ML19270F308
| ML19270F308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New England Power |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1979 |
| From: | Harrington J NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-N-101 NUDOCS 7902060232 | |
| Download: ML19270F308 (32) | |
Text
. .
New England Power Company 20 Turnp;ke Road NewEngland Power wesinommo". r.ussmsens 0is8i Tel. (617) 3C49011 NEP 1 & 2 Nuclear Project January 31, 1979 nus 00 Cut,1EUT CONTAltlS NRC-N-t01 P003 QUnlTY PAGES ,
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Renulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Sir:
Docket Nos. STN 50-568 and STN 50-569 Enclosed please find the following supplemental in fo rma t ion requested by the NRC staff on 1/4/79 relative to alternate sites:
Responses to NRC Staff requests for additional i n fo rma t i on (RAI's) 301.85 through 301.94.
This material will be incorporated in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. We trust you will find this Information satisfactory.
Very truly yours, Joseph Harrington Project Mana);er JDV:rh Enclosures (7) cc: R. Rush (ORNL) w/ enclosure (2) 7 9 0 2 0 6 0 c2 1 M A New Engiand Electric System company
301.85 For each candidate site (alternate sites and proposed site) identify and give acreages of National Forests, Parks, a nd Monuments, natural landmark, state and local jurisdiction of forests and parks, or privately dedicated wildlife areas of which a portion or all is within a 5-mile radius of the site based on readily available reconnaissance-level i n f o rma t io n .
RESPONSE: Except for the Green Mountain National Forest relative to Bear Swamp, no National Forests or National Parks are within five miles of any candidate site.
No natural landmark as listed by the Department of the Interior in the Federal Register of April 27, 1978 under " National Register of Natural Landmarks-Revision of List" is within five miles of any candidate site. The closest landma rk , llawley Bog, llawley , Massachuset ts , is approximately 7.5 miles from the Bea r Swamp site. Also, from the list of the 84 National Monuments and National Preserves listed on April 10, 1978 in the Federal Regiater and the 15 Primitive Areas listed on April 27, 1978 in the Federal Register, only one location is in New England and that is Saint Croix Island , Maine , far removed from any of the candidate sites. Of the 156 sites listed in the Federal Register of February 24, 1978 as being Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility is an Important Value, there are the following in New England:
Ma ine - Acadia - not near any site.
Mooschorn - not near any site.
Massachusetts - None New llampshire - Dry River over 25 miles from each Great Gulf of Moore, Comerford and Errol sites.
Rhode Island - None Vermont - Lye Brook Over 25 miles from hear Swamp.
Charlestown - Ref e r to ER Table 2.1-10.
All measurements referred to for the following sites were calculated from the perimeter of each site, not from the proposed reactor location, e . ;; . , fo r Bea r Swamp , from the southern property line of the site of the northern property line of the llawley State Forest is approximately five miles.
Rome Point Site - The State of Rhode island has a Management Area (59 acres) on Dutch Island in Jamestown, Rhode Island. Also there is the Marsh Meadows Wildlife Preserva (20 acres) in 301.85-1
Jamestown. Refer also to E R Ta n le 2.1- 10 for other parks and recreational areas.
Westerly Site - The Burlingame State Park, State Forest and State !!anagement Area (3900 acres),
in Charlestown, Rhode Island, is entirely within five miles of the site. Also within five miles of the site are the Indian Cedar Swamp State Management Area (921 acres) in Charlestown and the Woody 11i11 Management Area (723 acres) in Westerly, Rhode Island.
Refer to ER Table 2.1-10 for other parks and recreational areas.
Gill /Erving Site- All of the Montague State Forest (7900 acres) is within five miles of the site. Portions of the 4,779 acre Wendell State Forest (Wendell State Forest is included in the acreage of the Montague State Forest) and the Northfield State Forest (total acreage about 5000) are within five miles of the site.
There are two municipal par;.s in Greenfield,
!!a s sachuse t t s named liighland Park and Rocky
!!ountain Park. No state parks or other state forests in Massachusetts are within five miles of the site.
Bear Swamp Site - A portion of the Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont, (total acreage 242,309) is within five miles of the site. No state forests or parks in Vermont are within five miles of the site.
In Massachusetts all of the Mohawk Trail State Forest (6,457 acres) and the Monroe State Forest (4,321 acres) are within five miles of the site. Portions of the Savoy Mountain State Forest (total acreage 10,500) and the Florida State Forest (the Florida State Forest is included in the acreage of Savoy Mountain State Forest) are within five miles of the site. The llawley State Forest (total acreage 7,822' is approximately five miles from the site. No state parks or other state forests in Massachusetts are within five miles of the site.
There is a state roadside picnic area on Massachusetts Route 2, in Charlemont, 301.85-2
approximately four miles south of the site.
Moore Site - No state parks or forests in either New Hampshire or Vermont are within five miles of the site.
The nearest state reservation is Forest Lake State Park (420 acres) in Dalton, New Hampshire, over 6 miles east of the !!oore site.
Comerford Site - No state parks or forests in either New llampshire or Vermont are within five miles of the site.
The rearest state reservation is Groton State Forest (15,300 acres) in the towns of Groton, Ma rshfield and Peacham, Ve rmo n t ,
11 miles west of the Conerford site. Also there is a state roadside picnic area on U.S. Route 5, in East Barnet, Ve rmo n t ,
approximately 2 miles west of the site.
Errol site - Umbagog State Park (262 acres) in Errol and Cambridge, !!cw llampshire is appro:<ima tely 2 miles south of the site.
No other state parks or forests in either New ilampshire or Maine are within five miles of the site.
There is also a state roadside I , c area on Maine Route 26 near Upton, Ma i . ,
approximately four miles from the site.
301.85-3
301.86 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, how much price or unique agricultural land exists on the following sites: Moore, Comerford, Errol, and Bear Swamp?
