ML18030A005: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATOR+INFORMATIONDISTRIBUTIONSTOEN(RIBS)Q~l~ACCESSION'<BR:8006030363DOC~DATE:80/05/30NOTARIZED!NOFACIL:-SusquehannaSteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva50388sauehannaSteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylvaAw-;~8AUTHORAFFILIATIONEROSEEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRECI~~NAMERECIPIENTAFFILTATIONAssistantDirectorforEnvironmentalTechnologyHAJAAES~STAssistantDirectorforEnvironmentalTechnology
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATOR+INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STOEN(RIBS)Q~l~ACCESSION
'<BR:8006030363 DOC~DATE:80/05/30NOTARIZED!
NOFACIL:-Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva 50388sauehanna SteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva Aw-;~8AUTHORAFFILIATIONEROSEEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyRECI~~NAMERECIPIENT AFFILTATION AssistantDirectorforEnvironmental Technology HAJAAES~STAssistant DirectorforEnvironmental Technology


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
ForwardscommentsondraftsuopltodraftEISre'perationoffacilitiesEspecificallyPondHillCreekReservoir,DISTRIBUTIONCODE:C0028COPIESRECEIVED:LTRQENCLSIZE:TITLE:Environ,Comments'nTES:4~0<F~>CY~C~~4-~~~5~DOCKET&#xb9;0500038705000388ACTION:RECIPIENTIOCODE/NAME05Ph,P.mac@18IAMS+'LCOPIESRECIPIENTLTTRENCLIDCODE/NAME1117BCO'BWWADmoog.~COPIES.LTTRENCL>110INTERNAL:1~E.G0u,E10CSTBNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTRTSYS19DIROSE40SITEANALY1221.11111111002NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR1<ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONiTECHOELD1111111111010EXTERNAL:03IPOR20NATLLAB110<1NSIC55ACRSI+.110aoL&9.~~L~aduNgtgO3'ITOTALHUMHEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR~ENCL  
ForwardscommentsondraftsuopltodraftEISre'peration offacilitiesEspecifically PondHillCreekReservoir, DISTRIBUTION CODE:C0028COPIESRECEIVED:LTR QENCLSIZE:TITLE:Environ,Comments'nTES:
,<qf0Sly'cmac<+UNlTEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII6THANDWALNUTSTREETSPHILADELPHIA.PENNSYLVANIA19106IMAY301980Director,DivisionofSiteSafety&EnvironmentalAnalysisAttn:Mr.S.SinghBajwaOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555
4~0<F~>CY~C~~4-~~~5~DOCKET&#xb9;0500038705000388ACTION:RECIPIENTIOCODE/NAME 05Ph,P.mac@
18IAMS+'LCOPIESRECIPIENT LTTRENCLIDCODE/NAME 1117BCO'BWWADmoog.~COPIES.LTTRENCL>110INTERNAL:
1~E.G0u,E10CSTBNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTRTSYS19DIROSE40SITEANALY1221.11111111002NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR1<ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONiTECHOELD1111111111010EXTERNAL:
03IPOR20NATLLAB110<1NSIC55ACRSI+.110aoL&9.~~L~aduNgtgO3'ITOTALHUMHEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:
LTTR~ENCL  
,<qf0Sly'cmac<+UNlTEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGIONIII6THANDWALNUTSTREETSPHILADELPHIA.
PENNSYLVANIA 19106IMAY301980Director, DivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental AnalysisAttn:Mr.S.SinghBajwaOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555


