ML20041A652

Suggests EIS Preparation Schedule for Review of Application for Site Certification/Environ Rept Be Extended.Epa Unable to Complete Substantive Scoping Comments in 3-wk Period Allowed by Current Schedule

ML20041A652
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia, Skagit
Issue date:	01/21/1982
From:	Oneal G ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Norris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
M-S-443, NUDOCS 8202220381
Download: ML20041A652 (2)

Text

j , U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY po st, REGION X gg 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 g

%/ S c'd

's g

~ .

UNTER M/S 443 -

l[ M.

g

, ; W .'_Lggy /[

.- s .

Q /w .

i/

i1 JAN 1982 SA / x' Mr. Jan Norris Senior Siting Engineer Nbv Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Norris:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received, on January 14, 1982, the Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report ( ASC/ER) for the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project. We have' started its review to assist us in developing scoping coments for the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) jointly being prepared by your office and the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). We have some concerns about the current schedule for scoping and the completion of the DEIS whhh we would like to bring to your attention at this time.

As we understand the current schedule, it calls for scoping meetings to be held on February 3 and 4, completion of the " camera ready" DEIS by March 10, and circulation of the DEIS to the public on or about April 1, 1982. Given the volume and complexity of the material in the ASC/ER, it is not probable that EPA will be able to develop substantive scoping comments based on the ASC/ER in the three week period permitted by the schedule. Moreover, we are concerned that the detailed analysis of alternatives and their environmental consequences called for by the National Environmental Policy Act will require more than the two months pennitted by the current schedule. This will be necessary for the NRC and EFSEC to produce an EIS that gives decision makers and the public an accurate and useful picture of the environmental issues involved in the decisions at hand.

We suggest that the EIS preparation schedule be extended. We are not aware of any NRC regulatory provision requiring that the Final EIS (FEIS) be completed prior to initiating the required Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearings. Similarly, there is no EFSEC regulatory provision requiring completion of the FEIS before starting its " contested-case" hearings. The EIS preparation schedule could therefore be extended to provide for completing the DEIS in June 1982, before the hearings started, and completion of the FEIS while the hearings are proceeding. (oOA

.s

/

'8202220381 820121 PDR ADOCK 05000397 PDR l D }

2 The hearings would not be delayed by such an EIS schedule change and the time at which decisions could be made by the NRC and EFSEC would not change from that proposed in the schedule which was presented at the December 2,1981 pre-scoping meeting. This revised schedule should also not entail any additional costs to the project sponsors or delays in.s their scheduling of post-licensing project development' activities.

We would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible so that we can schedule our work on the EIS appropriately.

Sincerely, y c, -

Gary L. O'Neal, Director Environmental Services Division Fl S 4 4 2 - I 2 G c.

..