RESPONSE. Bear Swamp Site (MA)
A detailed analysis of the Soil Survey f or Franklin County, Massachusetts, and state classifica tion of prime and unique farmlands indicates that no agricultural lands considered to be prime or unique exist on the Bear Swamp site.
Errol Site (NH)
No soils considered to be prime farmland types cre known to be present on the Errol site. Although no recent soil surveys have been conducted, there appears to be a good correlation to the older survey. No lands of unique classification exist on site as well.
Moore Site ( NH)
A preliminary analysis of the soils of the Moore site has indicated that no f armland soils class ified as prime or unique are present.
Comerford Site (NH)
A preliminary analysis of the soils of the Comerford site indicates that prime farmland soil types do occur on the site along an extension of property southeast of Route 135 (ER Figure 9.2-7). The prime f armland soil and its estimated acreage is listed below:
Name Acre a ge Berkshire loam 50-75 No soils or habitat classified as unique occur on the Comerford site according to references.
RE FERENC ES :
- 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 1967. Soil Survey - Franklin County, Massachusetts. Soil Conse rvation Service (Bear Swamp Site).
- 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Personal Communication, 8/4/78. Re:
Classification of prime and unique farmlands of Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts.
301.86-1
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil mapping units used in Massachusetts that are prime farmlands. Soil Conservative Service, Amherst, Massachusetts.
- 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. April 1939. Soil Survey - Graf ton County, New Hampshire. Soil Conservation Service (Moore and Comerf ord Sites).
- 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture. August 1943. Soil Survey - Coos County, New Hampshire. Soil Conse rvation Service (Errol Site).
- 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil mapping units of prime farmland soils of southern New Hampshire. Soil Conservative Service, Durham, NH.
- 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Personal Communication, 12/4/78 and 12/14/78. Re: Classification of prime and unique tarmland of New Hampshire. Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, MA.
- 8. Grafton County Conservation District, New Hampshire. Personal Communication 12/21/78. Re: Soil survey for the Town of Littleton, New Hampshire (Moore Site) .
301.86-2
301.87 Please identify the Federal and Stat .isted rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species likely to be impacted by construction and operation of the plant using the Moore, Comerford, Errol, and Bear Swamp sites.
RESPONSE: Bear Swamp Site (mal Applicant conducted a site survey in July 1977. Using this inf ormation with an analysis of both S tate and Federal listings shows that no species of flora oc f auna considered to be threatened or endangered would be impacted by the construction of a power f acility at this site.
Moore Site (NH), Come rf o rd S it e_(Nil) . Erroi Site (NID_
Preliminary evaluations of these sites indicate that no species of fauna considered to be threatened or endangered would receive an impact from plant construction. Area habitat evaluations indicate as well, that no species of threatened or endangered flora would be af fected by plant cons truc t ion .
RE FERENC ES :
- 1. Iltssachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication 8/2/78. Listings of threatened and endangered wildlif e (Inve nto ry of Mass. Invertebrates).
- 2. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game. F ebruary 1973. Rare and Endangereo Plant and Animal Species of Massachusetts.
3 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlif e. May 17, 1978.
Special Status Species of Massachusetts.
- 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975.
Threatened Species of Massachusetts.
- 5. Paul Mugford, Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife. No date.
Fish and Wildlif e in Limited Numbers in Massachusetts.
- 6. Paul S. Mugford, Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlif e. 1975.
An Inventory of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (Vertebrate) Resources.
7 Lee Salber, New llampshire Fish and Game Department, March 17, 1974.
liard to Find Native Species of New llampshire.
- 8. New llampshire Fish and Game Department. Personal communication 12/5/78.
Subj e c t : Separate list of Neu llampshire threatened and endangered wildlife.
301.87-1
9 Yankee Atomic Electric Company. July 1977. Bear Swa:np Site Study, Terrestrial IIabitat Analysis (Memorandum).
- 10. Federal Register, Part III, December 11, 1978. Lis t of Endangered and Threatened Wildlif e and Plants.
301.87-2
301.88 As defined by the De p.i r t me n t of Housing and Urban Development, identif y those candidate siter which are located within a floodplain.
RESPONSE: Applicant investigated potential floodplain areas, as defined and designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, during December 1978. Additionally, as sug;;e s t ed by HUD pe rsonnel, New llampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island State Coordinators of the Fede ral Insurance Administ rat ion
( FI A) were contacted. Inf o rmat ion obt ained f rom these agencies is included below. The site areas are desi;nated t on ER Figures 301.88-1 through 301.88-7 to provide a concise presentation.
!!oore Pond Site (Nil)
The Moore Pond site is not in a designated floodplain area.
A flood hazard boundary map prepared by FIA (ER Figure 301.88-1) illustrates this. No other studies have been prepared by these agencies for the town of Littleton to date.
Errol Site (NH)
As illustrated in the flood hazard boundary map (ER Figure 301.88-2), prepared by FIA, the eastern portion of the site lies in a floodplain. However, structures, t ransmission lines or portions thereof associated with this candidate site would in all likelihood not be placed within this potential floodplain zone. No other stud ies have been prepared by these agencies for the town of Errol to date.
Comerford Site ( Nil)
The Comerford site does not lie in a designated floodplain area. A flood hazard boundary map prepared by FI A (ER Fi};ure 301.88-3) illustrates this. No other studies have been prepared by these agencies for the town of Monroe to date.
Bear Swamp Site (ItA)
The Bear Swamp site does not lie in a designated floodplain area. A flood hazard boundary map prepared by FI A (ER Figure 301.88-4) illustrates this. No other studies have been prepared by these agencies for the town of Rowe to date.
Gill /Ervine Site (f!A)
As illustrated on the flood hazard boundary map (ER Figure 301.88-5), prepared by FIA, portions of the Gill /Erving site lie in a designated floodplain area. Iloweve r , the structures, transnission lines and portions thereof would most probably not be placed in these zones.