==DearMr.Bagwa:==
==DearMr.Bagwa:==
Thankyouforgrantingusashortextensiononthedeadlineforsub-mittingcommentsontheDraftSupplementtotheDraftETSrelatedtooperationofSSES,Units1and2,specificallythePondHillCreekReservoir.OurcommentsareattachedandifanyquestionsariseinrelationtothempleasecontactusonFTS597-7188.Sincerelyyours,RobertS.DavisAttachmentQ~cV80060808~
Thankyouforgrantingusashortextension onthedeadlineforsub-mittingcommentsontheDraftSupplement totheDraftETSrelatedtooperation ofSSES,Units1and2,specifically thePondHillCreekReservoir.
BelowarecommentsonDraftSupplementEISSSESforthePondHillReservoirpumpedstoragefacility.WebelieveanER-2ratingisjustifiedrelativetothisdocument.PleasefindattachedacopyofoursystemforcommentingonEIS's.TheERstandsforEnvironmentalReservationsandthe2indicatesInsufficientInformation.Informationregardingfloodsandfloodingissparse.Inaddition,themaponpage2-7doesnotadequatelydepictthePondHillCreekfloodplainnortheSusquehannaRiverFloodplain.Nodoubtsomechangeswilltakeplaceintheseareasasaresultoftheprojectandsuchchangesshouldbeaddressed.Withregardtoflooding,ourinformationdoesnotagreewitheithertheapplicant'sortheNRC's.Calculationsbaseduponthemaximumstormofrecentyears,i.e.hurricanceAgnes,indicatesa686mmprecipitationevent.Itisourbeliefthatthisimpoundmentwouldbetoppedinsuchastormand,dependingupondamconstruction,maywashoutandcompoundthedownstreamdamagesduetoflooding.Inaddition,thoroughinformationshouldbepresentedregardingothereffectsofstormsoflesserintensitysothatacompleteanalysiscanbemade.Thefloodingimpactpotentialsaswellasthefloodplaineffectsmayinthemselvesindicatethattheimpoundmentshouldnotbebuilt;however,oneotherpointshouldbemorethoroughlypresented.Thisisthefrequencyanalysisoflowflowsthatwouldinterrupttheoperationofthepowersta-tion.Inthiscontext,theuseofsuchterminologyas"...insomeyears..."and"...requireseveralshutdowns..."istooinspecificforade-quateevaluation.Thereasonsfornotusingtheriverfollowalternative,then,baseduponinformationhere,areinadequate.Aroundthesaddlefromthe"topoftheridge"~whereadikeistobeplaced>isanothersaddle.Thissecondsaddleappearstobewithinthesamecontourlinesasthe"saddle"tobedikedyetnomentionismadeeitherofitspotentialasan"accidental"spillwayintimesofseverefloodingorofthenecessityofadikeinthisarea.(Re.fig.3.2,p3-3).Furthermore,nomentionismadeoftheseverefloodingpotentialassociatedwiththeLilyLake'averylowsaddlebetweenthesetwositesindicatesapossiblespilloverintoPondRunwatershedduringseverestormperiods.Thediscussionsonwildliferesourcesisacceptable,butshowssomedefi-ciencieswithregardtoperiodicitiesexhibitedbysomeanimals.Forexam-ple,itisstatedwithfartoomuchassurancethattheeasterncottontailisofminorimportance.However,thisanimaliscurrentlynearoratthelowpointinitssevenyearcycle.(p2-11).Asthecottontailisamajorcom-ponentofthefoodwebfurtherdecreasesinitspopulationmaybesignifi-cant.Theoperationalparametersdiscussedonpages3-4and4-10&11failtodes-cribeadequatelythefrequencyofintakesandreleasesandtheireffectsonthereservoiritselfandupontheSusquehannaRiver.Forexample,this reservoirmayhavemultipleusesamongthembeingrecreation.Theworstpossiblecaseshouldbedescribedwhenthelevelisdroppedtoanextremewheresuchactivitiesarecurtailed.Also,duringtheselowlevelswhatwilltheeffectsbeupontheSusquehannaatthepointwherereducedflowsintheriverareaugmentedbythemaintenancefromthereservoirsDuringlowflowperiods,whenthereservoirintakecannotbeused,andtherivermustbeaugmentedbyflowsfromtheimpoundment,willevaporativelossesbesignificant'vaporativelossesduringhotweatherarelarge.Theselossescoupledwithdrawdownmayindicateashorterusefulstoragecapacitythanisindicatedinthedocument.Insum,thissupplementarydocumentdoesnotadequatelydiscussalternativemeasuresotherthanprovidingflowsfromtheriveritselforotherreser-voirs.Alternativesitestotheonepresentedherearegivenonlycursoryattention.UnderthenewCEQguidelines,suchdocunentsasthisaresup-posedtodescribethedecisionmakingprocessandnotmerelyrepresentthemostfavorableargumentsforchoosingthisalternative.
