ML20058E367
| ML20058E367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1982 |
| From: | Spencer J ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| To: | Fitch W, Norris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| M-S-443, NUDOCS 8207280170 | |
| Download: ML20058E367 (3) | |
Text
'
U. S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X jto sre gOf 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 a
UNR M/S 443 JUL Z0 1982 Jan A. Norris, Environmental Project Manager Division of Licensing Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shing ton, D. C.
20555 Mr. William L. Fitch Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 4224 6th Avenue, S.E.
Building #1, PY-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 p),
1 RE:
Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2, Draf t Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Gentlemen:
The Environmental Protection Agency has completed reviewing the Draf t EIS for the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project (S/HNP). The project and draf t statement have been rated LO-2 (LO - Lack of Objections; 2 - Insufficient Inf omatio n). The following coments are provided for your consideration in preparing the Final EIS.
Analysis of emissions:
1.
Several sections of the EIS provide a comparison of the project's radiological releases with the design objectives of Appendix I,10 CFR Part 50. The Final EIS should also state that the annual dose to in-dividual s and the quantities of certain radionuclides are within the dose and release limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA's Environmental Radiation Protection Standard for Nuclear Power Operations).
2.
Electric field intensities associated with the transmission lines, and any associated health impacts, should be discussed.
3.
The Final EIS should address the potential adverse impact of the salt deposition mentioned on P.4-165, particularly to any crops and animals in the area.
Our recent experience with an Eastern Washington power plant suggests extreme sensitivity on the part of the agricultural community regarding any potential emissions impacting crop 1and.
00 8207280170 820720 PDR ADOCK 05000522 D
e
'%s'
. Analysis of Intake and Discharge Structures:
1.
The discussion of impacts associated with construction of the cooling wai.er intake structure and discharge structure indicates that alternative locations may reduce the environmental consequences of their con-s tructio n.
If additional detail were provided, it may be possible to determine whether such alternatives are practicable and could, in fact, significantly reduce the environmental impacts in question. Given the recent deferral of the EFSEC hearings at the sponsors' request and the absence of complete and current applications for pemits under $404 of the Clean Water Act, this information problem may not be solvable at this time. However, when completed pemit applications are submitted to the Corps of Engineers, infonnation may be available and will be sufficient to support an evaluation of this question under EPA's $404(b)(1) regu-lations [40 C.F.R. Part 230].
We appreciated the opportunity to review this EIS. Should you care to discuss our comments please contact Mr. Dick Thiel, our Environmental Evaluation Branch Chief, at (FTS) 399-1728 or (206) 442-1728.
Sinc erely,
/b ut
(
John R. Spencer Regional Administrator 1
i l
1 l
l t
~
]
i.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF.;TIO i
1200 SIXTH AVENUE W ENCY l
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 y
f f
OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE AND FEES PAID PENALTYFORPRIVATE USE,$300 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{
EPA-335 f
{
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER L
I.
4 Jan A. Norris, Environmental Project Manager 1
Division of Licensino
{
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington D.C.
20555 j
t l
i l!
G J
s 4
.....ss
- y -m rg m m _#m
,.-y, mmw+w =wm -em-w-ee*eme**w **"N *""*NN"*""C I
~ ~- "" ~ *'-
l L
- _ _ - - - - - -