ML20062D596

Comments on Fes Re Operational Environ Monitoring, Decommissioning,Economic Risks & Nonradiation Issues.Certain Previous Comments on Des Not Addressed in Fes.App B Does Not Contain NPDES Permit Info

ML20062D596
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	08/02/1982
From:	Hajinian C ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8208060162
Download: ML20062D596 (2)

Text

, - . . .

to ar4, 7 O g%w#)i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Vil 324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET 60' k K ANS AS CITY, MISSOURI - 64106 August 2, 1982 Mr. B.J. Youngblood Chief, Licensing Branch No.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

l Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Coffey County, Kansas We have reviewed the Final Environmental Statement (EIS) for the proposed operation of the planned nuclear facility identified above. We are submitting comments on the final statement which both restate several of our earlier con-cerns, and address information in the final statement.

Operational Environmental Monitoring In our comments on this section, we identified several inconsistencies between the Draft EIS and the Environmental Report. These included the numbers, types, and locations of samples and sampling frequencies for several exposure pathways.

None of these inconsistencies were acknowledged in the Final EIS. We continue to believe that, at this late stage of project development, the procedures to monitor the facility's operation should be established and the plans consistent.

Decommissioning The response to our comments on this section indicated NRC will develop a more explicit policy on decommissioning nuclear facilities as part of the generic rulemaking process. However, this response does not address our concerns with decommissioning this facility. The response does not indicate how the estimated

$63 million decommissioning costs would be financed to ensure the funds are available when needed. Furthermore, there was no response to tne concern as to when the licensee's financial responsibility would end in relation to decommission-ing the facility.

Economic Risks Our comments on the estimated costs of emergency planning were not addressed.

We are particularly concerned with the expense of maintaining emergency plans on State and local governments, and believe the costs would be higher than the

$3600 annualized cost identified in the Final EIS (Table 5.10).

~

8208060162 820802 PDR ADOCK 05000482 D PDR

• O 2

Non-Radiation Issues The Final EIS includes references to the NPDES permit for the Wolf Creek Generating Station. As of July 23, 1982, no application for a NPDES permit for l

the operational wastewater discharges, or plans and specificiations for waste-water treatment facilities have been received by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Until the permit is drafted by the KDHE, speculation I concerning its requirements is premature.

Appendix B is identified as having information on the NPDES permit; however, it i does not contain permit information.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Final EIS. If you have questions regarding the concerns we expressed in this letter, please contact our office. The staff members most familiar with this project are William Brinck and Robert Fenemore. They may be reached at FTS 758-6525 and 758-5593, respectively.

Sincerely yours, fharlesHl. Hajj %.>

ian, Chief Environmentil Review Branch i

f

_ _,