301.88-1
Rome Point Site (RI)
As Illustrated in the flood hazard boundary map (ER Figure 301.88-6), prepared by FIA, the northern and eastern portions of the site lie in a floodplain. The Flood Insurance Study prepared by the Army, for FIA, in 1971 estimates the 100-year and standard project hurricane (SPil) elevations to be 11.2 feet and 14.2 f eet mean sea level, respectively. Flood i n);
of this site would be that associated with extreme tides caused by hurricanes and other large coastal storms.
Westerly Site (RI)
The Westerly site does not lie in a desir;nated floodplain area. A flood hazard boundary map prepared by FI A (ER Figure 301.88-7) illustrates this.
301.88-2
y \ , " Ja-b6
/ Moor" Hi servon
\ '
N %., x l %-~.'> ~ z. .
/ ~V
/
/
/ /
~'
.;
y '/ ZONE A 7 /.*-j _** **., *'}'
,, ., [ SITE N ,
t d AREA '.*
(
f
/ F b
+ -ZONE A \\
.SY;%
rv g,x-
,', f s, /
Moore ik >ervoir j
+y, yg,$'
%. f'
~ f' f,5
\m. w ii
" ZONE A sN'
%. 'o e =c D !;
l1, 7 ZONE A /
i
//
~. - - a
/
k\ ZONE A w
> Meerr* Reservoir k} 6/
9s #N~ /
s
%A' l '
4, . **
's.
T
/
V LEGE.ND
\ ._.
/ /'~ &
SPECI AL F LOQ3 HAZ ARD j ZONE A
/ ansa
,#y
\,
~
s J -
y
' ;
,. ) /
zosc ,b;k u- ~...
. . , >....._....,,.....s,.........-.....
.. . _ ,.. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . .3
- c. , rio a r. , ., a a . . . . . a oa i>. . r er . + . . t. .
y y. - ...,..- . .. .. - y,'
c =. 5 * .
N x Ol'aa rw s r or ucc,3 ago v.uc % uhlidP'*ht YC' 4'
. . . . . . . , . , . . . s,., . .. , a
' " ' ' - - - - - ~ --
TOWN 0F LITTLETON, NH ,.o u no (GRU TON CO) FLOOD H AZARD BOUNDARY M AP 1.4 I ., u.
Figure 301.88-1
e, 1
- s.
LSPECI AL FLOO_D__ HAZARD . AR.EA - $.,fp,v.
e,p /.
c: s -
(.. %- ,.
yp
.1 p ,
' WJosq$,gQ ,
, h,IVER -
g,gg: :. j WIMGOG .LtK1 K __iREi1D0fS' h
I
)s N
h^
i!OUSTAIN
- l'OND :
~~
SITE C
AREA x
V N N iSPECI A' FLOOD!
. :- HAZARD AR_EA:
- r
~
iSPECI'dLfLOOD.'H4ZARDT5$l
. . / s- i:.
D:
LE GE ND
.g. .=m .: gjyg,g g fjj yg l. .
$P[CI AL F LCOO H AZ APD AREA 20NE A no e. t r . e,., . - . , n o, .- e e. . o s c . .. s io.o w.<. o Ar eeg n (P. tutmyn t p A87 3 MOc e Jg 3 p3 grwcv the
- ,, a i F oes Nat J A eas 660
- f* Ott taen e w as . est be
--. .es ., . - . . . . . ~ ,
ci,iemt e, mm ..a um onueront y$
500 0 1000 2 bio"'"50TO 4000un
[gIc$, g[ n ,
vacLT= - - J-uc. -- -
(C005 C0.) 8tA 8tcco muus nat=caaf WAP IFeow Ca's
- 4. n C2 JAhUART A7' 9II i
Figure 301.88-2
' CW f
Of q'
/ ~ , , .
/
/ \ -
C;8) -
s * , *E N
/ / N ' Cc ,,
't ,
/ '
. e / ~
s N J , HAZAR3 AREA
- t. \ %
SITE -~
h
\
! \
'R hj
\
- }8
- 4x?,%-
pg N
, MALAR 3 AREA ,
/ %%w --
3I g %
' 'l'. ~~%=
r i
h tEGEND N'
(
set c At Floco H AZ ARD
\ f- SPECIAL FLC00
....-.-..._...._......,_......_..... .Q 'N esss==== 'xq% 6 ef*anf uthf CF m3us hG ago casag Ciderutgr apeacti= Ait sc a tt
's N s .. . . . x . u . . . . .
TCAN OF MONRCE, NH
'T 0__ 1000 4030 Ec" ror N (GRAFTON C0. ) FiA Ft000 Huano soutcant war ta.aw cr.
he N Ql h^V[ug[q gg, g g7q i j',ti f' t? 30}.NN~$
a ' p, s .f,
.,a. I hf r nar i.
w ^n L . : = :s 's ~
!- ~
(
/
/
\ '
\'\
20'.E A */ *
\, \
/
( // iss; s \g
, /:'
l' f_ e ,?
~
\
\ ( \a
.~ ,. - -
N' s ~, h f '
N o
- ~
[
/
//
\
\
2:'.E A i
'M p
/
! //
/ hl'
\ ,y a x
\f (e,?,=:. 'v %'> /d gi
~
^
,): Nt gi \
9 f
/;' \
f of se s u i til- ;{ fj g Z O.E , A g/ j \
,- SITE \
//
h \'
s lj/((l
\
AREA N
.P s
'.p'
\
2C?.E A :e 's '
\
\
c: ___. ___ _=_.._.__
- i. i
- \.g
, 0
/ , - \\ \
/ ,? ;t
(
{ ,,,/,' il 1:
,' , \
') - -- ; 3 ' ~
pf (l ,
Rs
,/\_ 'DI';. ,
'h ' - - s 1%
/ IC'iE A - O h
' h'
,1.Iy ~m t IT' ' J ct k' N. /
\gr> j
,///- .-) ). .,.
