ML20009G502
| ML20009G502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1981 |
| From: | Spies F TEXAS, STATE OF |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108040357 | |
| Download: ML20009G502 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. o, ,h I i 5 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR WILLI AM P. CLEMENTS, JR. July 30, 1981 covERNOR i.
5 h
'! . d .
.3 .
c g- AUG 0 31981> ~
u.s.,ca na mauuuous COWA188E386 f
Mr. B. J. Youngblood /
4 W
' Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, prepared by your of fice, has been reviewed by the Budget and Planning Office and interested state agencies. Copies of the review comments are enclosed for your information and use. The State Environ-mental Impact Statement Identifier Number assigned to the project is 1-06-50-013.
The Budget and Planning Office appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If we can be of any further assistance during the environmental review process, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincer F. R. Spids, Manager General Government Section Budget and Planning Office 88
Enclosures:
Comments by Texas Industrial Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Texas Historical Commission Texas Department of Health Railroad Commission of Texas Texas Air Control Board Texas Department of Water Resources Texas Forest Service k
8108040357 810730 PDR ADOCK 05000445 hIg g D PDR SAM HOUSTON BUILDING . P. O. BOX 13561 . AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
r O
h
~
' R EC IIV ED OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR E8 I98I WILLI AM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
GOVtRNOR June 24, 1981 ggd}g[/pl3 gjgg TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Review Participants DATE C0fDfENTS DUE TO BUDGET AND PLANNING OFFICE: 7/9/81
_ Aeronautics Commission industrial Commission X Air Control Board X Parks and Wildlife Department Animal llcalth Commission X Public Utilities Commlusion
_ Bureau of Economic Geology _X Railroad Commission Coastal and Marine Council X Soil and Water Conservation Board '
_ Department of Agriculture X Texas Energy and Natural Resources X Department of Health Advisory Council X Department of Highways and Public _ Covernor's Of fice of Regional Transportation Development X Department of Water Resources X Office of Attorney General X Texas Fo res t Service Gene ral Land Of fice fHistorica1 Commission
@ Draft EIS O Other EIS Number 1-06-50-013 Project Title Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Operation, Units 1 and 2 Somervell County Originating Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, and the Texas Policy for the Environment (1975), the Covernor's Budget and Planning Office is responsible for securing the comments and views of local and State agencies during the environmental impact statement review process.
In most instances, the NRC has forwarded this document directly to your agency. This office requests that for any cor.mients forwarded to the NRC pricc to this memorandum, an information copy of the comments be provided to this office.
For questions on this project, contact Ward Coessling at (512) 475- 2427 .
Please address your agency's formal comments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Governor's Budget and Planning Office Attention: G_eneral Government Section P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78711 a
e SAM HOUSTON BUILDING .
P. O 80x 17428 . APITOL STATlON
- AUSTIN. TE X A3 hl781
S ug ge s't ed_que s t io n s to be Considered by_ Reviewing Agencies:
1.
Does the propose 3 project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
- 2. What addit ional specific ef fects should be assessed?
3.
What additional alternatives should be considered?
- 4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate environmental effects?
- 5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievable commitment resources? of 6.
Ilow serious would the environmental damage f ro.n this project be, using the best alternative and cont rol measures ?
- 7. What specific issues require further discussion or resolution?
8.
Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the environmental impact statement review process, the Budget and Planning Office forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which are formally submitted.
if, after analyzing this document, you conclude that substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the box below anJ forwarding the form to this of fice. This type of response will indicate receipt of this document by your agency, ,and - ~ that no formal rer,ponse will be prepared.
i
?
- o Comment.
W((Ul/ f*, _f Revleyip{p0fficial Q,[Etl hh,! (l
. , Name anf Ti't'le op.f wL )f/ff ff/MG)-
abgn.u' 4dtw nai &nwksz Agency h
i i TEXAS i - i [
- PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT I
COYMIS$10N E H S .
