ML20058L231
| 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
.h gulatory i
t 1
g Fily my, y
b
,a p
MINNESOTA POLI.bTION ; CONTROL AGENCY i
@[ POCKETED 717 Delaware Street S.E3 Minn[apolis, Minnesota 55440 l
/
Telephone: (612) 378-1320 s
.. t d, q..-
g UVEC N/
l
- p
{
a g.\\
a ut. (
1972 >
3 Qd REGL!LAT3Y
'b C' k k
'T=
' C b ~ j;~ ;
DDCm cLERKh$
July 3, 1972 WP. SECTIM
/
A C
i.,~ ' ^ ; '
(
4
~
4 ys -f v
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
' q-7.
l i
'~
Deputy Director for Reactor Projects 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
CF g
gwu i
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.-
/
'?IIfA Ken Dzugan Research Scientist KD/cdq t
i r
PRINTE D ON 100% PE CYCLE D PAFE R l
b qw%,;..,
1
--