.. < /.
~%s , ,.
, ,q,., j;,..-
i ._ vl
\ q $ $
h **
a #
,/ \ i, t r ct '.o
,s. I7
- W;,, gei,
-- m y=,,, i s,.,. ,on-.i. o
- , . ..c.,i.. ICNE A
,a l
D AT E Of 60s % f u eC A T IC's CAff
/
h e
..o..
f . ,
f u... ., ....s.- o- . . . .-
+ -. . . ~ . ~ . -
l1 P t F A L I Vl % i of M11 U'.i* L. A\ D Lt u h A % 0 i b t 10 P','I % i a e e sieu.g 10WN OF R0WE. f,1A
- ...us.: ...
'4 t (
FLOOD H AZ ARD BOUND ARY M AP Figure 301.88-4
,j- -ip y.,a s' '
< v G * ' j'
/ '
'/ ..
\\,
2 es i
- Q A N . / ./.- .* '4r-e; ; v
/ i J \\ (. ".. F. T, t
r
= ~,
_/
v3 - = ( ..
.; / . \t\\ .i-"1 G====== Q <='~. ..- T ~
\ ;, - : 1 aj U
/ '
'\
- ;
~9C3*
,_s q
d i
\ 5_ : 3 -
,[ \ \3 k , . $ D' s RCss e3
\
in NiQ
/ .x , s.v'g 3 .;in ani AV '
v'y'R ,'} gyg ',7 /[4/ s"' , g.
.pM- / 4- g s
/ L, j /, 2 p *J
.! ,MG.2% ljior., a \ f
/
i.-im,a JJ - ~ n u
('
'PT.'^'\%
s '
- "- s
/
' h.!
n t /,/ 7,- G q f % / ,* ' l l lg
- P" **
- ro
., f-? ' I'/ /'
([g -
- ry,. r , ,
~
'y i,<%^ - - - ,r , - l, v,$
.fY'
' \g)h
/ ..)f' ,N 0 A'
Q e ~.
\
y N 1 [e/, / // i \
h :;(x*0 7
\ s' ,
l u ~X s
\; t?.)t,l ..N ' '
j j ,// ' A zo? , .
SITE j/ -
N' \
's -
AREA N y q% .:'?;'; ,
<s, W in . :, : ,*
I; >
m
~L
//
'd((ft'$.' h. -
- . - ll 'i
. gi V. ./ e q N'g\'y\
'-; < - N ,
//
</N LEGEND
\'//
/'3_]. lPy ag
,, / [_// Levet -- - ~
~
' ~
3, , ,,.j , i . _ _
'e
/ vt +
- lo n e B eu nd a r y e = + + + * * * * *
/
SPECIAL f tC00 ZONE A HAIAAD Ati[A ne rai rva st os acuwst. sea upang ot ve tum gi a = .m*u e....a,...... .- o '.
- u r~I- r zz cL _
G i l.1,' F.lt V I NG FLOOD H AZ ARD B0UNDARY MAP "' [If 9 c Fi >pire 101.88-5
% ;- -
x 1;f J/
i ? .
/ \ \M ; f $o
~$* <.
Y ff E EL IFTP S lf,%
v
\
& ll ston6 jb *> -j'/ ,,n,
$' secree g
sv cove n a.
_ (.
pLd',l a s .
j') "C
'/.
)
t
%rr of' ' } ==
/ ,
fj ZONE N(ELil FT MSL) .
7/ /72
' f, A8 }/{ r%/ / ?
't y;
\ / '
" j / k AREA ZONE A8 ,Agg333y3g77
// )
('
x e
\(EL7/18/72 lift MSL
\
d u s /' -
\(O s a 1
, ZONE B-- '
s Rf. // K
'" d -
j! \ [//
\
N 'y N
h s
3 Ocr
/g Noreene
\ Point
( ==T-?L&"%N k
/ ZONE C ,
\ \ !
\3 ii ZON E A 8
s
'? (EL llFT MSL)
} li9/76
' ' ~
9 , oir Y- ;, g
/ \ a.
/ ,
- Q %s @% frt& %
s / #
OtP4Hlut %f Of HGu',1%G A%Q up64% Olvit08"JE %t ^*"*""*'
r ... .o - . s. a -a ,. .. . ieoo o n'9 m "'
IOWN OF HORTH KINGSTOWH, RI " ' " ' "
FLOOD H AZ ARD BOUND ARY M AP H 13 (wAsmncTON COJ FLOOD INSLlR ANCE R ATE Y AP l 13 ' " ' ' ' "
Figure 3')1.00-6
s p ,.-.3
'rA c, .
, ,]+
L.
s s. .
-g'J
( _e ,.- . i'.f mac::. ,Q
~,
3p [
e[ +
s ZONE C sa
\ -
% I, f e
i 1 f ;w AR E A P.OT If.CLUDE D ,
w;cgy HLL RE0ERvAricg
/- ..
d'
-/
l e#/!
/
= w __b .
.' N ; .
~) [I ( ,~, ,
s SITE
('
AREA '
l '
),
( 4 // 3 m
\
f Yg
\ I l
(
I h y f "flA./Ji .n j
h i
I f
1 '
- 1 I , - . - --
N l} g y
'\(
A - ~~T ;L" -- ZOt;E <
't l
I. \% L j
,f <i or e I
- I' f.*-
'QL.-V l % l ' 'j ll 9 l f 1 . ,
$?)
ll~;$.fln 7
7 -/ lL jlI "% .z -
h#
Sg;#^
l T Q p,; zo ic c
, l gr
-)rff. ,~ %cetgyr^*i;3'-lj ?yd ,
}
t_ [m . a a . (J, f( ,
\
- y'TFD ZONE A%
s I
Qe? p. ll
. [ ,.
