ML19329A206
| ML19329A206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1972 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| 4174, NUDOCS 7912300240 | |
| Download: ML19329A206 (3) | |
Text
'4
- ~'
,,,<E loc.
.COmRot Nu m 4174
~
~,
t,,0, CilON Cd.
( SEAOLINE A
Est.d & *,7!-st D AT5 OF OOCUMENI 2A f ' _
2/8/72 IURE OF g 3, [ m, g, PREPARE FCR SIGN ACitON PROCtSSING D AiES
{ Eow York. S Y -
-_ Chairman
~
Aa.,r.s..s oi.cio, or e.goioii.e.
' hI"8 MN w.,im R.,or,_
Final "E"^ ^ 55 Ler CErisiaar O Can O Ois.,
cEsCaienO N 8
12/13/71 conseeming Ref. draft detailed se=e - dtd Dessee and reqpesta clariffemeten of 1,. r* D en y@
g 1
a single antice of opportamity for hearing to
/
, - ~ -
bi'i y lhJDN three emits
~ ~ '
FICAilON TO THE JCAE I
D ATE It5 NOI:
r REFEREED TO 1
" ""E" Shaper f/astian 2/4/72 (3o.no) h w een (30 287)
, 31och assers Morris Form HQ-32 (6 7 DIRECTOR OF REGUL ATION USA EC DO NOT DETACH TH:5 COPY COMMUNICA110NS CONTROL 3912300M90fl
(
m e
REID & PRIEST 40 WALL STREET NEW YOR K, N. Y.1000 5 212 DIOBY 4 2233 WASHINGTON OFFICs Washington, D. C.
irOa x srazer.w.~
ciaz inoas..
"AS"2"orox o c ac soa "Ez!DAPT*
February 8, 1972 202 638-3753 Mr.
L. Manning Muntzing Director of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket _Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287
==Dear
- ==
The scope of the regulatory staff's draft detailed environmental statement dated December 13, 1971 in the captioned matter is ambiguous in stating that "Although the present action is concerned with the proposed issuance of a license to operate one unit, this statement considers the environmental impact of the simultaneous operation of all three units".
Inasmuch as the NEPA review is intended to cover all activities conducted on a site, I assumed that the suggestion in the environmental statement that only Unit 1 was involved was inadvertent.
The applicant's environmental report dated July 10, 1970, and the supplement thereto dated October 1971 evaluate the impact on the environment from all three reactors.
The draft detailed statement prepared by your staff makes its technical analysis on the same basis.
For these reasons I asked the staff to clarify this matter in the notice of opportunity for hearing to the public by providing that such opportunity under NEPA
.pplies to all three units at the site.
I understand that there is some question in the minds of some staff members as to whether this change may be made, because revised Appendix D did not contemplate the problem of providing a single notice in instances where more than DF-1174 L$
-~u g
... one reactor is'under construction at one site, and where the facilities happen to fall into different categories.
It may be ndted that the original listing of reactor cases covered included all three units at Oconee in category '0",
but that the December 1, 1971, revision placed Units 2 and 3 in category "C" without explanation.
I wish to request clarification of this matter and the issuance of a notice to the public providing only one oppor-tunity for intervention under NEPA.
To do otherwise would have the anomalous effect of providing for two or more hearings on identical subject matter, as a result of a drafting error in procedural regulations.
Best regards.-
Sincerely,
/
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Counsel for the Applicant
,