ML20058L231

Finds Draft EIS for Facility Deficient in Two General Ways

ML20058L231
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	07/03/1972
From:	Dzugan K MINNESOTA, STATE OF
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9105130408
Download: ML20058L231 (2)

Text

... . . . _ . _ _ __ ._ __ _ _ _ . .

t 1

i g .h tgulatory Fily my, y ,

-. . .. ,a b '

p .

MINNESOTA POLI.bTION ; CONTROL AGENCY i

/ 717 Delaware Street S.E3 Minn[apolis, Minnesota 55440 l g @[ POCKETED UVEC Telephone: (612) 378-1320

.%. t d, q..-

s N/ l

$$ '% a '

- ;p {

3 a ut. ( 1972 > -

g.\  :

Qd REGL!LAT3Y 'b 'T=

C' k k' WP. SECTIM July 3, 1972

' C b /~ j;~ ; ..

DDCm cLERKh$ .'--  :- -

4 A &

% C i . ,~ ' ^ ; '

~

(

4v ._ ys -

f  ;

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ' q- 7 . i Deputy Director for Reactor Projects '~ l Directorate of Licensing i Washington, D.C. 20545 50-263  ;

Dear Sir:

The limited 30 day comment period for review of the AEC f draft environmental impact statement on the Monticello Nuclear -

Generating Plant has allowed time only for preparation of gen-eral comments.- Our comments will be greatly expanded and pre- i sented'at the hearing to be held following the issuance of the i final impact statement. I

\

The conclusions reached in the statement do not have an '

adequate foundation. l The examples to be given below are not to be regarded as i a specification of our contentions in this matter.

• i The statement is deficient in two general ways. First, sections which cover adequate categories of subject matter do  !

not provide enough discussion on many of the matters specified. '

Secondly, many_of the sections are too narrow in the scope of  ;

subject matters discussed. Sections V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, )

and XI best typify those sections which are too narrow in scope. j i

The section on transportation is an example cf incomplete  !

discussion. There is no discussion on specific transportation ,

routes or times of shipment. There is no discussion on minimi- l zation of. dose during shipment through operating procedures. A discussion of transportation accidents with less than " serious  !

injuries" should be. included.

I The narrow scope.is most clearly demonstrated by the section on alternatives. It is inconceivable that an environmental state- ,

ment on a nuclear plant does not contain a discussion of alterna- [

tive and more extensive radwaste treatment systems.

I PRINTED ON 100% PECYCLE D PAPER  !

l 9105130408 720703  ;

i CF ADOCK 05000263 <R l gwu i

CF g  ;

l - . ,  ;

r <3 .

i i * ,;

~

0.S Atomic Energy Commission

' July 3, 1972 Page 2 There is a lack of clarity in some areas, together with incorrect figure and table numbers. This, no doubt, is an inher-ent draft disease and can easily be cured. We look forward to a significantly expanded and more meaningful environmental state- .

ment on the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

Sincer .-

/

Ken Dzugan '?IIfA Research Scientist KD/cdq t

i r

PRINTE D ON 100% PE CYCLE D PAFE R l

b 1

qw%,;.. ,

--