C
~/
% g, (Ell 2F T MSL)N lhss e-yg3g f,f I
ff fl .
'f-y zone a_, / ~~N ag,7 us1.) <cL :
- 0
,j9
),1, IlI.19 c....,,, -
i
,% zor.eal-=tElINJIL.
s _.._ n ( J 0(PA14TMi%f Of 160Upss A%3 uRSAM ClbiLGTVi%I A'*"v 8 *
- l l R A L L F edeal lmue me A d m.nimsh** icco 0 .m3 2NO Fr3*fET f - E1_ t1: !
TOWN OF WESTERLY, RI FLOCD H AZ ARD BOUND ARY MAP H -07 ovAsutraciotJ col fl000 INSUR ANCE R ATE M AP 1 07 """l Figure 301.88-7
301.89 For each candidate site, please identif y and quantif y the major land-use clasa lfications (e.g., residential, agricultural, recreational, etc.). Please approximate the proportions of these land-uses that will be disturbed as a result of construction of the plant.
RESPONSE: Applicant has not perf ormed detailed engineering layout studies for the candidate alternate sites. In response to this request, Applicant used its best judgment in locating the center point of a two-unit nuclear generating station and the generalized construction / plant layout. A 270-acre parcel was used to represent the area impacted by operation and construction of the plant, consistent with the acreage at the proposed site.
Bear Swamp Site (MA)
The Bear Swamp habitat is primarily that of mature forests of mixed hardwoods and sof twoods indigenous to the region.
Of the total 515 acres of site area, approximately 5% (25 acres) occurs as abandoned f armland in an early secondary successional stage. Associated with this is a single leased dwelling.
A power facility cons' icted on this site would ut ilize about 48% (245 acres) of tt .orest habitat and all 25 acres of the abandoned farmland.
Gill /Erving Site (MA)
The Gill /Erving sites' habitat is that of mature forest with agriculture being the major land use being employed. To date, an estimated 75% (517 acres) of the combined 689 acres fo r the two sites exists as forest and 25% (172 acres) is being used for some type of agriculture. Should a power f acility be placed on the Erving site, an estimated 83% (230 acres) of forest habitat and 67% (40 acres) of agricultural land would be utilized. No residential areas exist on site.
Habitat Tvge No. Acres / Site Acres /Habi tat Type Gill Erving Agricultural 112 60 172 Forest 239 278 5_17 Total Acres 351 338 689 Errol Site ( NH )
The Errol site is predominately 1200 acres of a spruce fir forest with no other significant land-use classifications being found. Wetlands do exist adjacent to and to a limited 301.89-1
degree along a small stream entering the site.
An estimated 23% (270 acres) of the spruce fir forest would be disturbed should a power f acility be built on this site.
One seasonal dwelling is known to occu r on site.
ftooro Site (MI)
The Moore site exists primarily in a n~ ural state as a hardwood-white pine and hemlock forest e site has a number of boat ramps that were constructed by New England Power Company as part of the Moore liydroelectric Dam project and in association with the Moore Reservoir. Only small areas of the site, approximately 1% (5 acres) of the 460 acre total, are developed as farmlands.
The operation and construction of a power f acility situated on the Moore site would disturb approxinately 59% (270 acres) of the forest habitat and would not inf lu ence the rest of the other land-use cha rac te ris t ic s .
Comerford Site (Nil)
The Come rf ord site is primarily composed of areas of forest, both hardwoods and softwoods, and open agricultural lands.
Approximately 87% (850 acres) of the 980 acre site is a mixed hardwood-softwood community while the re ma ini ng 130 acres (13%) exists as agricultural lands. No dwellings exist on site.
Should a power f acility be placed on the Comerf ord site, an estimated 77% (100 acres) of agricultural land and 20% (170 acres) of f orested habitat would be altered.
Rome Point Site (RI)
The habitat of the Rome Point site is that of undeveloned forest and early successional fields and forest. Developed land use is at a minimum with only a f ew abandoned and seasonal dwellings owned by the Narragansett Electric Company now being found. Should plans be formulated to construct a powe r facility on site, the entire 240 acres would be utilized.
Wester 1v Site (RI)
The Westerly site is predominately a f orest habitat with a minimal amount of residential and recreational areas. Of the 400& acres of land owned by New England Power Company, 2% (8 acres) is a drive-in theater and 1% (5 acres) is rented residential land. The remaining 97% (387 acres) is either forest, forested wetlands or early successional fields.
301.89-2
Construction of a power facility would utilize about 68% (270 acres) of the 400 acres total. liabitats utilized for this would be a mixture of early successional fields, forest and forested marsh land.
RE FERENC ES :
- 1. Yankee Atomic Electric Company. July 1977. Bear Swamp site Study, Terrestrial liabitat Analysis (Memo randum) .
- 2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10/24/78. Moore Site Terrestrial Studies (Draft), f o r Seabrook S tation, NH.
- 3. University of Massachusetts, Department of Forest ry and k'ildlif e .
Personal Communication, 12/4/78. Re: Mapping Systems for Massachusetts vegetation.
- 4. University of Massachusetts, Agricultural Eryerirent S ta t ion .
Massachusetts Map Down (maps). Franklin County, Massachusetts. (Land-use and vegetation cover maps.)
- 5. North Country Resource, Conservation and Development P roj ec t , Inc.
Forest-type maps (Errol, St. Johnsbury , VI .-N .H . ; Lit t le to n , N .H .-Vt .
Quadrangles), Meredith, New llampshire.
- 6. Coppelman, G.S., S.A.L. Pilgrim and D.M. Peschel. Agriculture, Forest and Related Land Use in New Hampshire, 1952-1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Durham, Nil .
- 7. Yankee Atomic Electric Company. January 1978. Westerly Site Study, Terrestrial Habitat Analysis.
