ML19340A375

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Info Re Extent of NRC Legal Responsibilities Re Comments Made on Des
ML19340A375
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/06/1975
From: Augustine R
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8003250685
Download: ML19340A375 (3)


Text

_ -__ . - _ - . . _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

n J

s s NRC viSTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCK. MATERIAL

/

[ (TEMPOR ARY FORM)

/ ~

CONTROL NO: 8460

/

/ . FILE: wi~

FROM: The National Intervenors DATE OF DOC D ATE R ECD LTR TWX RPT OTHER Wish, D.C. Robert E. Augustine 8-6-75 8-3-75 m TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENTIMC PDR w-v unc 1-signed . SENT LOCAL PDR xx CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO: e xxx 1 50-302 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSUR ES:

Ltr requesting explanation. concerning NRC responsibility for responses'coucerning. Le --

DES on Crystal River ......- ^ '

a__r.- - .i l u PLANT NAME:

Crystal River #3 j

FOR ACTION /INFORMATjaN 8-11-75 JGB BUTLER (L) VsCHWENCER (L) ZIEM ANN (L) YEGAN (E)

W/ Copies W// Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L) STO'LZ (L) DICKER (E) LEA [R (L)

W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR (L) > VASSALLO (L) KNIGHTON (E) SPIES W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD (E) LPM W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION W C" 9 TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST _ A/T IND .

BRAITMAN AC PDR SCHROEDER ArfTlMES R. DIGGS (L)

OGC, ROOM P 506A MACCARY ATAMMILL H. GEARIN (L) SALTZMAN GOSSICK/STAF F KNIGHT .,deASTN E R At GOULBOURNE (L) MELTZ CASE PAWLICKl <4ALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)

GIAMBUSSO SHAO .M ANGLER J. LEE (L) PLANS BOYD STELLO M.RU3:BROOQ)

MCDONALD MOORE (L) HOUSTON ENVI RO_ S. REED (E) CHAPMAN DEYOUNG (L) NOVAK MULLER M. SERVME (L) DUBE (Ltr)

SKOVHOLT (L) ROSS DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L) E. COUPE GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPOLITO KNIG HTON M. SLATER (E) PETERSON P. CO LLINS TEDESCO YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L) HARTFIELD (2)

DEylSE ,,Mtf0LLINS REGAN S. TEETS (L) KLECKER

  1. EG OPR LAINAS PROJECT LDR G. WILLI AMS (E) EISENHUT FILE & REGION (2) BENAROYA -

V. WILSON (L) WIGGINTON MIPC VOLLMER HAR LESS R. G R AM '.L)

EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION UNCAN (E) fY.

y/ LOCALPDR Crystal River, Fla d TIC (ABERNATHY) [)ffttt07- NATIONAL LABS M44) k 1 - PDR-SAN /LA/NY P- NSIC (BUCHANAN) ~1 - W. PENNINGTON, Rm E.201 GT 1 - BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB '

1 - ASLB 1 - CONSULTANTS 1 - G. ULRIKSON ORNL 1 - Newton Anderson NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN

- ACRS HOLDING /SENT ,

. .(

  • 8 0 0 3 250 f,[ O

. . _ - _ . m ,

D U* ,'

/ "%, 4?r

,'  : O d.f ~

3 .

,f su M * '

L}

$g l l ,

e 5 E_

E I L mba .

~

I 7-s s 1, E

i A 9I IB M uu ,

202-543-1642 231 153 E Shmt $1. Whhetoa, D.C. 20003 August 6, 1975 vs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Gentlemen, Could you please explain for us the extent of legal respon-sibility borne by NRC to fully and completely respond to comments made on draft environmental impact statements. I l

10 CFR Part 50 Appendix D paragraph A. 8 states:  ;

"After receipt of the comments requested pur6utint to paragraphs 6 and 7, the Director of Regulation or his designee will prepare a final detailed statement on the environmental considerations specified in para-graph 1, ifncluding a discussion of troblems and ob_ l

.iections raised by Federal. State, and local acencies or officials and orivate organizations and individuals and the disDosition thereof." (emphasis added) j In view of this, can you explain how the omission of response  ;

to comments is not a viclation of 10 CFR Part 50?  !

In the case of Crystal River Unit 3, it appears that there has simply been no response at all made to certain comments of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior.

On page E-17 of the final EIS Commerce commented l

"We are unable to evtluate the AEC staff's analysis of the impact of accidental releases of radioactivity because the meteorological sssumptions, the resulting relative con- l centration, ani the probability of occurrence of such a l concentration :.s not specified."

One would expect that the final EIS would include the in-formation (assumptions, concentration and probability) indicated as lacking yet it does not.

On page E-57 of the final EIs Interior co.mented:

l "We also think that Class 9 accidents resulting in both n i, air and water releases should be described and the impacts v780 on human life and the remaining environment discussed as long as there is any possibility of occurrence. The con-sequences of an accident of this severity could have far-t-

' * ./, *

) 2 reaching effects on land and in the Gulf, which could persist for centuries and affect millions of people and other life species. ile think that consideration ~ f the possible impacts of Class 9 accidents should have a bearing on alternatives to the proposal."

Again, one would expect to see a diccussion of Class 9 accidents in the final EIS or at least an ey/olanation as to why such a discussion is not included, but there is nothing.

The general public is under the impression that the comment process is intended to improve the consideration of project impacts. It is difficult to see haw there can be any improvement if no consideration or discussion of comments is made. If the public's impression is incorrect and the comment process is intended to serve some other purpose, we would-be pleased if you would explain. The public is concerned tnat comments made in good faith are of no use if~the Commission simply opts to ignore them.

Sincerely,

$Wf h Robert 3. Augustine Staff Researcher e

g 6