. 3 [ f ~
' jf
- 1 uMMfSSIONE RS PE RRY H. BASS
^'
\U 3f _
,)
Ch.ieman, For Worth
,y , t 1. OSBORN, JR.
- Santa Elena JAMES R. PAXToN NI Vice Chairman, Palestme WM. O. BR A E CK LE IN Dallas l CHARLES D. TRAVIS '
EDWIN L. Cox, JR. EXECUTIVE DlHECTOR
- 4 thens ..g, WM. M, WH E L E SS. lli l b (IIIsillh Houston j 4200 Smeth School Road Austm, Temas 78744 July 14, 1981 i
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Covernor's Budget and Planning Office P. O. Box 13561 Austin, Texas 78711 Re: Draft Environmental Statement, Comanche Peak Electric Station, Unit No. 1 and 2 i j
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
1 This agency has reviewed the above-referenced project and offers the I following comments. Page 4-23, Section 4.3.6.2, Recreational Uses: A sentence in the first paragraph states that the Squaw Creek Reservoir (SCR) is a desirable recreational resource. The second paragraph states j the ". . . recreational plans for SCR have not been finalized." In order ' to adequately address recreation, additional information is needed concerning public access to the lake and other project lands. Additionally, information is needed concerning recreational use of consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife resources by the public. This section is incomplete without this information. Recreational needs of the area can be obtained from the 1980 Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan. Paragraph two also states that ". . . the eastern shore. e of the reservoir will be made available to a governmental or regulatory agen for development into a public recreational facility." While this agency talked with the applicant in the past concerning this mattar, no discussions have transpired a recently. Should the applicant wish to discuss this matter further, 4 my staf f would be happy to meet with them. However, it should be noted that! before this Department can accept any land for management, formal 4 approval would be needed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. I 4 I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Si erely, { Charles . "ravis Executive Director CDT:RWS:ccr 6
) - - - . . _ _ - . . - _ _ - _ - _ .-. - . - . - . - -
, se 6
Sug ges ted (<aes t ions to by Considered by Reviewing Agencies: 1. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
- 2. What additional specific ef fects should be assessed?
- 3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
- 4. What be t t e r o r mo re appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate environmental effects
- 5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental ef fects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources?
- 6. How serious would the environmental damage f rom this project be, using the best alternative and cont rol measures? .
- 7. What specific issues require further discussion or resolution?
- 8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the cnvironmental impact statement review process, the Budget and Planning Office f o rwa rds to the originating agcncy all substantive comments which are formally submitted. If, af ter analyzing this document, you conclude that substantive comments a re unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the box below anJ f orwarding the form to this of fice. This type of response will indicate receipt of this document by your agency and that no formal response will be prepared. h_)in. Comment A tfdj . Truett Latimer k,, [f gfhg
- Name and Title of Rekiewing Official Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Station Operation, Units 1&2 EIS # l-06-50-013 Texas Historical Commission July 10, 1981 Agency k
adandhilLN ki MT.WW N R AY. SR.. H %Mt INGL% .. .. .. . uian mN. mi n n ICE ( 1141301 tN r3 hENTON l LAl*l". $Al %DO pt ; l Mki IOll'd fl. 01NN 4LLY. flothTON n n suo e, igg' i,N;. o su.A3 j ~ MHS. hE.NNETill>ANkLEFS, AUSTIN
- 49. J Ot EA l'. It!GG A HT. JR., D 4LI.A5 ' ~7 N ,,,,,,op,gg;p,,w,l,psy,j >
' 1r N MRS. AL15FNT G. tillt p LLI 49 M b-d \
4 fb 5M o MRi it. L. LONG. Mll.GONE
'2'fu'.iiLIlE'.Ef&"
uTomcrumtL niounowN gr 17 mu - iEii$*TEusfis"INSiEEid j 4 . . . .