- 8. Aerial Photographs.
301.89-3
301.90 For each candidate site, please identify and quantify major hab i ta t s (e.g., wetlands, hardwood forest, coniferous forest, mixed hardwood-coniferous forest, grassland, agricultural land).
Please approximate the proportions of these habitats that will be disturbed as a recult of construction of the plant.
RESPONSE: The response to RAI 301.89 discusses Applicant's method of analyzing potentially disturbed areas.
Bear Swamp Site (MA)
The habitat of the site is primarily hardwood and mixed hardwood-sof twood forest with a small area in the central portion being abandoned agricultural lands. Predominate species of the area are beech, maples, hemlocks and spruce, ranging f rom mature stands of the hardwoods and henlocks, some 21-60 ft. high to areas of younger softwoods mixed with older hardwoods.
A power f acility would utilize approximately 2 70 acres, of which 245 would be mixed a hardwoods-hemlock f ores t located in the north central region of the site adjacent to the Bear Swamp Upper Reservoir. In addition, all of the 25 acres of the abandoned f armland found in the central area would aise be utilized.
Gillh;rvinn Site (EQ Habitats of the Gill and Erving acreage are sinilar in species and seral stage. Each area is made up of primarily a forest habitat of mixed hardwoods and sof twoods. These occur in dense stande in which trees range from 41-60 feet in height.
Agricultural land (approximately 25% of the total 689 acres),
occurs along the Connecticut River in the eas tern half of the Gill acreage and is found mixed with some forested areas in the northern half of the Erving acreage.
Should a power facility '2 built on the Erving site, approximately 837. (230 acres) of the ruture stands of the mixed hardwoods and softwoods would be utilized. In addition, about 6,, (40 acres) of the agriculatural land would also be utilized.
Errol S it e_(NH)
The site habitat is primarily 1200 acres of mature s tand s of softwoods of medium-high density. The dominan; species complex is spruce and fir at po le s ta ge , having a diameter at breast height of 5-10 inches. A number of species of northern hardwoods (maples, oak) are f:ound in limited numbers with these. We tla nd s , which surround the site along the 301.90-1
northern and western boundaries, encroach upon the site along a small stream in the southwestern sector. This totals about 50-100 acres.
A power f acility placed in the north central portions of the site would disturb approximately 270 acres of the spruce-fir forest, leaving the wetlands fur ther south undia turbed .
Moore Site (tal)
The site habitat is primarily 455 acres of a mixed hardwood-softwood forest of mature trees in stands of medium density.
Although the site is principally forest, there are some areas of earlier successional species. Common forest s pe c ies are northern hardwoods, white pine, hemlock and spruce-fir at pole stage, having a diameter at breast h ei gh t of 5-10 inches.
A small portion of the site, an estimated 5 acrec, exists as pastureland or croplands, this being f ound at the site's southwest corner.
Locating a power facility in the north-central portion of the site would disturb about 270 acres of the mixed hardwood-softwood forest and not influence other habitat types to any substantial degree.
Conerford Site (?!H )
The site is principally that of a hardwood-softwood forest with approximately 130 acres of the 930 acres being used tor agriculture primarily in the southwestern areas. The dominent forest types are a northern hardwood community located in the western areas, white pine and hemlock stands in the southern and central portions and a spruce-fir community in the northeastern sectors. These exist as ma ture s tand s at medium to high densities with a diameter at breast height of 5-10 inches.
A power f acility on this site would be located on 270 acres in the northern and central areas. I t wou ld disturb approximately 100 acres of agricultural land and 170 acres of white pine-henlock fores t.
Rome Point Site (RI)
The Rome Point site is approximately 240 acres of hardwood forest, hardwocd-sof twood fields and hardwood-sof twood wetlands. The site's vege tation ir diverse in seral ,tage and species. Species range from mid to late successional forms with earlier successional species being found in a number of abandoned fleids and sandy areas. Approximate porpo rtions of these major forms are: hardwood forest 144 acres, mid-successional hardwoods-softwoods 50 acres, early successional 301.90-2
fields 25 acres, and marsh lands about 21 acres. Should a power f acility be constructed here, the entire 240 acre site would be used.
k'es t e rl y S i t e _{R _I )
The k'esterly site is primarily a forest habitat with abandoned fields and wetland areas also being represented. Hardwood species, predominately oak (Que rcus spp. ), dominate an estimated 350 acres (87%) of the site. O f this, about 75 acres has understory species similar to those of marshes and wetlands. Abandoned fields in an early se:a1 stage are also found along the west and northeas t boundar tes , and make up about 35 acres (10%) of the site area. Developed areas make up the remaining 13 acres (3%).
Construction of a power f acility would utilize approximately 235 acres of forested la nd , 50 acres of this being the forested marsh or wetlands. The 35 acres of abandoned field will also be taken.
RE FERENC ES :
Same as those of RAI 301.89.
301.90-3
301.91 Indicate those portions of proposed transnission lines associated with each candidate site that will cross t;ational Forests, Parks, and Monuments, and state and local jurisdiction of forests and parks based on readily available reconnaissance-level in f o rma t io n.
RESPONSE: The requested info rma tion is provided in Table 301.91-1.
