ML19341B518

Comments on Second Draft Suppl to Fes Re Alternate Site Analysis & Transportation Review.Definitions for Categorizing EIS on Both Environ Consequences of Proposed Action & Adequacy of Statement Encl

ML19341B518
Person / Time
Site:	05000467, Allens Creek  File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/29/1981
From:	Harrison A ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8102020435
Download: ML19341B518 (3)

Text

_

.t jto sr.

I O I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VI

• % p 1201 ELM STREET DALLAS. TEXAS 75270 January 29, 1981 Mr. B. J. Youngblood Chief, Licensing Branch No.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

We have completed our review of your Second Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the construction of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The Station will be built by Houston Lighting and Power Company near Wallis, Texas, and is sched-uled for commercial operation in 1986. The purpose of this Supplement is to modify the first Supplement to reflect recent decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is presently re-evaluating its site selection criteria and methodology to place stronger requirements on candidate sites. Although these changes are not yet effective, several of the new requirements have been applied to site selection for the Allens Creek plant. In particular, candidate areas were excluded in the screening process which do not have natural barriers to protect under-lying aquifers, or which lie directly upstream of aquifer recharge areas. Even though a Class 9 (core meltdown) accident at a nuclear power station may be extremely unlikely, we support such additional precautions since they can greatly reduce the impact such an accident would have on the hydrologic environment.

l We offer the following comments for your consideration in the prepara-tion of the Final Statement:

Alternate Site Analysis and Transoortation Review The Supplement addressed five alternative sites in detail and proposed means of transporting the reactor pressure vessel to the Allens Creek l site. Also, some earlier proposed conditions to EPA's water quality requirements were withdrawn.

1. Five alternative sites that were representative of those resource areas capable of supporting a nuclear powered gener-ating station were selected and compared with the Allens Creek site. None of the alternative sites were found to be environ-mentally preferable to the Allens Creek site. Therefore, this site remains an acceptable choice for the proposed nuclear g station, d S

/

2 ~ ~ Us-

'O 2

2. The Supplement r.onsidered the environmental impacts of trans-porting the reactor pressure vessel up the San Bernard River, constructing a barge unloading facility, and transporting the vessel overland to the Allens Creek site. The environmental impacts associated with these actions were determined to be minor and of short duration. Impacts on alternate trans-portation routes were also considered and appeared to be viable. However, the EIS determined that using alternate routes would not significantly reduce environmental effects.

As stated in earlier comment letters, we continue to have environmental reservations about tne environmental effects of certain aspects of the prooosed project. However, since no changes have been made on the technical aspects of the project in this EIS, and no environmentally significant impacts were discussed in the Document, we classify the Second Supplement EIS as LO-1. Specifically, we have no objections to the oroposed site and method cf transporting the reactor pressure vessel to the site as it relates to Environmental Protection Agency's legis-lative mandates. Our classification will be published in the Federal Reoister according to our responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal actions, under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Definitions of the categories are provided on the enclosure. Our procedure is to categorize the EIS on both the environmental consequences of the proposed action and on the adaouacy of the Impact Statement at the draft stage whenever possible.

We appreciated the opportunity to review the Second Draft Supplement tc the Final Environmental Imoact Statement. Please send our office five (5) copies of the Final Supplemental Statement at the same time that it is sent to the Office of Environmental Review, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Washington, D.C.

ncerely, es. , . ( Nv A ene Harrison Regional Administrator (6A)

Enclosure .

. _ _ . ~ _ . - - _ . . . . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ ._. - - -

1 s EtiV~P. clime! ITAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION j ,

LO - Lack of Obiections ,

EPA has no objections to the preposed action as describet in the draft impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

, EP. - Environmental Reservations -

EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of -

suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the  :

originating Federal agency to re-assess these aspects.

EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its i potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency  !

i believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not  :

) adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action.

> The Agency recermends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further .

i (including the possibility of no action at all). ,

/

ADEOUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT Catacory 1 - Adecuate -

Tne draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or accion as well as altarnatives reasonably available to the project or action.

Catecory 2 - Insufficient Infornation ,

EPA believes the draft impact statement does not contain sufficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed .

project or action. However, from the information submitted, the l

! Agency is able to make a preliminary detemination of the impact on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide the information that was not included in the draft statement.

Catacory 3 - Inadecuate l EPA believes that the draft impact statament does not adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available ,.

alternatives. The Agency has requested more information and analysis '

concerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that

substantial revision be made to the impact statement. If a draft statement is assigned a Category 3, no rating will be made of the project or action, since a basis does not generally exist on which to make a determination.

- __- _ _ _ _ __,_- _.- ___ _ _._ _ _. _ ._ , --