ML19329A206

Requests Clarification in Notice of Opportunity for Hearing That Activities Relate to Const of Three Generators on Site, Not One as Inferred in Des

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

FU'4

- ~'

, ,,<E loc.

-: .COmRot Nu m ~

4174

,- ~,

t

,,0, A CilON Cd. ( SEAOLINE '

Est.d & *,7!-st , ,.. -

D AT5 OF OOCUMENI 2A f ' _

g 3, [ m, g, ' 2/8/72 PREPARE FCR SIGN IURE OF ACitON PROCtSSING D AiES

{ Eow York. S Y -

~ - _

Aa .,r.s..s

-_ Chairman oi .cio, or e.goioii.e.

w.,im R.,or,_

' hI"8 MN Final "E"^ ^ 55 O Ois.,

Ler CErisiaar O Can cEsCaienO N 8 12/13/71 conseeming Ref.

Dessee draftanddetailed reqpesta se=e - dtd clariffemeten of 1,. r* D en1 y@

g l

a single antice of opportamity for hearing to /, - ~ -

bi'i y lhJDN three emits ~~' "

I D ATE It5 NOI: FICAilON TO THE JCAE -

l r

REFEREED TO

" ""E" ' '-

1 -

Shaper f/astian 2/4/72 h w een (3o.no) '

, 31och (30 287) . _ _

assers Morris Form HQ-32 (6 7 USA EC DIRECTOR OF REGUL ATION COMMUNICA110NS CONTROL DO NOT DETACH TH:5 COPY 3912300M90 fl

,. . . m e

( ' .

REID & PRIEST 40 WALL STREET NEW YOR K, N. Y.1000 5 212 DIOBY 4 2233 WASHINGTON OFFICs ciaz inoas.. Washington, D. C. irOa x srazer.w.~

"Ez!DAPT* * "AS"2"orox o c ac soa 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

. -. .. . ,