ML20112A690

Comments on Des.Ebenezer Creek Swamp Area Will Be Adversely Affected as Result of Transmission Lines.Adverse Impact Expected for Some Endangered Species.Des Should Not Be Approved Until Questions Resolved

ML20112A690
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	01/06/1985
From:	Stangler C GEORGIANS AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8501100010
Download: ML20112A690 (1)

Text

-

A s

x GeorgidBfts c49dlifts1 CN58ClodBrTf88r$3P P.O. Box 8574, Station F Atlanta, GA 30306 January 6, 1985 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50 425 Construction Permit Numbers CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Units 1 and 2 COMMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Dear Sir or Madam:

Upon review of the Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Vogtle Nuclear Plant, GANE contends that the Ebenezer Creek Swamp area will be adversely affected as a result of transmission lines which will traverse the area. The Georgia Power Co. has increased.the height of transmission lines in the swamp, presumably to minimize danger to wildlife present in the swamp.

However, thro 6gh reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it appears that the company's decision to utilize this area will in fact produce adverse impact on some endangered species in the swamp -- specifically the bald eagle and the red cockaded woodpecker which nest and live in the area (p.4-20 and Appendix J, p.19 of Draft EIS). It should be noted that the Department of Interior has voiced reservations concerning use of this area (Appendix J, DraftEIS).

In addition, we do not find that the Draft E/S considered a "no action" alter-native to construction of Plant Vogtle. Based on current energy usage rates and projections for future energy usage, the evidence suggests that an additional nuclear power plant is not presently needed. Whatever environmental impacts will result from construction of Plant Vogtle could be completely avoided by cancelling the plant. Future energy needs could then be provided by other less costly and less environmentally damaging alternatives.

Furthermore, GANE has submitted several contentions in the intervention against the operating lisence of Plant Vogtle. All of these contentions have environ-mental impacts, either directly or indirectly. WefeelthattheDraftE/S should not be approved until these questions are resolved.

Sincerely,

. L -

Carol A. Stangler 8501100010 850106 PDR ADOCK 05000424 D PDR b W\

ijo