Applicant considers the conversion of existing structures f rom carrying circuits of lesser voltages to 345 kV circuits wherein no relocation of existing structures and no wide.ing of rights-of-way is required as being of short-term impact (during the construction phase only). , cordingly, respo ses to RAIs 301.91 and 301.92 have treated any conversions without relocation of structures and widening of the rights-of-way separately from construction involving either the placement of structures or the widenitig of rights-of-way. As an example, the removal of steel lattice towers and setting of Il-frame pole type structures for the Millbury to West Fa r num L i ne ,
common to the Charlestown, Rome Point and Westerly sites, with no widening required, has been treated as new construction. Another example of construction would be the 10 foot widening of the Davis liridge - Millbury right-of-way from Bear Swamp Junction, Rowe, Massachusetts to Adams Road, Greenfield, Ma s sac h u s e t t s , although the only construction ac t ivi ty would be the replacement of an existin;; 230 kV circuit with a portion of the proposed Bear Swamp to Pratts Junction 345 kV circuit on the existing structures. As an example of a conversion, another portion of the proposed Bear Swamp to Pratts Junction circuit, from the above Adans Road to Pratts Junction would replace an existing 230 kV line on its existing structures without relocation and without any widening of the right-of-way. As a conversion, no impacts have been included in Applicant's response to RAIs 301.91. Fo r 301.92, it has been set up as a separate category. In a similar vein, percentages of forests or parks traversed have been calculated based upon miles of construction exclusive of conversionis.
?;o widening of existing rights-of-way or new rigt r; of-way are associated with the forests or parks listed below relative to the Rome Point, Gill /Erving or Bear Swamp sites.
Due to the complexity of the proposed transnission circuits for the liear Swamp candidate alternate site, an analysis is provided in Table 301.91-2.
301.91-1
TABLE 3U1.91-1 Potential Transnission Line Crossings
- 1. Cha rlestown Si te Indian Cedar Swamp Management Area, State of Rhode Island, Ch a r l e s t own , RI 1750 feet = 0.3 miles /109.5 miles = 0.3%
Sutton State Forest, Sutton, ?!A 4750 feet = 0.9 miles /109.5 miles = 0.8%
Total: bbuU teet = 1.2 miles /1U9.5 miles = 1.17.
- 2. Rome Point Site Sutton State Forest, Sutton, MA 4750 feet = 0.9 miles /98.6 miles = 0.9%
- 3. Westerly Site Burlingane State Park, Fo re s t and Management Area, Ch a r l e s t own , RI 12,000 feet = 2.3 miles /113.7 miles = 2.0%
Indian Cedar Swamp Itanagement Area, State of Rhode Island, Charlestown, RI 1500 feet = 0.3 miles /113.7 miles = 0.3%
Futton State Forest, Sutton, MA 4750 feet = 0.9 miles /113.7 miles = 0.82.
Total: 18,250 feet = 3.5 miles /113.7 miles = 3 .1 /.
4 Gill /Ervinn Site Montague State Forest, Ilo n t ague , !!A 6500 feet =
1.2 miles /70.8 miles = 1.7%
Robinson State Park, Agawam, !!A 1000 feet =
0.2 miles /70.8 miles = 0.2%
Total: 4250 feet = 1.4 miles /70.8 miles = 1.9%
TABLE 301.91-1 ( Cont inued)
- 5. Bear Swamp ;ite Montague State Forest, Montague, MA 6500 feet = 1.2 miles /126.8 niles = 0.9?.
Robinson State Pa rk , Westfield, MA 1050 feet = 0.2 n11es/126.8 miles = 0.2%
I!unroe State Forest, Rowe , MA 750 f eet = 0.1 mil es/126.8 miles = 0.1%
8300 f eet = 1.5 miles /126.6 miles = 1.24
- 6. Conerfo rd Si te Groton State Forest, Pine !!ount i . i Wildlif e Manadement Area, Grot- , VT 2500 feet = 0.5 miles /330.0 miles = 0.2%
Leadmine State Forest, Shelburne, Nil 4,250 feet = 0.8 miles /330.0 miles = 0.2%
White Mountain National Forest, Various Towns, Nil 78,700 feet = 14.9 miles /330.0 miles = 4.5%
Bear Brook State Forest, Va rious Towns , Nll 3,600 feet = 0.6 niles/330.0 miles = 0.2%
89,050 feet = 16.8 miles / 330.0 miles = 5.1%
- 7. Moore Site (Same as Comerford Site, except mileage is 335.3 vs. 330.0)
- 8. Errol Site White Mountain National Forest, Various Towns, Nil 83,730 feet = 15.9 miles /487.4 miles = 3.3%
Bear Brook State Forest, Various Towns, Nil 3,600 feet = 0.6 niles/487.4 miles = 0.1.%
8/,330 teet = 16.5 miles /487.4 miles = 3.4%
TABLE 301.91-2 Charlestown and Bear Swamp Sites Transmission Right-of-Way Characterist ics in tillos.
Category Cha r le s t o.en I?e.i r Swamp Terrain - Woods 80.8 95.9 Wetlands 16.2 1.9 Open Land 12.1 19.7 Other -
1.2(1)
Rcsidential O.4 4.2 U r t .i n -
3.9 Subtotal 109.5 126.8 Conversion (2) -
126.8 Total Circuit Miles: 109.5 253.6 Right-of-Way-;ew 77.3 15.8 Right-of-Way-Existing 32.2 lll.0 Right-of-Way-Conversion -
126.8 Total, as above: 109.5 253.6 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 21.9'each Right-of-Way-Single Circuit 73.7 209.8 Total Right-of-Way Mileage: 109.5 253.6 Impacts:
llistoric Sites 3 3 Cultural Sites - -
Recreational Sites Definite 4 12 Possible -
9 Unique Place of Opportunity - Several (1) Interstate highway c rossing-0.2, Ri gh t-o f-wa y-0. 4 , Rive r crossini;s-0.6.
(2) Bea r Swamp to Ro t terdam-71, Bear Swamp to Pratts Junction-56.
301.92 Indicate the approximate proportions of major habitats (forest, at;r ic ul t u ra l lands, and settled areas) that will be crossed by the proposed transmission lines associated with each candidate site.
Rt:S PONS E : The reque sted info rma t ion is provided in Table 301.92-1.
As in its response to RAI 301.91, Applicant has c on s id e red the conversion of existing structures f r o.a carrying circuits of lesser voltages to circuits of 345 kV wherein no relocation of exist ini; s t ruc t ures and no widening of the existing rights-of-way would be required as being of short term inpact (during the construction phase). Accordint;1y, a category ent itled
" Conversion" has been included in Table 301.92 1.