Ourcommentsareattachedandifanyquestions ariseinrelationtothempleasecontactusonFTS597-7188.
REVIEWOPFEDERALACTIONSIKPACTINGTHEBPIRONHENTCHAPTER3PREPARATION,APPROVALANDDISTRIBUTIONOFCONHENTSONFEDERALACTIONSEnvironmentalImpactoftheActionLo-LackofObjectionsEPAhasnoobjectionstotheproposedactionasdescribedinthedraftimpactstatementorsuggestsonlyminorchangesintheproposedaction.ER-EnvironmentalReservationsEPAhasreservationsconcerningtheenvironmentaleffectsofcertainaspectsoftheproposedaction.EPAbelievesthatfurtherstudyofsuggestedalternativesormodifica-tionsisrequ'redandhasaskedtheoriginatingFederalagencytoreassesstheseaspects.EU-EnvironmentallyUnsatisfactoryEPAbelievesthat.theproposedactionisunsatisfactorybecauseofitspotentiallyharmfuleffectontheenviron-ment.Furthermore,theAgencybelievesthatthepotentialsafeguardswhichmightbeutilizedmaynotadequatelypro-tect,theenvironmentfromhazardsarisingfromthisaction.TheAgencyrecommendsthatalternativestotheactionbeanalyzedfurther{includingthepossibilityofnoactionatall).Category1-AdequateThedraftimpactstatementadequatelysetsforththeenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedprojectoractionaswellasalternativesreasonablyavailabletotheprojectoraction.Category2-ZnsufficientinformationEPAbelievesthatthedraftimpactstatementdoesnotcontainsufficientinformationtoassessfullytheenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedprojectoraction.However,fromtheinformationsubmitted,theAgencyisabletomakeapreliminarydeterminationoftheimpactontheenvironment.EPAhasrequestedthattheoriginatorprovidetheinformationthatwasnotincludedinthedraftstatement.Category3-ZnadequateEPAbelievesthatthedraft.impactstatementdoesnotadequatelyassesstheenvironmentalimpactofthe"pro-posedprojectoraction,orthatthestatementinadequatelyanalyzesreasonablyavailablealternatives.TheAgencyhasrequestedmoreinformationandanalysisconcerningthepotentialenvironmentalhazardsandhasaskedthatsub-stantialrevisionbemadetothedraftstatement.ZfadraftimpactstatementisassignedaCategory3,~rdinarilynoratingwillbemadeoftheprojectoraction,sinceabasisdoesnotgenerallyexistonwhichtomakesuchadetermination.CHAP3Figure3-1.NotificationofEPA'sClassificationofCommentsPage2of23]-)S}}
Sincerely yours,RobertS.DavisAttachment Q~cV80060808~
BelowarecommentsonDraftSupplement EISSSESforthePondHillReservoir pumpedstoragefacility.
WebelieveanER-2ratingisjustified relativetothisdocument.
Pleasefindattachedacopyofoursystemforcommenting onEIS's.TheERstandsforEnvironmental Reservations andthe2indicates Insufficient Information.
Information regarding floodsandfloodingissparse.Inaddition, themaponpage2-7doesnotadequately depictthePondHillCreekfloodplain northeSusquehanna RiverFloodplain.
Nodoubtsomechangeswilltakeplaceintheseareasasaresultoftheprojectandsuchchangesshouldbeaddressed.
Withregardtoflooding, ourinformation doesnotagreewitheithertheapplicant's ortheNRC's.Calculations baseduponthemaximumstormofrecentyears,i.e.hurricance Agnes,indicates a686mmprecipitation event.Itisourbeliefthatthisimpoundment wouldbetoppedinsuchastormand,depending upondamconstruction, maywashoutandcompoundthedownstream damagesduetoflooding.
Inaddition, thoroughinformation shouldbepresented regarding othereffectsofstormsoflesserintensity sothatacompleteanalysiscanbemade.Thefloodingimpactpotentials aswellasthefloodplain effectsmayinthemselves indicatethattheimpoundment shouldnotbebuilt;however,oneotherpointshouldbemorethoroughly presented.
Thisisthefrequency analysisoflowflowsthatwouldinterrupt theoperation ofthepowersta-tion.Inthiscontext,theuseofsuchterminology as"...insomeyears..."
and"...requireseveralshutdowns..."
istooinspecific forade-quateevaluation.
Thereasonsfornotusingtheriverfollowalternative, then,baseduponinformation here,areinadequate.
