ML20198G164
| ML20198G164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton, 05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1974 |
| From: | Barth C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Youngblood J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G146 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1016 NUDOCS 8605290265 | |
| Download: ML20198G164 (2) | |
Text
... _
-Y
~
f~l lfg,
.c November 8,1974
. ~...
.?
s
~~
ilo'te to Joe Youngblood
~
RE:
CLIrlT0tl FOLlER STATI0t!
Clinton is a more recent'versica of La Salle, see our memo' of.
. February 12, 1974 where we expressed concern over (a) the excessively large site using agricultura' land no~t necessary-
.for the nuclear power station and (b) the lack of quantifica-
' tion of recreational value.
In regard to the later, we suggested that the study by Georgia State College regarding recreational values be utilized.~
.The ' difference between the Hennepin a'nd Clinten sites [seems to be 60 million in transmission lines, a smaller site at 000 acres of farm land at-Clinton Hennepin, versus the.8,1/ and speculative recreational values needed for the plant, _
g at Clinton.
If EPA says towers at Clinton, which is not unlikely, then the cost difference will largely disappear-and the Clinton site will have to be justified on recreation val ues.
A detailed analysis of a complete recreation plan tould be mandatory, including menetary values.
In this regard, the staff should analyze the need for receation in the area. in-cluding such matters as the impact on existing recreational facilities. of the proposed Clinton recreational -facility.
Our analysis should also have competent fish biologist evidence that the lake will, in fact, support a viable sport-fi:hing aquatic co muni:p A3.;e vi r., the proc 2eding, the scaf f till hm t] ~ne a ca :.a for the re.Toval of 6,C00 to 3,000 acras frcm agricul turai pro-duction.
We shculd have an agricultural economist, a speciali-1/ We assume that we will be successful in assuring that applicant offers to return all the excess farmland back to the farmers.
8605290265 741111
~
i-PDR ADOCK 05000460 D
,.i
, i.
u
. /
.s
.~
.?.
2.
,. ~
.]
,j j.
e,.
.)
'zatica which does not r.cw seem to be' cn the staff.
Ua "shall have to deal.with the "non-dollar, intangible value", of preservation'of-farm land..See the second La Salle decisica
~
ALAB-193, RAI 74-4, April 15,.1974,. page 423.
Thes'e factors have to be weighed agathst dollar value plus speculative recreation if towers are not required.
If towers are required the " values",of farmland would have to be weighed i
-,,aga nst the " values" of recreation. This will req 0 ire very strong evidence as to the recreational values that the plant'
. ill, in fact, provide..
w
=.
. s
.pI'a hp.2b,
Charles A.'Barth
~
~
p}
8 s
,1
~.
.i e
- I.
M s.
e g
'*m*
em 0
y. f.,
,n
-