ML19257D548

Forwards Comments on NUREG-75/025,Suppl 1, Draft Suppl to Fes Re Const of Facility, Nov 1979

ML19257D548
Person / Time
Site:	05000514, 05000515
Issue date:	01/28/1980
From:	Linblood W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8002040592
Download: ML19257D548 (5)

Text

t r-- c::

January 28, 1980 Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Dockets 50-514 50-515 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Director Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s

Dear Sir:

Portland General Electric Company has reviewed NUREG-75/025 Supplement No. 1,' Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement Related to the Construction of Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515, dated November 1979, and our comments are included in the attachment.

We hope these will be of value to you in the preparation of the final supplement to the final Environmental Statement.

Sincerely,

/ Y-  :

W. Jv-Lindblad -

d k b ['

Vice President Engineering-Construction c: Mr. Lynn Frank, Director State of Oregon

}hh7 Department of Energy Coc2 Es

///

800 2 0 4 o Sr9 2L_

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Comments on Pebble Springs Draft Supplement to t.e Final Environmental Statement Dated November 1979 Dockets 50-514 and 50-515 January 28, 1980

1. Page i, Item 5:

The twelfth entry should read " Energy Facility Siting Council of Oregon" instead of " Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council of Oregon".

2. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, second paragraph:

PP&L's corporate headquarters are in Portland, Oregon and not in Washington.

3. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.2, second paragraph:

Change the third sentence from the last to read "Another group of utilities, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), has two sites designated for nuclear power plants in Washington."

4. Page 2-1, footnote:

The Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear units should be designated as "WPPSS" and not "WPPS".

5. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1, last sentence of first paragraph:

Correct "Uattila" to read "Umatilla".

6. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.3, third paragraph:

The last sentence should be deleted and included in the discussion of the selection of potential sites in Section 2.3.2.1.

7. Page 2-5, Section 2.3.1.1, second paragraph:

The report prepared for PP&L, Reference 9, considered three sites, one of which, Lebanon, is located in the Willamette Valley. PGE did not consider the Lebanon site, consistent with Figure 2.1.

8. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.1.3, first paragraph:

Reference "9" at the end of the first sentence is incorrect and should be Reference "8".

1867 039

9. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.1.1, fourth paragraph:

The statement "...the applicant also adopted West Roosevelt" is not correct. The NRC Staff performed the only comparison between West Roosevelt and Pebble Springs. Also, the reference appearing at the end of the last sentence should be "9" and not "8".

10. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.1.4, first paragraph:

Reference "25-29" appearing at the end of the first sentence should read "25-27, 29-31". Reference 28 should appear at the end of the second sentence.

11. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.1.4, last paragraph:

The reference at the end of the last sentence should be Reference 26 in Appendix A not Reference 30.

12. lage 2-11, Section 2.4.1.1, first paragraph:

The last sentence should be revised to read as follows: "Further-mote, the Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council expre; sed the opit ion that, even with Plant " hardening", they were opposed to any operation of a nuclear plant at the Boardman site as long as the Weapons Training Facility was in use by the military. The applicant st0sequently decided to file an application for the Pebble Springs rite for its two unit nuclear power plant whe'n assurance was'not available that the Navy would move its Weapons Training Facility."

13. Page 2-22, Table 2.6:

The " " rating for West Roosevelt under the column " Acceleration of Mass Wasting" does not appear appropriate. The flat bench area is of sufficient size such that the hills adjacent to the site should not be impacted.

14. Page 2-26, Section 2.4.2.2.4:

The potential for adverse socio-economic impacts may be higher at West Roosevelt than some other potential sites, but the description of the site as " poor" for a nuclear plant project appears arbitrary.

15. Page 2-29, Section 2.4.2.2.4, Summary:

After the first sentence, the following sentence should be added:

"All the Oregon coastal sites have been ranked as having equally high potentials for adverse impacts". The last sentence should also be changed to read "The five other sites in the Columbia River candidate area were not ranked".

!867 040

16. Page 2-32, Section 2.5. ' '1urth paragraph:

The Boardman cooling reservoir would have to be expanded f rom its present 1400-acre size to 5000 acres to accommodate two more power plant units. Therefore, an additional 3600 acres of habitat would be lost for two new power units placed on the site.

17. Page 2-34, Section 2.5.2, third paragraph:

Site-specific data on the presence of threatened and endangered species was also available for the Pebble Springs site as well as Boardman and Hanford.

18. Page 2-41, Table 2.16:

A reference to Footnote "a" should appear by the Boardman entry under the " Site" column.

19. Page A-5, footnote:

The last word should be " plane" not " plant".

20. Page A-7, Section 9.2:

The reference appearing in the second sentence should be 7" and not "14".

21. Page A-8, Section 11.1:

The town of West Roosevelt is almost exclusively owned by PP&L with the residents leasing the homes. To our knowledge, the gas station at West Roosevelt is no longer operating. The town of Goldendale, Washington is approximately 30 air miles from the site.

22. Page A-9, Section 11.4:

Identifying the site as " critical habitat" appears unwarranted considering a large area of similar habitat in the region.

23. Page A-10:

Reference 14 should be deleted since it is redunv to Reference 7.

24. Page B-1, Section 1.1, second paragraph:

The Tri-Cities area is the nearest " major" population center.

25. Page B-1, Section 1.2, last paragraph:

The design ground acceleration associated with the safe shutdown eartbquake is 0.25g in accordance with the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

1867 041

. 4 -

26. Page B-5, Section 2.1, second paragraph:

The present size of Carty Reservoir is 1400 acres.

27. Page B-5, Section 2.1, sixth paragraph:

The coal plant will be completed in 1980.

28. Page B-7, Section 2.2, first paragraph:

The present size of Carty Reservoir is 1400 acres. The reservoir vould have to be expanded to 5000 acres to accommodate two new nuclear power plant units.

29. Page B-8, Section 2.4:

This discussion should be revised to reflect the present 1400-acre size of Carty Reservoir and the necessity to expand it to 5000 acres for siting two nuclear plants.

30. Page B-8, Section 3.1, last paragraph:

The closest int:.rstate highway appears to be I-5 east of the site (less than 88 miles). Also, Figure B-3 shows at least two railroads within 25 miles of the Plant, contrary to this description.

31. Page B-11, Section 4.1, second paragraph:

The statement that a metropolitan area is only 10 miles away from the Hanford site should be modified to reflect that there are a number of locations on the Hanford reservation which are more distant from a population center.

1867 042 DRS/4mg5A12 -