ML20083K495

Responds to 790103 Request for Ceq Views on Procedures for Supplementing Feis.Suppl Analysis of Alternative Sites Should Be Published as Draft Suppl to Feis & Circulated W/ 30-day Comment Period

ML20083K495
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	01/25/1979
From:	Yost N COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7901300062
Download: ML20083K495 (2)

Text

e .

Y h

%%:l;'

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ,

/

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ---/^^

722 J ACKSoN PLACE. N. W, d 0

WASHINGTON. o. C. 20006 pIr$ g

%.h3 January 25, 1979 ,

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

.In your letter to Edward Strohbehn, Jr. of January 3, 1979, you request the Council's views on procedures for supplementing the final environ-mental impact statement on the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit II. The EIS is being supplemented as required by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board which concluded that the analysis of alternative sites for the generating station was inadequate under NEPA. 7 NRC 774 (1978) Your letter states that the Commission's staff is now conaider-ing the. procedures it will follow in supplementing the Final EIS with the expanded analysis of alternatives that nas been prepared.

Since we rece'ived your letter we have spoken with you and others on your staff regarding the best means ' to comply with -the Appeal Board's ruling.

Based on these conversations, we believe the- Commission's staff should (1) proceed as follows in supplementing the final EIS for Pilgrim II:

The supplemental analysis of alternative sites should be published as a draft supplement to the Final EIS and circulated in the same manner as a draft EIS; (2) a minimum period of 30 days should be. established for public review and comment upon the draf t supplement; .and (3) a response to comments on the draf t supplement should be prepared and circulated in the same canner as a final EIS, except that the response to comments may be published as a separate document and need-not be integrated into the -

supplement.- Hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board could resume i= mediately following circulation-of the-response.to comments.

In its ruling on the adequacy of the final EIS for Pilgrim II,.- the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board-stated that "an inadequate environmental analysis by the staff may not always be remediable simply by taking more evidence into account at a subsequent licensing board-hearing ....

While, to be sure, interstices in an TES may in,some cases be filled by evidence introduced before them, it is not a licensing board's function-to backstop the staff's respon-sibility for conducting NEPA analyses Rather, the board serves as an independent check on whether those responsi- gOh bilities have been satisfied." (7 NRC at 793).

790130006 0CKET Fli_E COPY

Q,

~

1 We believe that circulation of a draft supplement is more consistent with this aspect of the Appeal Board's opinion than would be other i alternative procedures under consideration by the Commission's staff.

We recognize that this matter has been before the. Commission for a considerable period of time and share your concern that the environ-mental review process be concluded without unncessary delay. While the procedures we recommend differ from those proposed in your letter of January 3,1979, we understand from your staff that they could be completed.

within the same approximate time frame.

We appreciate your consultation.with the Council on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be.of further assistance.

Yours truly, b '?

NICHOLAS C. YDST

~

General Counsel 1

4 4

4 4

d

. . \.

, , + , y ,~ , e 1 -. f  %

Q,_. ,

REGULATogY I NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION,S,YSTEM (RIDS) Cf ACCESSIO!! N3R 7901300062(.., DOC.DATE: 79/01/l.5 (

NOTANZED: NO DOCKET

• O FACIL*50-471 Nuc1' ear Power Station-2, Boston Edison Co. 050004.79 AUTH . N A ME AUTHOR AFFILIATION YOST,N.C. Council on Environ. Quality G- RECIP.tJAVE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION O,

DENTON.H.R. Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Reculation l

(::

SUBJECT:

Rasponds to 790.103 request for CE0's views on orncedures for @

sonolammt ino Final RIS. Sumolemental analvsic of I alternative sites should he published as draf t suppl to O Final EIS & circulated w/33 day comment' oeriod. O DISTRIBUTION CODE: C002B COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ] ENCL __O SIZE: A

@ . TITLE: EN'/ IRON. CO MMENTS. _O NOTES:

O @

RECIPIENT Co?IES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE /NWE LTTR ENgL ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL O ACTION: ' 05 PM 2 .:st'AL 4 ETT / .I 17 BC Ep4 c 1 f 9-18 LA E/d #L 1 AD MoME - I l C I NTERNAL: ObEG FITD 1 02 NRC PDR 1 O OR- 2  ? 09 ENVN SPEC BR 1

.10 CST BNF'T ANL 1 11 TA/EDO 1  :

G. 12 AD SITE TECH 2  ;? 14 ACDENT ANALY I D 15 EFLT TRT SYS I y 16 RAD ASMT BR I 19 DI R DSE I 1 AD ENVIRON TECd 1 0

@ AD SITE ANALY I C OELD , 1 3 @

EXTERNAL: 03 LPDR 1 1 04 NSIC 1 1 0 20 NATL LAB 5 F ACRS 1 ) O G p-fy O

(, I/A SSAL L O q 44dA W .:ir 8C,

g. LIC 1 TA A q Lia$ .* .a LA G G-0 0 O

.. c - ' ::

C~ O G)VigO G Y @

C) .

O \ 6-TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR- 28 ENCL -+$-

'p Q