ML20054G792

Submits Comments Re Facilities Des.Traffic Data or Legend Needs to Be Corrected.Text Incorrectly Refers to Several Figures within Document.Title of Several Figures Do Not Match Figures

ML20054G792
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	06/15/1982
From:	Matthew Smith WASHINGTON, STATE OF
To:	Norris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8206220305
Download: ML20054G792 (2)

Text

.

l

s. A's

• JGIN SPEttMAN  %  ; DU ANE BERENTSON Cmrnor  % .e' Secretary STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Hghaay A<iminntration Burkhng e O&mpia. Washington 985(M e (206) 753-6005 June 15, 1982 Mr. Jan A. Norris NRC Environmental Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatioi.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Re: Draft EIS - Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project Units 1 & 2

Dear Mr. Norris:

We have reviewed the above referenced Draft EIS and offer the following comments:

1. Existing ADTs shown on Figure 4.25 were developed by Cottingham.

These are weekday volumes and are higher than average daily traffic ( ADT) as noted on the figure. Either the traffic data or the legend needs to be corrected.

2. The text incorrectly refers to several fiaures (4.26 - 4.28) within the document.

3. The title of several figures do not match figures.

4. The traffic on Figure 4.26 appears to mix Skagit/Hanford construc-tion worker travel with the 1988 traffic projection. This will have to be corrected.

5. The EIS does not show the projected (1988) traffic with and without the nuclear project so that the mitigating impacts can be analyzed.

Figure 4.29 does show volume / capacity ratios under 1988 base condi-tion and with Skagit/Hanford project for selected locations.

6. The document suggests several measures to mitigate impacts resulting from increased traffic generated by the proposed facility. Many of these measures involve improvements to the state highways system in the area. There is no specific commitment made by the proponents, which measures would be undertaken, who would be responsible for COO 1 accomplishing them, or how the mitigation would be paid for. We feel this should be clearly specified in the document.

8206220305 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000522 D PDR

.c3 3

Mr. Jan A. Norris June 15, 1982 Page 2

7. The document indicates increased noise and air pollution would result from increased traffic, but gives no quantitative indication of what the levels of increase would be. This data should be given to deter-mine the significance of such impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Very truly y rs, N. M M. A. SMITH, P. E.

Location-Design Engineer MAS:gkv TAK (EN) cc: William L. Fitch R. C. Schuster/R. R. Howry