ML20054M191
| ML20054M191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1982 |
| From: | Sutton L ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207120080 | |
| Download: ML20054M191 (2) | |
Text
,
IO U47
/ O k h )3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
% wr8 REGION I J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 56-443[444 July 7, 1982 Mr. Frank J.
Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Miraglia:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Units 1 and 2,
Seabrook Station, Seabrook, New Hampshire.
Our review has focused on those aspects of the EIS relating to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which is required for this project under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
I would like to thank you for the cooperation your staff has given EPA Region I over the past year during the development of the Draft EIS.
In particular, we appreciate your including in the EIS our suggestions concerning the impacts of continuous chlorination for biofouling control as well as EPA's prior determinations about the effects of the thermal discharge under the terms of the NPDES permit.
As a result, we believe the EIS accurately represents the issues relating to the NPDES permit.
One additional area which, in our view, needs clarification is the description of the reason for use of continuous chlorination instead of thermal backflushing for biofouling control.
On page 4-10, the reasons for the change are itemized but not explained or quantified.
On page 4-23, there is a detailed safety discussion about biofouling control in the service water system only.
We believe the justification for the change should be completely addressed in the Final EIS in terms of technical, financial and safety reasons.
We have rated the EIS LO-1 in accordance with our national rating system, a copy of which is enclosed.
As our staffs have discussed, EPA will assist you in responding to comments you receive on the Draft EIS concerning the NPDES permit for Seabrook.
l Since ely, i
Lester A. Su tto n',
P.E.
Regional Administrator Qgd l
Enclosure 8207120000 820707 PDR ADOCK 05000443 D
EXPLANATI0ft 0F EPA RATIllG Environmental Impact of the Action LO -- Lack of Objections EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft environ-mental impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.
ER -- 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 reassess tnese aspects.
EU -- Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its poten-tially harmful effect on the environment.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action. The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further (including the possibility of no action at all).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement Category 1 -- Adequate The draft environmental impact statement sets forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the project or action.
Category 2 -- Insufficient Information EPA believes that the draft environmental 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 Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the environment.
EPA has requested that the originator provide the information that was not included in the draft environmental impact statement.
Category 3 -- Inadequate EPA believes that the draft environmental impact statement 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 environmental impact 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 such a determination.
- -