Aroundthesaddlefromthe"topoftheridge"~whereadikeistobeplaced>isanothersaddle.Thissecondsaddleappearstobewithinthesamecontourlinesasthe"saddle"tobedikedyetnomentionismadeeitherofitspotential asan"accidental" spillwayintimesofseverefloodingorofthenecessity ofadikeinthisarea.(Re.fig.3.2,p3-3).Furthermore, nomentionismadeoftheseverefloodingpotential associated withtheLilyLake'averylowsaddlebetweenthesetwositesindicates apossiblespilloverintoPondRunwatershed duringseverestormperiods.Thediscussions onwildliferesources isacceptable, butshowssomedefi-ciencieswithregardtoperiodicities exhibited bysomeanimals.Forexam-ple,itisstatedwithfartoomuchassurance thattheeasterncottontail isofminorimportance.
However,thisanimaliscurrently nearoratthelowpointinitssevenyearcycle.(p2-11).Asthecottontail isamajorcom-ponentofthefoodwebfurtherdecreases initspopulation maybesignifi-cant.Theoperational parameters discussed onpages3-4and4-10&11failtodes-cribeadequately thefrequency ofintakesandreleasesandtheireffectsonthereservoir itselfandupontheSusquehanna River.Forexample,this reservoir mayhavemultipleusesamongthembeingrecreation.
Theworstpossiblecaseshouldbedescribed whenthelevelisdroppedtoanextremewheresuchactivities arecurtailed.
Also,duringtheselowlevelswhatwilltheeffectsbeupontheSusquehanna atthepointwherereducedflowsintheriverareaugmented bythemaintenance fromthereservoirs Duringlowflowperiods,whenthereservoir intakecannotbeused,andtherivermustbeaugmented byflowsfromtheimpoundment, willevaporative lossesbesignificant'vaporative lossesduringhotweatherarelarge.Theselossescoupledwithdrawdownmayindicateashorterusefulstoragecapacitythanisindicated inthedocument.
Insum,thissupplementary documentdoesnotadequately discussalternative measuresotherthanproviding flowsfromtheriveritselforotherreser-voirs.Alternative sitestotheonepresented herearegivenonlycursoryattention.
UnderthenewCEQguidelines, suchdocunents asthisaresup-posedtodescribethedecisionmaking processandnotmerelyrepresent themostfavorable arguments forchoosingthisalternative.
REVIEWOPFEDERALACTIONSIKPACTING THEBPIRONHENT CHAPTER3PREPARATION, APPROVALANDDISTRIBUTION OFCONHENTSONFEDERALACTIONSEnvironmental ImpactoftheActionLo-LackofObjections EPAhasnoobjections totheproposedactionasdescribed inthedraftimpactstatement orsuggestsonlyminorchangesintheproposedaction.ER-Environmental Reservations EPAhasreservations concerning theenvironmental effectsofcertainaspectsoftheproposedaction.EPAbelievesthatfurtherstudyofsuggested alternatives ormodifica-tionsisrequ'redandhasaskedtheoriginating Federalagencytoreassesstheseaspects.EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPAbelievesthat.theproposedactionisunsatisfactory becauseofitspotentially harmfuleffectontheenviron-ment.Furthermore, theAgencybelievesthatthepotential safeguards whichmightbeutilizedmaynotadequately pro-tect,theenvironment fromhazardsarisingfromthisaction.TheAgencyrecommends thatalternatives totheactionbeanalyzedfurther{including thepossibility ofnoactionatall).Category1-AdequateThedraftimpactstatement adequately setsforththeenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoractionaswellasalternatives reasonably available totheprojectoraction.Category2-Znsufficient information EPAbelievesthatthedraftimpactstatement doesnotcontainsufficient information toassessfullytheenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoraction.However,fromtheinformation submitted, theAgencyisabletomakeapreliminary determination oftheimpactontheenvironment.
EPAhasrequested thattheoriginator providetheinformation thatwasnotincludedinthedraftstatement.
Category3-Znadequate EPAbelievesthatthedraft.impactstatement doesnotadequately assesstheenvironmental impactofthe"pro-posedprojectoraction,orthatthestatement inadequately analyzesreasonably available alternatives.
TheAgencyhasrequested moreinformation andanalysisconcerning thepotential environmental hazardsandhasaskedthatsub-stantialrevisionbemadetothedraftstatement.
Zfadraftimpactstatement isassignedaCategory3,~rdinarily noratingwillbemadeoftheprojectoraction,sinceabasisdoesnotgenerally existonwhichtomakesuchadetermination.
CHAP3Figure3-1.Notification ofEPA'sClassification ofCommentsPage2of23]-)S}}

