ML19329F341
| ML19329F341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1971 |
| From: | Galler S COMMERCE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F330 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006250427 | |
| Download: ML19329F341 (2) | |
Text
..
[V]'*
f O
"g i t,c.... I Iw..... A f f,.*'.,
EDD. & llIll, tE. 50 W1, %
f, q, -,'
THE AGGISTAnli SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
? *.7).*
wastunuton. D.C. 20230 h
' &.!h *
rn em a.
da O ~ W e'
mq,V qqL&
o, N
/
h
,; \\ g y pg March 18,1971 f
g, GL ' \\ \\ L J
C t...
. '. /.rr 1 ; B71 > g p 2 3 iCI't;' 3
? ~~. t t:.,. r.,. 2 t t.
w 2,
~
r
.a
'..6.c 'Jr.
Mr. Harold L. Price ~
\\';
Q$
U Y
Director of Regulation
'. i N
- M eMT$.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Price:
In reply to your letter of February 10, 1971, this is our Departmental response concerning the detailed draft environmental impact statement on an application by the Consumers Power Company for permits to construct the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, at Midland, Michigan.
We belicyc this environmental impact statement would be strenghtened materially if a greater socioeconomic data input were provided by the applicant. For example,Section IV, " Alternatives to the Proposed Action" (p. 33ff), superficially mentions four alternative considerations and then climinates cach without a sincle hard economic statistic support-ing the decision by comparative analysis. Effective and persuasive analysis of the type envisioned in the Council on Environmental Qnality Guideline:, will require a much more solid economic data input than evident in this statement.
i Further, it.is our belief that the basic environmental studies which will be conducted by the Applicant (see Section VII, " Additional Information,"
- 37) should be conducted insofar as possible before, rather than after, l
p.
the instruction permit is granted. This requirement would embr.tcc the plans for various preoperative surveys. it. may be that certain variables will surface which could cast doubt on the environmental feasibility of launching a potentially hazardous project.
Still further, the environmental impact statement contains little relevant technical information on the meteorological aspects of the site. As a
- consequence, our evaluation is based on other, more detailed, technical data previously made available to us.
~
AS e
I~
i t. -/
e,
^
r)
\\
At the request of the Division of Reactor Licensing of the AFC, a review of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report of the Midland Nuclear Power Station was prepared by the Air Resources Environmental Laboratory anl transmitted to the AEC in separate comments on February.5,196');
July 28,1969; January 5,1970; and February 1,1970. A copy of the letter is enclosed. Our conclusion at this point is that sufficiently detailed and appropriate meteorological data have not been developed by the applicant that would enabic us to compute relative atmospheric diffusion rates. Our review of the meterological aspects of the radio-logical effluent from the facility will not be completed until additional data are submitted.
Sincerely; j' L. s i.t n!;,.,
a
,[*Wfg*..n p,jy'q Dr. Sidney R;.'Gallur,g,.]MGs4 9
- ~^ ~ :
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs ENCLOSURE S
4 1
e s-w
+.
,,