Cosumnes power plant (01-afc-19) data response, set 1A
|
|  Yüklə 0.81 Mb.
|
Other Work ExperienceFaçade Study of Mill Street, Columbus, North Carolina. Columbus Downtown Revitalization Committee, 2001. Survey of Historic Resources of Downtown Rock Hill, South Carolina. Rock Hill Economic Development Corporation, 2001. Documentation for the partial reconstruction of Old City Hall, Brevard, North Carolina. Al Platt Architects, 2001. Part One Tax Credit Certification, City Market Building, 30 West Main Street, Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Al Platt Architects, 2001. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, Main Street Historic District, Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Transylvania County Historic Preservation Commission. 2001. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, Hudson-Hull House, Shelby, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Historic Shelby Foundation, 2001 Nomination to the National Register of Historic Place, T. Max Watson House, Rutherford County, Theron Watson,2000. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, Major William E. Breese House, Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Harris Architects, 2000. Part B Tax Credit Certification (NC state tax credit) and Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, Max and Claire Brombacher House, Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina. Gary and Ann Himes, 2000. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Place, Allison-Deavor House, Transylvania County. Transylvania County Historical Society, 2000. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Place, Grey Hosiery Mill, Henderson County. Henderson County Historical Society, 2000. Historic Property Investigation, Curtis Bynum House, Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Harris Architects, 2000. Attachment CR-37Historical DPR 523A Forms and Location MapTechnical Area: Geology CEC Author: Janine Weber Band CPP Author: Tom Lae BACKGROUND Upon review of the AFC and of the topographic map of the area, staff is concerned about the safety of the dammed reservoir approximately one mile upstream from the proposed site. The CPP site appears to lie in the inundation zone if the dam were to fail, yet no mention of this dam was made in the report. DATA REQUEST
Response: The reservoir’s surface area is 164 acres and the maximum capacity is 2,850 acre-feet, for an average reservoir depth of 17 feet. The maximum height of the dam is approximately 60 feet and the total length is 1,800 feet. The crest width is 28 feet, the side slopes are relatively flat at 4:1, and the upstream slope within the range of water level fluctuations is protected by riprap. The downstream slope is grassland. The reservoir was designed to supply cooling water and firewater to the Rancho Seco Plant in the event of an emergency such as a loss-of-coolant accident, fire, or other emergency, including one resulting from a seismic event. The reservoir and dam were analyzed prior to its construction and approved by the NRC for their intended purposes. The following is an excerpt from the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Page 2.6-1, Amendment 1: There is no reason to anticipate fault propagation in the site area. Earthquake shaking will occur as the result of shocks along distant faults, but due to their distant origin and nature of the foundation material beneath the site, ground accelerations of no greater than 0.05g should occur during the life of the plant. Therefore, a conservative value of 0.1g will be used for design. The following is an excerpt from the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report, Page 5.5-3, Amendment 5: The dam is under the jurisdiction of the State of California, Division of Dam Safety, and as such it is designed and constructed to standards established by the State of California, which include consideration for earthquake. The effects on the plant of a dam failure or other sudden release of water have been investigated. An instantaneous break 50 feet wide and the full height of the dam occurring simultaneously with the peak flow from a design storm would not flood the plant site. The resulting flow would have a water surface more than 10 feet below any of the safety features. The minimum elevation of the Rancho Seco Plant industrial area is 147.5 feet above mean sea level, which is the same as the minimum elevation planned for Cosumnes Power Plant as shown in AFC Figure 8.14-4. Technical Area: Land Use CEC Author: James Adams CPP Author: Katy Carrasco BACKGROUND AFC Section 8.4.6, Cumulative Impacts, discusses the potential cumulative land use impacts that would result from the proposed project. The AFC discusses existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project, but does not identify existing or proposed projects along the proposed linear facility corridor. DATA REQUEST
Response: The phrase, “other major existing land uses” was referring to the former Rancho Seco Plant, existing transmission lines, existing water supply pipeline that supplies water from the Folsom-South Canal to Rancho Seco, and the Rancho Seco electrical switchyard. The proposed CPP is consistent with these existing land uses.
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being burdensome and speculative. BACKGROUND Section 6 of the AFC discusses the proposed route of the natural gas pipeline. Figure 6.1-1 shows these pipeline routes, several of which appear to enter the City of Elk Grove. There is no discussion of any applicable LORS that may apply to the proposed or alternate gas pipeline routes.
Response: The City of Elk Grove currently follows the County of Sacramento’s General Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance and are not expected to have a separate general plan or zoning ordinance for 18 months to 2 years, minimum. No separate standards for the City of Elk Grove in siting gas lines exist. Attachment LU-57 is a record of conversation from Bill Campbell, a member of the planning staff at the City of Elk Grove.
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being burdensome and irrelevant. However, the approximate lengths of each pipeline segment is provided in Table LU-58.
Response: AFC Figure 6.1-1 has been enlarged to show the names of major roads. The figures are attached as Figures 6.1-1a to 6.1-1g. BACKGROUND The proposed site is designated Agriculture, with minimal parcel size of 80 acres (AG-80). The California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation has prepared a rating system for land resources called the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). The use of LESA criteria provides a methodology for assessing the potential environmental impact of state and local projects on agricultural lands and its conversion. LESA provides an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The California LESA is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors area based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. DATA REQUEST
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being redundant and burdensome. BACKGROUND The construction of the natural gas line is an important feature of this project since the proposed route is 26 miles long. More detailed information than provided on Figure 6.1.1 of the AFC is necessary to analyze the proposed and alternative natural gas pipeline alignments. DATA REQUEST
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being burdensome and irrelevant.
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being burdensome and irrelevant. However, SMUD was able to obtain zoning information from the County on GIS and has provided a map of the zoning along the Gas Line. These maps are attached as Figures 8.4-2a to 2e.
Response: As stated in our letter filed December 20, 2001, SMUD objects to this Data Request as being burdensome and irrelevant. However, SMUD agrees to provide maps of the existing land use types. These maps are included in as Figures 8.4-3a to 3e. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||