...dr O...M:Wi"q> g1 va. NAN A. wittis. siotsfoN i
TartTT uima u u tTisa. peut crOR
~:
- b,,. . Y
. . ... v N b c,, -
.# .E>h
; r o. nox ann AUSTIN TEMS 75781 July 3,1981 t
i Mr. B.J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch t!o.1 Division of Licensing l U.S.11uclear Regulatory Commission { Washington, D.C. 20555 . i Re: DEIS - Comanche Peak Steam l l Electric Station, Units 1 & 2 . j
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
I We have received and reviewed the document referenced above. Pursuant to Section 102(02)(c) of the fiational Environmental Policy Act of 1960 the above referenced document does not contain a sufficient level of information to allow review of the cultural resources. Our office does not , have copies of the archeological investigations mentioned on 4/21/81. We arearequest so we can copies of reports complete review.concerning the cultural reaurces of the project a. i Sincerely, Truett Latimer i State Historic Preservation Officer by (L 84ML LaVerne Herrington, Ph.D.
- Director ]
Resource Conservation PEP /LH/lft 3 4
) U
-r -
4 ') d n ~ [py ? 2h % A y oryf,%oric7%m anon
. -=
_i
e w.-
;y:.qq\Q)L Texas Department of Hea t1 Robert Bernstein, M D., F.A.C P. 1100 W est 49th street Robert A. MacLean, M.D.
Cornmissioner Austin, Tesas 7ti756 Deputy Commissioner (511) 4iti 7111 July 7, 1981 Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Governor's Pudget and Planning Office P. o. 1:o x 13561, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 ~ [I)[Li I- I k{ ATTI:MT I nt' . General Government Section
,lg g ggg SUl:JL CT: Comanche Peak (Nuclear) Steam Electric Station l!n i t s 1 and 2 OUhg6fl@jgggjpg Sonervell County Is ra f t E nv i ronnie n t a l Inpact Staten,ent U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Iocket Nun,l e rs 50-445 and 50-4 4 f>
Ul!PFC - 077 5
Dear ?fr. Urotenbery:
The Draft E nv i ro nn:e n t a l I r-p a c t Staterent (ETS) related to the operation of t l.e Conanche Peak (Nuclear) Ste.im Electri Station, tini t s 1 and 2, has leen reviewed for its public a d environmental health irplicarions. The Staten.e . was pr ,. red by the U. S. Nuclear Fegulatory Cor. mission and is dated May, 1981. The proposed action is the issuance of operating licenses to the Texas Utilities Generating Corpany for the start up and operat ion of Units 1 and 2 of the facility located approximately 7 km north-northeast of Glen Rose. Texas. The Texas Departnent of licalth presently has an active envi ronmenta l radia t ion noni t oring p rogram in the vicinity of the Corranche Peak (Muclearl Power Plant Site.
~
A disappointing aspect of the otherwise adequate EIS is the titling of the sutject report. The omission of the term " Nuclear" from the title could te interpreted by those wlo wish to do so a s an a t t errpt to mislead the reader. A person d o i r.,; research or reading t hrough lists s
Mr. Paul T. Wrotentery Page Two July 7, 1981 of tit les f or such projects would not recognize the true subject as being a proposal to operate a nuclear power plant. It is the policy of t h i s Depa rt r ent to go on record objecting to the use of non-descriptive title
- for projects as ir por t ant a.ul sensitive as the Comanche Peak facility. Also, it is noted that the location (f on:e rvell County) of L t.e proposal is cn i t t eil f rt.n t l.e title of the report ; it is felt that tl:s f u rt t.c r ohfuscates the nature of Ll.e proposal.
Ue appreciate the opportunity to review and concient on ti.e Draft EIS for the proposed Conanche Pe a k :,'u c l e a r Powe r Pl ant .
/
/ /
/ S i .cyrely , o/ , /
l( . // / -
/ ]sh f/E ., / Da~idv ?!. Cochrad, P.I:.
