ML20150A793

Responds to NRC Re Alternative Sites.Both Selected Sites Appear Unrealistic Based on Listed Reasons

ML20150A793
Person / Time
Site:	New England Power
Issue date:	10/10/1978
From:	Varin D RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF
To:	Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7810180084
Download: ML20150A793 (4)

Text

- - - - -. . - - -- - - -

g n. -

g_fQ

~

~

STATE OF RHODE ISLA'ND AND.PROVIDENCF PLANTATIONS f

Depanmentof Adnunistration .

E STATEWIDE PLANNING PROGRAM -

2M Melr<me Seeet .

Providence,IGodelslznd o2907 i October 10, 1978 Mr. ' Ronald L. J Ballard , ' Chief Environmental Projects' Branch 1 Division of Site Safety-and

-Environmental Analysis

-United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission-  !

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear ~ Mr. Ballard:

I am writing in response'to your September.27, 1978-letter to Mr. Robert.Rahill concerning informationson the

. alternative sites for NEP 1 & 2. A copy of.your letter was directed to this office. Incidentally,:Mr. Eric;Jankel has replaced Mr. Rahill as. Executive AssistantLfor Policy.

The Statewide Pl'anning Program, established by_the '

General Laws of Rhode Island as the' central planning, agency for the state, maintains a computerized environmental inventory of the natural and manmade features of Rhode Island.

The data in the inventory is obtained from many sources-and is mapped, predominantely on U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 Quadrangle maps, before computer entry. The data.are coded by 10 acre grid cells, and are retrievable by cell coordinates, by city or town, or by analysis zone.

Retrieving by-analysis zone, the Program. staff prepared a set of single factor computer edit maps for the Westerly-and Rome Point _ sitesf and-their surrounding area, calling for the following. factors: (1) natural or, wildlife habitats; (2)_ historic sites; :(3) public school locations; (4 ) topo-

. graphy; (5). vegetation;: (6) general ~ soils; (7) ground water;.

(8) water service areas; (9) sewer service areas; (10) recrea--

tion; areas; (11) wetlands; (12) municipal zoning;' and (13) 1970 land use. The Westerly site and surrounding area called for analysis zones 614, 619,,620,-623,.626, ~627,:46 andH48;.and .

t the Rome Point site and surrounding area called .for analysis zones 297, 398, 300, 301, and 685.

y J:

l7(rioIY 00 fV f L)l!

A.

• Mr.~ Ronald L. Ballard.

October 10, 1978 Page 2 Copies of the edit maps, accompanied by a transparent overlay of each site, are enclosed for your information.

The site can be aligned on the edit map by placing the orange border along the inside edge of the coordinate listing. To insure accuracy, align on the lower lefthand cell of the Westerly site which is coordinates 5809/2705; and the lower lef thand cell of the Rome Point site which is coordinates 6011/2965.

Staff evaluation of the single factor data has produced the following comments:

Rome Point Natural Habitat - Approximately 100 acres of the site are rated #1, "Best" excellent wildlife habitat, potential for sustaining a diversified maximum wildlife habitat, potential for sustaining a diversified maximum wildlife population is high; Historic Sites - None on site; School location - None on site; Slope - Approximately 140 acres at 1.5 percent or less and the remaining acreage is between 3 and 4.5 percent; Vegetation - The area is predominantely deciduous trees 21 to 40 feet in height with approximately 80 acres in some form of agricultural or potential agricultural use; Soils - The coastal and coastal adjacent areas are well drained or moderately well drained soils and approxi-mately 100 acres are classified as poorly drained mineral soils; Ground water recharge areas - The entire siti is classified as either a recharge area or a ground water reservoir; Sewer service - There is none on the site; Water service - Approximately 10 acres are shown as sewered or as having the potential for service and approximately 20 acres are indicated as served by a 12 inch main;

A *t Mr. Ronald L. Ballard October 10, 1978 Page 3 Flood hazard areas - Approximately 160 acres of the coastal portions of_the site are in a flood-hazard area; Recreation areas - The site has no official recreation areas; Municipal zoning - The-site is zoned for medium-low density residential and industrial use; and 1970 Land use - The site is predominantely forested with approximately 70-80 acres classified as agricultural or open area and water based recreation activities consume approximately 10 acres of the coastal portions of the site.

Westerly Site Natural areas - None coded for the site; Historic Sites - None in the site; School location - None in the site; Slope - Predominantely 4.5 percent or less; Vegetation - Predominately deciduous trees 21 to 40 feet in height; Soils - mixture of very poorly drained soils and well drained / moderately well drained soils without herdpan; Ground water recharge area - Nearly 100 percent of the site is classified as a recharge area; Public sewer service - None at the site; Public water supply - Some service or potential for service near Route US-1; Flood hazard area - none on site; Wetlands - Interspersed throughout are marsh and organic; and mineral swamps totalling approximately 100 acres;

l 1

e i . O I

j Mr. Ronald L. Ballard October 10, 1978 Page 4 Recreation Areas - No official recreation areas at the site, but the site is located between two major state facilities, Burlingame State Park and Woody Hill Management Area; Municipal zoning - The site is zoned for medium-low residential density; and 1970 Land Use - The entire use is classified as forest type.

Concerning the acceptability of NEP 1 & 2 at either site, I think one could safely assume the coastal impacts associated with the Charlestown site would apply or be very similar at the Westerly site, and would be much greater at the Rome Point site if the facility employs a once-through cooling system. The proximity of the Rome Point site to the heavily populated areas of the state, can also be considered a severe liability. The transmission lines right-of-way issue is being addressed by the Charlestown site proposal and may not be appreciably altered by the Westerly site, but would pose some serious questions at Rome Point. Both sites may raise serious questions concerning the impacts on ground water recharge areas. In summary, the Rome Point alternative appears wholly unrealistic. Its value as an alternative is very <

dubious. The Westerly site is almost certain to be viewed in the same manner as the Charlestown site, but without the GSA land transfer problem clouding the issue.

Your very truly,

/j/f /L Daniel W. Varin Chief DWV/LRW/msb Enclosures cc: Mr. Eric Jankel Mr. John A. Lyons, Chairman CRMC Mr. Leo McAloon, CZ Program Manager

~ - . . .. . - -. - .- ,