In Table 300.16-3, Charlestown and Rone Point Sites' fransmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in fliles and Table 300.17-3, Charlestown and Westerly Sites' Tra ns.ains ion 'ligh t-of-Way Characteristics le !!iles, the Millhury to West Fa r num proposed'345 kV Line (21 niles) was not included as it was conmon to all three candidate sites. In this response to RAI 301.92, it has been included in Table 301.92-1 for each of Chariu mawn's, Rome Point's and Uesterly's Cha ra c t e r is t ic s as a more valid basis fo r corrpa rison wi th othe r cand ida te sites. Accordingly, Table 3l 0.15-3 Charlestown and Erving/ Gill Sites' Transmission Rights-of-Way Characteristics in I!iles has been revised as shown in Table 300.15-3 (Rev. 1).
301.92-1
TABLE 301.92-1. ~
Site Transmission Right-of-Way Characteristics in Miles .
Charlestown Rome Point Westerly Gill /Erving Bear Swamp Come rf o rd Moore Errol Miles % Miles I Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles I Terrain -
Wood s 80.8 73.8% 68.4 69.4% 84.4 74.2% 48.5 68.5% 95.9 75.6% 266.2 80.7% 270.1 80.6% 393.0 80.69%
Wetlands 16.2 14.8% 14.6 14.8% 16.9 14.8% 1.7 2.4% 1.9 1.5% 7.6 2.3% 7.6 2.3% 22.9 4.7%
Open Land 12.1 11.0% 14.5 14.7% 11.9 10.5% 12.1 17.1% 19.7 15.5% 53.4 16.2% 54.3 16.2% 68.2 14.0%
Residential 0.4 0.4% 0.6 0.6% 0.3 0.3% 4.2 5.9% 4.2 3.3% - - - -
Urban - - - - - -
3.9 5.5% 3.9 3.1% - - - -
Other* - -
0.5 0.5% 0.2 0.2% 0.4 0.6% 1.2 1.0% 2.8 0.8% 3.3 0.9% 3.3 0.7%
Subtotal: 109.5 100.0% 98.6 100.0% 113.7 100.0% 70.8 100.0% 126.8 50.0% 330.0 56.1% 335.3 56.5% 487.4 68.4%
126.8 50.0% 258 43.9% 258 43.5% 225 31.5%
Conversion - - -
Total Circuit 712.4' 100%
Miles: 109.5 100.0% 98.6 100.0% 113.7 100.0% 70.8 100.0% 253.6 100.0% 588.0 100.0% 593.3 100.0%
- 0ther: Highways Water 0.2 Rivers 0.4 Interstate liighway 0.1 liighway 0.1 liighway 0.1 0.4 liighways Right-of-way Right-of-way Right-of-way River 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Rivers 1.2 Rivers 1.2 Rivers 1.1 Right-of- Water 0.8 Water 1.3 Water 1.5 way 0.4 Orchard 0.6 Orchard 0.6 Orchard 0.5 River Crossings 0.6 e ,
. s .s- ,
S
/
T ,, .
s e
Revision 1 TABLE 300.15-3.
Charlestown and Erving/ Gill Sites' Transmission Right-ot-Way Characteristics in ?!iles.
Category Charlestown Erving Terrain - Woods 80.8 48.5 Wetlands 16.2 1.7 Open Land 12.1 12.1 Other -
0.4*
Residential 0.4 4.2 Urban -
3.9 Total Circuit Miles: 109.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-t;ew 77.3 1.6 Right-of-Way Exis t ing 32.2 69.2 Total, as above: 109.5 70.8 Right-of-Way-Double Circuit 17.9/each 0.8/each Right-of-Way Single Circuit /3.7 69.2 Total Right-of-Way Mileage: 109.5 70.0 Impacts:
llistoric Sites 3 2 Cultural Sites - -
Recreational Sites Definite 4 12 Possible -
9 Unique Place or Oppo rtt.nity -
Several
- River Crossing
301.93 In Table II of the " Revised Transmission Section F or Each Cand itf a te Site" in a letter to NRC dated October 31, 1978, re f e rence wa s made to the number of miles of new rights-of-way and nunber of miles of existing rights-of-way that will require widening. Ilow many acres of forest land will need to be cleared for these additiona1 ri;; hts of-way requirements?
RESPONSE
Conerford Site 2,900 acres Moore Site 3,000 acres Gill /Erving Site 600 acres Errol Site 5,300 acres Hear Swamp Site 1,000 acres Rone Point Site 1,000 acres Westerly Site 1,300 acres, 301.93-1
4 .
301 94 In response to RAI 300.19 of your letter to NRC dated October 31, 1978, reference was made to a proposal entitled " Natural Area Management Plan for the Charlestown Rhode Island Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Site." Please provide a copy of this report. To what agency has this proposal been sent?
RESPONSE'. The "':atural Area Management Plan for the Charles Rhode Island Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Site" (NAMP) was provided to the NRC in Revision 5 of the Environmenta l Report as Appendix D.3. This inf ormation was transmitted to your office January 2, 1979 The NAMP was reviewed in draft form by the U.S. Department of Interior, and D01's comments were incorporated. The NAMP has been found by DOI to be acceptable as a conceptual planning document and to be consistent with DOI's approach to ref uge management.
The Natural Area Management Plan was submitted to the U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA) by Applicant for consideration of joint use of the site as a wildlife refuge and nuclear power plant facility on August 31, 1978. GSA was requested t o consider it in preparing the Final Environmental Impact S t a t e m. . n t (FEIS) on disposal of the NALF. GSA acknowledged our submittal on September 1, 1978, noting that the proposal would be considered in preparation of the FEIS.
301.94-1