Deput y conmi s s'inne r for Environmental a nd Consur.e r llea l t h Prot ec t ion 01.ll / r e ces: Eureau of !!adia t f or Cont rol , Tf?!I Public llealth Region 5, TDil P r og r ani Hudgetary Services, TDil h
TW M ri
~
l- . . - . RECElVE3, ~
=
JUL 13 198I , 5' '. OhldF THE GOVERNOR WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS. JR. GOVERNOR June 24, 1981 TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Review Participants DATE COMMENTS DUE TO BUDGET AND PLANNING OFFICE: 7/9/81 _ Aeronautics Commission ,X Industrial Commission X Air Cont rol Board X Parks and Wildlife Department Animal llealth commission X l'ublic Utilities Commission [BureauofEconomicGeology UP'1Eailroad Commission _ Coastal and FL1rine Council X Soil and Water Conservation Board ,
,, Department of Agriculture X Texas Energy and Natural Resources X Department of Health Advisory Council X Department of liighways and Public _ Governor's Of fice of Regional Transportation Development X Department of Water Resources X Office of Attorney General X Texas Forest Service General Land Office _
f liistorical Commission
^
@ Draft EIS O Other EIS Number 1-06-50-013 Project Title Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Operation, Units 1 and 2 Somervell County Originating Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pursuant to the Nat ional Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Of fice of Management and Budget Circular A-95, and the Texas Policy for the Environment (1975), the Governor's Budget and "lanning Office is responsible for securing the comments and views of local and , State agencies during the environmental impact statement review process.
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the above cited document. This Office solicits your comments and asks that they be returned on or before the above due date. You may find the questions, listed on the reverse side, useful in formulating your comments. For questions on this project, contact Warc Goessling- at (512) 475- 2427 . Please address your agency's formal c6mments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Governor's Budget and Planning Office Attention: . General Government Section P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 7871'. SAM HOUSTON BUILOING e P. O 80X 12428, CAPITOL STATION e AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711
Suggested Quest ions to be Considered by Reviewing Agencies: 1. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, pregrams and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
- 2. What additional specific effects should oe assessed?
- 3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
- 4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate environmental effects?
- 5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce verse environmental effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretriev 21e commitment of resources?
- 6. Ilow serious would the environmental damage from this project be, using the best alternative and control measures? .
- 7. What specific issues require further discussion or resolution?
- 8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the environmental impact cLatement review process, the Budget and planning Office forwards to the otiginating agency all substantive comments which are formally submitted. If, af ter analyzing this document, you conclude that substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the box below anJ iarwarding the form to this of fice. This u pe of response will indicate receipt of this document by your agency and that no formal response will be repared.
~
h No Comment. and Title ot~ Reviewing OYficial Jim B. Cloudt, Gas Utilities Division Railroad Commission of Texas Agency G D
, w .I d%*
- 6 k 1
f F_C>ElVED - 3 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR JUL 0 1981 , I WILLI AM P. CLEMENTS, JR. I GOvinNOH June 24, 1981 . _ TRANSMITTAL MF}f0RANDUM TO: Review Participants DATE CC:IMENTS DUE TO BUDGET AND PIANNING OFFICE: 7/9/81 1 1 _ Aeronautics Commission I X Air Cont rol Board X Industrial Commission _ Animal llealth Commission X Parks and Ulldlife Department X Public Utilities Commission Bureau of Economic Geology j _ Coastal and Marine Council X Railroad Commission 1 _ Department of Agriculture X Soil and Water Conservation Board
- X Department of Ilealth (J/rexas Energy and Natural Resources
,' X Department of Highways and Public Advisory Council Trans po rta t ion _ Covernor's Of fice of Regional _X Department of Water Resources Development
- X Texas Forest Service X Office of Attorney General General Land Office ~
l [X His torical Commission l i __ i
@ Draft EIS O Other EIS Number 1-06-50-013 i
l Project Title L Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Operation, Units 1 and 2 t t Somervell County Originating Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i j Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Of fice of Management and l Podget Circular A-95, and the Texas Policy for the Environment (1975), the Governor's ludget and Planning Office is responsible for securing the comments and views of local and State agencies during the environmental impact statement review process. In most instances, g oftice requests thatthe NRC has forwarded this document directly to your agency. This- l an information copy.of the comments be provided to this office.for any comments
- I For questions on this project, contact Ward Goessling at (512) 475- 2427 . !
