles of which is on new right of way, and 52 miles of which is )
along widened existing routes. In addition, 118 miles of l
345kV is built between Comerford and Deerfield, all on I widened existing routes.
/
\
s
OCTOBER 1978 Transmission for Moore Sito Unit #1 Transmission for the firs'. unit includes the convc11 ion to 345kV of each of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comorford on existing right of way. One of these is extended 8 miles into Scob .e Substation on existing right of way. The other is extendec 25 miles to sandy Pond sub-l station on existing right of v ay. In addition, 34 miles of '
230kV is converted to 345kV Letween Comerford and Granite, l using existing right of way, Another 4 3 miles of 115kV is conver3ed to 345kV between Graite and Essex, on existing right of way. Two 7-mile 230kV lines are converte.t to 345kV between Moore and Comerford, on exintinc) right of way.
Stepdown transformation is installed at Granite, Comerford, Litt1cton, and Moore.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit includes 103 miles of 345kV from Moore to the Wyman Pumped Ilydro site, 58 miles of I which is on new right of way, and 45 miles of which is along l widened existing routes. In addition, 111 miles of 345kV .
is built between Moore and Deerfield, all on widened oxisting 1 r'ou t e s . l l
/
t 6
0 3
9 s
l l
1 I
OCTOBER 1978 Transmission for Gill /Urving Site Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit consi"ts of JO miles of 345kV between Northfield Mountain and Ludlow, on an existing route.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit consists of 41 miles of-345kV between Northfield Mountain and Agawam, along an existing right of way for 35 miles, and a widened existing route for 6 miles.
e e
/
p .
k
- - .~ _ _. - -
UL,10 lit:R 19/6 Transmission for Errol Sito Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion r to 345kV of each of two 110-mile sections of 230kV line south from Comertord on existing right of way. One of these is ex-tended 8 miiv i *;o Scobie Substation on existing right of way. The other ir, extended 25 miles to Sandy Pond Substation on existing right of way. In addition, two 70-mile 345kV lines are built between Errol and Ocraerford, using 13 miles of new right of way and 57 miles of widened existing routes.
Another 120-mile 345kV line is built between Errol and Essex, all on new right of way. Stepdown transformation is installed at Comerford.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit includes f 0 miles of 345kV between Errol and the Wyman Pumped Hydro site, on ' ew .
right of way. In addition, a 118-mile 345/V line is buijt between comerford and Deerfield, all on. widet. 'd existing routes.
i s
k
OCTOBER 1978 Transmissic'; for Bear Swamp Sito Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit includes the conversion to 345kV of 75 miles of 230kV line between Bear Swamp and Pratts Junction, and 70 miles of 230kV line between Bear Swamp and Reynolds Road, all on existing right of way. In addition, 25 miles of 345kV is built between Bear Swamp and Northfield Mountain along a widened existing route, and 30 miles of 345kV' is built between Northfield Mountain and Ludlow on existing right of way. ' Stepdown transformation is installed at Bear Swamp.
Unit #2 Transmission,for the second unit includes a 16-mile 345kV line between Bear Swamp and Plainfield on new right of way and a 50-mile 345kV line between Northfield Mountain and Agawam.
The latter uses 35 miles of existing right of way, and 6 miles of a widened existing route.
/
6 e
s I
OCTOBER 1978 Transmission for Romo Point Site l I
Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit includes a 12.5-mile 345kV line between Rome Point and Kent County, on existing l right of way. In addition, a 11.5-mile 345kV line is built I between Rome Point and Big River Junction. For this line, )
7.7 miles of new right of way is required; the rest is existing, but 2.9 miles must be widened. Also, 21 miles of 345kV line is built between West Farnum and Millbury, all on existing right of way.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit consists of a 54-mile 345kV line between Rome Point and Carc, Substation, 41 miles of which is on new pight of way, 12 miles of which is along existing right of way, and 1 mile of which is on a widened existing route.
.e a
k
\
i .
I OCTOBER 1978 Transmission for hesterly Site Unit #1 Transmission for the first unit includes two 19.5-mile 345kV lines between Westerly and West Greenwich on new right of way, plus a 10-mile extension of one of those lines between West Greenwich and Kent County, on existing right of way. In addition, a 21-mile 345kV line is built between West Farnum and M111 bury, on existing right :# way.