Revision as of 04:39, 29 June 2018

Forwards Comments on Draft Suppl to Draft EIS Re Operation of Facilities,Specifically Pond Hill Creek Reservoir
ML18030A005
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/30/1980
From: DAVIS R S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To: BAJWA S S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8006030363
Download: ML18030A005 (5)


Text

REGULATOR+INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STOEN(RIBS)Q~l~ACCESSION

'<BR:8006030363 DOC~DATE:80/05/30NOTARIZED!

NOFACIL:-Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva 50388sauehanna SteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva Aw-;~8AUTHORAFFILIATIONEROSEEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyRECI~~NAMERECIPIENT AFFILTATION AssistantDirectorforEnvironmental Technology HAJAAES~STAssistant DirectorforEnvironmental Technology

SUBJECT:

ForwardscommentsondraftsuopltodraftEISre'peration offacilitiesEspecifically PondHillCreekReservoir, DISTRIBUTION CODE:C0028COPIESRECEIVED:LTR QENCLSIZE:TITLE:Environ,Comments'nTES:

4~0<F~>CY~C~~4-~~~5~DOCKET¹0500038705000388ACTION:RECIPIENTIOCODE/NAME 05Ph,P.mac@

18IAMS+'LCOPIESRECIPIENT LTTRENCLIDCODE/NAME 1117BCO'BWWADmoog.~COPIES.LTTRENCL>110INTERNAL:

1~E.G0u,E10CSTBNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTRTSYS19DIROSE40SITEANALY1221.11111111002NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR1<ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONiTECHOELD1111111111010EXTERNAL:

03IPOR20NATLLAB110<1NSIC55ACRSI+.110aoL&9.~~L~aduNgtgO3'ITOTALHUMHEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR~ENCL

,<qf0Sly'cmac<+UNlTEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGIONIII6THANDWALNUTSTREETSPHILADELPHIA.