i j Please address your agency's formal cornments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director 4 Governor's Budget and Planning Of fice
- Attention: General Government Section l P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78711 f
SAM HOUSTON BulLDING e e 1 P. O 80X 1242d. CAPITOL STATION . AUSTIN. TE X AS 78711 _ , , . _ ~ . , . _ . _ ___
i , t Suggested _ Questions to be Considered by Reviewing Agencies: ' i
- 1. Daes the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs I
and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
- 2. What additional specific ef fects should be assessed?
- 3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
- 4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate environmental effects?
- 5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental j ef fects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources?
- 6. How serious would the environmental damage from this project be, using the best alternative and cont rol measures?
! 7. What specific issues require fucther discussion or resolution?
- 1
- 8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
h j As a part of the environm?ntal impact statement review process, the Budget and j' Planning Of fice forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which are formally submitted. If, af ter analyzing this document, you conclude that substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the , box below anJ forwarding the form to this office. This type of response will indicate receipt of this document by your agency and that no fo i11 resp nse will b prepared. No Comment. /
- Namq/6nd Ti jf4bfReviewingOfficial
/ Agency N
a .I i . t
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD 6330 HWY. 290 EAST AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723 JOHN L BLAIR Chairman
' WILLIAM N. ALLAN VITTORIO K. ARGENTO, P. E.
CHARLES R. JAYNES Vice Chairman % FRED HARTMAN i D. JACK KILIAN, M. D. 4 OTTO R. KUNZE, Ph. D., P. E. IllLL S1FWART, P. E. == == == FRANK H. LEWIS I.secutise thrector -
; J WILLIAM 0. PARISH JUL 9 1981 July 8, 1981 Budget /P!a ning ht r . Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Governor's Budget and Planning Office
- Attn: Intergovernmental Section P. O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78711
Subject:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Operation, Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Somervell County, Texas; EIS Number 1-06-50-013
Dear h!r. Wrotenbery:
The 1:roposed installation of four 9-megawatt diesel generators for use in emergencies at this facility has been exempted from Texas Air Control Board permit procedures. We, therefore, have no objections to the cited application. , The proj ect, as described, is consistent with the Texas Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan. - Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me.
-Since ly, S
( '
. d ddkY M Roger R. Wallis,DeputyDikector Standards and Regulations Program cc: b!r . hielvin Lewis, Regional Supervisor, Fort Worth
TI:X AS DI;l'AI(TMI:NT 01' WATI:lt Ill: SOUL (CI:S 1700 N. congrew Aunue A u,iin. Te m f"?+., i rX As WA1 ER DI.VLI OP\1FNT BOARD 8
- d. TEXAS WATI R cO\lN11SSION Louis A. hcecheil, J r.. ch innan / $[ k,I'!! I 'li x WDonald*""'"
John n. c nen, vite chairnun i." 5;. (f '.;/ Derwy B. Hardenun ceorge w. .w clesley Joe R canoll Glen F. Honey Ildi$cy DJvis W. O. hank ston '*""D'""' Lonnie A. "n"" P4rnn July 3, 1981
'g{g y1 7 1981 ifr. Paul T. Urotenbery, Director Governor's Budget at:d Planning Office P.O. Box 13561, Capitol Station ggggg(lphaning o
Aus tin, Texas 78711
Dear fir. l!rotenbery:
Re: U. S. duclear Regulatory Commission, Office of l'uclear Reactor Regulation (USi!RC-OilRR)--Draf t Environmental Statement (DES) Relative to the Proposed Issuance of Facility Operating Licenses to Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al, for Units 1 and 2 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Vicinity of Glen Rose, Somervell County, Texas. (Report I!o. i'UREG-0775, llay 1981. ) State File
Reference:
EIS-1-06-50-013, June 24, 1981. The Texas Department of Water Resources (TDUR) staff has reviewed the referenced DES, prepared by USi!RC-OiiRR, in connection with the latter's current considera-tion of an application filed in January 1979, by the Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al, for Facility Operating Licenses for the start-up and operation of Units 1 and 2 of the CPSES, located on Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Paluxy River, in turn a tributary of the Brazos River, approximately seven kilometers northeast of the City of Glen Rose, Somervell County, Texas. As of December 31, 1980, construction of Units 1 and 2 was 87 percent and 50 percent complete, re-spectively; and, the target dates for fuel-loading (construction completion) for Units 1 and 2 were December 1982 and December 1984, respectively.
