ML19260C906
| ML19260C906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1980 |
| From: | Mochnick R ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| To: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| M-S-443, NUDOCS 8002060462 | |
| Download: ML19260C906 (2) | |
Text
.
U. S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X po sr.,
g 1200 SIXTH AVENUE W
g SEATTLE, W A SHING TON 98101
=
y L pqott UWJR M/S 443 J A N 3 01920 Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ballard:
We have completed our review of your Agency's Draft Supplement (DS) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Pebble Springs Nuclear Power Plant.
As you know, the DS was only intended to address alternative sites for the proposed Nuclear Power Plant in tht your Agency apparently concluded that the existing analysis of alternative sites was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable Federal statues.
The Draft Supple-ment's discussion of the alternative sites considered is sufficient to demonstrate that the Hanford Reservation as well as the applicant's proposad Pebble Springs site would be acceptable locations for nuclear power plants.
The Draft Supplement's discussion of the Skagit site, which is the proposed location of a two unit nuclear power plant sponsored by Puget Sound Power and Light Company, is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is the equal of these other two sites and, in fact, is less -
than candid about the geologic and seismic conditicns in the vicinity.
The DS should have provided some discussion of the extended contro-versy over seismic conditions at the Skagit site and should have indicated when the NRC expects the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to have resolved the outstanding issues.
In future environmental impact statements on proposed nuclear power plants we believe that the treatment of the alternative sites question will need to be more detailed.
In particular, in order to meet the
'2 2bU O
8002 06 0 W E
s 2
intent of the new Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
.500) roughly equal treatment should be given to each major candidate site so that a thorough comparison of the environmental consequences at alternative sites can be presented in the EIS. The site comparison should go into enol 1h depth so that the differences in such consequences can be clearly presented.
Based upon this review we have rated this Draft Supplement LO-1, (L0 - Lack of Objections to the proposed action,1 - generally adequate information). This rating will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility-to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal actions pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Sincerely, W
Rogc,r K. Mochnick, Acting Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch cc: Betty Jankus, OER
. p 7 ')
1 j'3 E aJ a
..