Unit #2 Transmission for the second unit consists of a 44-mile 345kV line, between Westerly and Card substation, 27 miles of which is on new right of- wayi 2 miles of which is along widened existing routes, and 15 miles of which is on existing right of way. <
h r
4 k
\
OCTOBER 1978 TABLE I -
Transmission Recuirements for Alternate Sites Described in Ch 9, UEP ER Miles of Transmission Recuired(2)
On New R/W On Existing R/W On Existing Route Total Total Cost i Site _ , ,
Unit No. As Is widened Line Miles (1985 Base)
Coterford 1 -
330 - -
330 $ 131 M 2 58 -
170 228 123 M Moore 1 -
344 -
344 $ 143 :
2 58 -
156 214 116 M Gill /Erving 1 -
30 -
30 S 19 M 2 -
35 6 41 21 M Errol 1 146 253 114 513 S 235 M i
2 60 -
118 178 102 M
- Bear Swamp 1 -
175 25 200 $ 85 M 2 16 35 6 57 33 M l
Rcre Point 1 8 34 3 45 S 34 M I 2 41 12 1 54 42 M
! Westerly 1 39 31 -
70 $ 48 M 2 27 15 2 44 27 M Note 1: Includes all substatior work, line costs, and rights of way.
Note 2: Distances are total line miles, not right-of-way miles. (See Table II) i l
~ . ~ ~ _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . - - _ . _ . _ _ . . . . - - - - ~ ~ . < , . - -~s . .~ --. -- - ,,, - -~ . ..... _ .. . . _ . . , - . . . _ . . .
s
. OCTOBER 1978 .
TABLE II l Right-of-Way Requirements for Alternate Sites Described,in Ch 9, NEP ER Miles of Right-of-Way Used Existing Existing; ' Total
'- Site Unit No. New As Is Widened R/W Miles Comerford 1 -
220 -
220 2 58 -
170 228 Moore 1 -
227( -
227 2 58 -
156 214 Gill /Erving 1 -
30 -
, 30 2 -
35 6 41 Errol 1 133 ' 253 57 443 2 60 -
118 178 Bear Swamp 1 -
175 25 200 2 16 35 6 57 Rome Point 1 8 31 3 42 2 41 12 1 54 Westerly 1 20 31 -
51 2 27 15 2 44 Note 1: 110 Miles o f double-circuit R/W Note 2: 117 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 3: 13 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 4: 57 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 5: 3 Miles of double-circuit R/W Note 6: 20 Miles of double-circuit R/W
. __ . _ . . s. -
5 NEP 1 & 2 cR OCTOBER'1978 a
5 TABLE 9.3-1 SCD1ARY COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITES Site Moore Rome Point Reservoir Comerford Gill /Erving .Errol N.Kinnstown Bear Swamp Uesterly Charlestown Evaluation g.I.
Littleton,N.H. Monroe,N.H. Mass. E.H. R.I. Rowe, Mass. R.I.
Criterion NEP owns 460 A, NEP owns 980 NEP owns 351 A. Land is pri- Narragansett NEP owns 515 NEP owns appr. Land presently owned l Acreage. Land Use, Exclusion Exclusion rad- A. Exclusion in Gill and 338 vately owned. Electric Co. A. Exclusion 400 A. Exclu- by Federal Govern't.
radius approx. A. In Erving. Exclusion rad.. owns 240 A. radius of sion radius Exclusion radius Radius and lus approx.
Availability 2000 ft. 2000 ft. Addi- Exclusion rad- ius of approx. Exclusion approx. 2000 of approx. of approx. 2130 l'
available. Land tional land lus of approx. 2000 ft. or radius of ft. available 1500 f t. ft. available. Land is wooded. required. Land 2000 ft. pos- greater pos- approx. 1400 Land is wooded available. Land is an abandoned sible. Land is ft. AJ4ftional and partially is mostly Naval Auxiliary wooded and sible if addi-partially tional land presently land may be cleared. wooded. Landing Field.
cleared for purchased. Land wooded, renuired. Cost agriculture. wooded and par- of double con-f tair. ment en-CCI i tially cleared for agriculture closures. r9 E3 i Approx.$25M s e Population Less than 500 Less than 500 Less than 500 Less than A; tches Less than 500 Less than 500 Less than 500 people per people per 500 people and at some people per people per people per Density people per square mile. per square points square mile. square mile. square mile.
square mile. square mile.
mile. slightly i exceeds 500 peopla per square alle.