- p. iii). (DES, Fro'm the standpoint of our water-related responsibilities and interests under the Texas Water Code, we concur in principle with the referenced DES, based on the following specific reasons and assumptions:
1. The referenced DES, relative to the Operating Licensing Stage, incorporates and supplements the entire Final Environmental Statement--Construction Phase (June 1974), pursuant to the "EIS-tiering and consolidation", guidelines in Sectio s 1500 (1), 1502.4, 1306.4, and 1508.26 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the "EIS-supplementing" m I . ', 1 b l.C ('a plt l N ' + i a e Au f 'I N l i a \ (' .bGlT '" 6
4 Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Page 2 July 3, 1981 guidelines in Section 51.21 of 10 CFR Part 51 (see 46 Federal Register 28632, May 28, 1981). The referenced DES identifies the major unresolved issues, problems, and areas of con-troversy which must be considered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (see DES, p. iv). In addition, pursuant to the objective analytical requirements of 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, the DES identifies the potential impacts, both benefical and adverse, of the activities associated with the operation I of the CPSES (pp. iv-vi), and recommends measures rei controls intended to limit the adverse impacts spp. vi, and 5-78 to 5-82). Therefore, we feel that the referenced DES efficiently fulfills the analytical, administrative, and - coordinative requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the associated implementing federal regulations.
- 2. We concur with the evaluation presented in Section 5.3.1.2, pages 5-3 to 5-6, relative to the potential impacts of the expected continued significant decline of groundwater in the project area, and the proposed stipulations, recommended i
oy USNRC-0NRR for inclusion in the Facility Operating Licenses, limiting the volume and uses of the groundwater by the CPSES, (See pp. 5-5, 5-6, and 5-78). Specifically, we agree that it seems reasonable and logical that an 1 operating license condition be adopted that would limit the use of groundwater by CPSES to: (a) potable and sanitary purposes, and (b) supplementation of the supply of treated surface-water during short periods of peak water demand when station requirements exceed the capacity of the surface-water treatment plant (p. 5-78). In this regard, we note that the maximum capacity of the surface water treatment plant is 1.14 cubic meters per minute, and therefore, during periods of peak water demand, estimated at 1.25 cubic meters per minute, it is expected that at least 0.11 cubic meters per minute j must be supplied by ground water (p. 5-5). However, we assume that if greater declines in groundwater availability are actually experienced in the future than now foreseen, and difficulties are encountered at CPSES in obtaining the estimated supplementary 0.11 cubic meter per minute of groundwater, the applicant and USNRC-0NRR will examine other alternatives, including the overall feasibility of expanding the presently-planned capacity (i.e.,1.14 cubic meter per minute--See p. 5-8) of the proposed reverse-osmosis surface
--44 Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Page 3 July 3, 1981 uater demineralizing facility, or increasing the presently-planned capacity of the denineralized water storage tank (Fig. 3.3.1, p C-42). Aside from the enhanced reliability afforded by an increased on-site water supply reserve, these increased facility capacities might result in benefits due to economies of scale, if accomplished prior to the completion of the current construction cono acts.
