ML20198F514

Forwards Evaluation of Comments Received from Other Govt Agencies from Natl Resources Defense Council Re cost- Benefit Analysis in Des

ML20198F514
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/13/1972
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
CON-WNP-0896, CON-WNP-896 NUDOCS 8605280529
Download: ML20198F514 (2)

Text

f I

9 DISTRIEUTION:

. Docket File 50-397 L-Edg.

L-AD;SS L-CE h0V 13 ISTL Doewet no. 3o.3m ENVIRCP" mr .c m. um A) -

Daniel R. Nuller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects, L ETARDATICE W tvanarwra W gagyr ENTTaflumerML STAN PW BAErtMED-2 l l

EAET EAM: Hanford No. 2 Euclear Power Flant' LTrzumIEG STAGE: CP DOCIET wanen: 50-397 ERSPOIEIILE BRANCH: Environmental Projects Baanch #4 PROJECT MANAGER: R. Loose DAM REQUEST RECEIVED BY CB-L: October 26, 1972 REQUESED CWF12 TION naTit: November lo, 1972 DESCRIPTION OF RESPOWE Evaluation of counts on draft environmental statement.

REVIEW STAIUS: Complete regarding to cost-benefit analysis branch Enclosed is an evaluation of c-nts received fra other Government agencies and from the Eational Resources Defense Council regarding the cost-benefit analysis in the Draft Environmental Statement for Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant.

0: . sie.ed br l p :. ii u.;n Barold R. Denton, Assistant Director i for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated l

l cc: w/oencl.

A. Giambusso l' W. Mcdonald w/eac1.

B. knaner J. Hendrie R. h11mni l M. Spangler

! W. Regan R. Loose 8605280529 721113 P. Pine PDR ADOCK 05000397 l

D ppg l l l  !

l omca> .....L: C3.. .. . . CI -

1:.EE.. ' ~.... .. . . . .

l i' sumut > ..

fe 2 FFine:?j M.. 7 r:M

'.3 pa..gle HDenten DATE> .)) ),( . .h.. .11] )72 .1l!.!.S!72 _ _ _ _ . _ _ .. ..

Form AEC-Hs tRev. 9-53) AECM 0240 o v s c.ove am.we e m% o**a ten -ses.ois

u ,,A71,h

~

u C.... O:

m. _ ._. , , _.

a. . .:. . . a r:_ m.n .2 D w.

u _1 - :=. .: :L, A,..AL.:

n, . . O, .

.w..

..,p . .,,. .Ap ,7 c . q . ,-- , L

_ L, 7 -...._...n e u n . 7._..

n . m.,rr.',

7.v,9.., t.;A7

. . . . -,0;..D-c n

_ Department of Hourir.r and Urban Develop: tent (lettercf9/18/72)

The suggesticn that t he final statement cover "the pcscible impacts of numier and types of the permanent employees en the housing, putli ser .ces and facilities of the tri-cities area" har merit.

Corps of Enrineerr (letter cf 10/5/72)

The suggection that the elternatice of " entirely foregoing the production cf addai power" be cenridered should te iliccussed with the Office of the General Counsel.

~.he inecrsiciencies in the plant factor ured (Eo' versus E57) eLould te corrected. A plant factor of EOS may te a realistic average figure and nac been used in most Environmental Statemer.tz.

A plant facter of 8 H w;uld result ir. slightly greater envircn-mental impacts.

I:a-icnc1 Fescurces Defence Council (letter of 10/13/72)

The question cf whether an AEC Environmental Etatement should include cncideraticn of measur:c to reduce electricity censu.- y-tion, su ch ac increasing rates, banning promotional advertiemen-b3 utilities, and raicing the efficiency of use of electricit .

eheuld te discussed with the Office of the General Ccuncil.

fue consideration hac not been include in previous statementc.

Fage E cf the ':?.D0 letter includec a ec=er.t that oil cost figures are gi cer. cn page XI-3 cf the Draft Envirennental Otate-me r.t "without any explanetien of their relevance or comparison uitn nu' lear ftel ecsts." The ecmparisen with nuclear cocts may te found on page XI-16.

With regard to alterr.ative sites, it is net clear what purpoce would be served b;; further investigation of sites outside of the Hanford Reser cation in view of the suitability of the Hanferd site celected.

As to the need for power, the AEC should be guided by the ecem.ents received from the Federal Power Co=iscien on thic subject.

-