4 Geology and Average New Average New Average New Average New Above average Average New Above average Above average England site England site England site England site New England England site 'New England New England site Seismicity for seismici- for seismici- site for seis- for seismici- site ter for seismicity.
i" for seismici- for seismici- ty. Poor ty.Either micity. P.ock ty. Rock seismicity. Rock foundation ty. Rock foun- ty. Either i dation avail. glacial till foundation glacial till foundation foundation Rock founda- available, or rock conditions at or rock available. available. tion avail.
A foundation Gill.Possible foundation.
j rock founda-tion available in Erving.
i 4
/ ** e t
/
Y s
~
i e
t ,
- - _ -__ _____J
__ . _ _ . _ - .. _ . s.
NEP 1 & 2 ER OCTOBER 1978 TABLE 9.3-1 i Page 2 2 Site Moore Rome Point Evaluation Reservoir Comerford Cill/Erving Errol N.Kingstown Bear Swamp Westerly Charlestown Criteria Littleton,N.H. Monroe.H.U. Mass. ".H. R.I. Rowe, Mass. R.I. R.I.
l Cooling Water Closed cycle closed cycle Closed cycle Closed cycle Regulato ry Closed cycle Once-through' Once-th rou gh Availability and Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Androscoggin ngencies may Deerfield Atlantic Ocern Atlantic Ocean. 2 Estimated Costs River. Approx. Hver. Approx. River. Approx. River or require closed River. Requires Approx. $339M Approx. $209M of Circulating $240M $240M $240M Umbago Lake. cycle. On regulation of Water System Approx. Narragansett upstream flow.
$240M Bay. Approx. Approx. $247M
$240 M Acquatic and No significant No significant No significant No significant If cooling No significant Por. sic 0 en- No significant Terrestrial effect. effect. effect. effect. towers are effect. cr as? eat effect.
! Ecology required, salt upon %et i drift could lands" re-have some quired to a
} impact. build plant.
J 1
j Storm Exposure No flood pro- No flood pro- Significant No flood pro- Flood pro- No flood pro- Not subject Flood protection and Flooding tection re- tection re- flood protec- tection re- tection re- tection re- to coastal required.
quired. quired, tion required quired. quired. quired. flooding, at Gill. No however, max-flood protee- imum precipi-l tion required tation could l
at Erving. require flood 4
Tretection near ' res.
Accessibility and Remote loca- Remote loca- No water ac- P. emote loca- Direct barge Remote loca- arge access large access to I Estimated Trans- tion. No water tion.No water cess. Rail ac- tion.No water access to -tion. No water ko site vici- fsitevicinity.
portation Costs access. Re- access. Re- cess for heavy access. Re- access. Re- nity(same rate No direct rail f i stricted high- stricted high- dimensional stricted high andfite.highway Rail stricted as proposed access. Approx. ,
way and rail way and rail components way and rail access avail- dighway and forCharles- $34M access. Approx. access. Approx. severely lim- access .Up grad-able. Approx. rail access. town).No di-
$1LM $51M ited. Upgrading ing. Approx. S19M. Approx. $70M rect rail y of highways $61M. 2ccess. Approx.
j required. 539M.
1 Approx $75M.
- G
/
b*
M gs i U . g f
a h
i me i.. - --
NEP 1 & 2 ER OCTOBER 1978 t
TABLE 9.3-1 Page 3 .
Site Moore Rome Point Evaluation Reservoir Comerford Gill /Erving Errol !*.Kingstown Bear Swamp k'es terly Charlestown Criterion Littleton,N.H. Monroe,N.B. Mass. N . l! . R.I. Rw e.Esss. R.I. R.I.
Estimated Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. M.
Transmission $260 M $254 M $40 M $337 M $77 M $118 M $75 M $102 M 1976 Costs
! Labor Limited Limited Limited supply Extremely Exec 11ent Limited Excellent Excellent supply Availability supply, supply, if construc- limited supply of supply and supply of of skilled labor tion schedule supply. skilled dif 1 icult skilled labor in a high unemploy-coincides with labor in a access. in a high ment area.
Montague, presently unemployment Mass. L' nits high unem- area.
1 and 2. ployment area.
' I s~2 Cost Dif f e,r- +$199 M +$200 M +$10 M +$293 M +$16 M +$90 M +$104M Base ocT' ential Compared with Charles-town Y
Og r
)
T
"=
O w-
_ , .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 -
- ^^