- 3. Reference is made to the water quality assessments presented in items 5d, e, f, j, and 9b of the Summary and Conclusions, .
and in Sections 5.3.3, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5.2, and 5.11.3 of the DES. We feel that the potentially adverse effects of water and wastewater releases from Squaw Creek Reservoir to Lake Granbury can be detected, averted, and/or minimized by proper observance and enforcement of the specific conditions contained in: (a) State of Texas Water Rights Permits granted by the Texas Uater Commission to tce applicant on June 26, 1973 and August 29,1977; (b) HPDES Permit No. TX0065854 granted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to the applicant on Janua ry 16,1979; (c) State of Texas Waste Disposal Permit No. 01854 (corresponding to HPDES Permit No. 0065854), granted by the Texas Water Commission to the applicant on April 2,1979; and, (d) the condition now being considered for inclusion in the pending Facility Operating Licenses which provides that "if harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected during the opera-ting life of the station, the applicant shall provide the staff (of USNRC-0URR) with an analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action to alleviate it." (p. vi.) TDWR appreciated the opportunity of reviewing the referenced DES. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, larv'ey Davis Executive Director I l l I l l l l
- s. <
e Qg. N% x.,e RECE!VEwn
/ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOH 0 01 WIL LI AM P. CL E ME N TS. 'R.
- GovcHNon June 24, 1981 [j( y{' ;
TRANSMITTAI. MI.MORANDUM V 10: Review Participants DNlE C0".MENTS DUE TO Bl'bGET AND Pl. MINING OFFICE:_7/9/81
===.____.--- = - - - - __,
=
_ Aeronau ti cs Commiss ion X Air Cont t ul Board -'. Industrial Conmission Parks an! Uildlife De pa r t me n t Anima l th a l t h Commis s ion _ hurvan of Economic Geology X Public Utilities Commission Railroad Commission _ Coa >tal and Ma rine Council
. De p a r t:ae n t of Agriculture X Soll and Wat e r Conservat ion Board
,X Depa rtmen t of Ilea l t h X Texas Energy and Natural Resourceu Advisory Council
). Department of liighways and Public
'i ra n s po r t a t ion ~ Covernor's office of Hegional Development y epartment of Water Resources j Texas Fo re s t Service X Ottice of At t o rn ey_C.ege ra l Genera 1 1.and 0111ce
~ _ . _ __-
h l!istor tea 1 Coxalusion ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~
h Draft EIS U Other _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EIS Number 1-06-50-013 Project Title Comanche 1eak Steam Electric Station Operation, Units 1 and 2 Somervel1 County Originating Agency U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, O t~ f i c e of Management and hodget Circular A-95, and the lexas l' )l ic / for the Environnent (l'3 7 5 ) , the Governor's h<.d ge t and P1,.nning office is responsible tar securing the com:.e n t s and views oi local and State agencies during the envi ronmen ta l impact statement review process. In most instances, the NRC han forwarded this document directly to your agency. This { office request s that tor any cos=ents forwarded to the NHC prior to this :..e:no r a n d u m , i an irt foruation copy at the c om: ien t s be provided to this office. I For questionn on this project , contact Ward Goessling at (512) 475- 2427 . l Please address your agency's formal comn.ents to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director l Governor's Budget and Planning Office I Atiention: General Governwnt Seetion P.O. Box 12428 Aust i n, Texas 7871L l l l l SAM HOUSTON ilVILDING . P O UOX li4.'b C APa TOL S TATION
- AUS D N. T1! X AS 78 /11
' Suggested Questions to be Considered by Reviewing Agencies:
l. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
- 2. What additional specific ef fects should be assessed?
- 3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
- 4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate cnvironmental cffects?
- 5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievab!c commitment of resourcea?
- 6. Ilow serious would the environmental damage from this project be, using the best alterna tive and cont rol measures? .
- 7. What specific issues require further discussion or resolution?
- 8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the environmental impact statement review process, the Budget and planning Office forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which are formally submitted. If, af ter analyzing this document, you conclude that substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the box below anJ forwarding the form to this of fice. This type of response will indicate receipt of this document by your agency and that no formal response will be prepared. ()No Comment. Mason C. Cloud, Head, Forest Environment Dept. Name and Title of Reviewing Official Texas Forest Servira Agency i
' We have no objection to the implementation of the project.
l i
.}}