PENNSYLVANIA 19106IMAY301980Director, DivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental AnalysisAttn:Mr.S.SinghBajwaOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555

DearMr.Bagwa:

Thankyouforgrantingusashortextension onthedeadlineforsub-mittingcommentsontheDraftSupplement totheDraftETSrelatedtooperation ofSSES,Units1and2,specifically thePondHillCreekReservoir.

Ourcommentsareattachedandifanyquestions ariseinrelationtothempleasecontactusonFTS597-7188.

Sincerely yours,RobertS.DavisAttachment Q~cV80060808~

BelowarecommentsonDraftSupplement EISSSESforthePondHillReservoir pumpedstoragefacility.

WebelieveanER-2ratingisjustified relativetothisdocument.

Pleasefindattachedacopyofoursystemforcommenting onEIS's.TheERstandsforEnvironmental Reservations andthe2indicates Insufficient Information.

Information regarding floodsandfloodingissparse.Inaddition, themaponpage2-7doesnotadequately depictthePondHillCreekfloodplain northeSusquehanna RiverFloodplain.

Nodoubtsomechangeswilltakeplaceintheseareasasaresultoftheprojectandsuchchangesshouldbeaddressed.

Withregardtoflooding, ourinformation doesnotagreewitheithertheapplicant's ortheNRC's.Calculations baseduponthemaximumstormofrecentyears,i.e.hurricance Agnes,indicates a686mmprecipitation event.Itisourbeliefthatthisimpoundment wouldbetoppedinsuchastormand,depending upondamconstruction, maywashoutandcompoundthedownstream damagesduetoflooding.

Inaddition, thoroughinformation shouldbepresented regarding othereffectsofstormsoflesserintensity sothatacompleteanalysiscanbemade.Thefloodingimpactpotentials aswellasthefloodplain effectsmayinthemselves indicatethattheimpoundment shouldnotbebuilt;however,oneotherpointshouldbemorethoroughly presented.

Thisisthefrequency analysisoflowflowsthatwouldinterrupt theoperation ofthepowersta-tion.Inthiscontext,theuseofsuchterminology as"...insomeyears..."

and"...requireseveralshutdowns..."

istooinspecific forade-quateevaluation.

Thereasonsfornotusingtheriverfollowalternative, then,baseduponinformation here,areinadequate.

Aroundthesaddlefromthe"topoftheridge"~whereadikeistobeplaced>isanothersaddle.Thissecondsaddleappearstobewithinthesamecontourlinesasthe"saddle"tobedikedyetnomentionismadeeitherofitspotential asan"accidental" spillwayintimesofseverefloodingorofthenecessity ofadikeinthisarea.(Re.fig.3.2,p3-3).Furthermore, nomentionismadeoftheseverefloodingpotential associated withtheLilyLake'averylowsaddlebetweenthesetwositesindicates apossiblespilloverintoPondRunwatershed duringseverestormperiods.Thediscussions onwildliferesources isacceptable, butshowssomedefi-ciencieswithregardtoperiodicities exhibited bysomeanimals.Forexam-ple,itisstatedwithfartoomuchassurance thattheeasterncottontail isofminorimportance.

However,thisanimaliscurrently nearoratthelowpointinitssevenyearcycle.(p2-11).Asthecottontail isamajorcom-ponentofthefoodwebfurtherdecreases initspopulation maybesignifi-cant.Theoperational parameters discussed onpages3-4and4-10&11failtodes-cribeadequately thefrequency ofintakesandreleasesandtheireffectsonthereservoir itselfandupontheSusquehanna River.Forexample,this reservoir mayhavemultipleusesamongthembeingrecreation.

Theworstpossiblecaseshouldbedescribed whenthelevelisdroppedtoanextremewheresuchactivities arecurtailed.

Also,duringtheselowlevelswhatwilltheeffectsbeupontheSusquehanna atthepointwherereducedflowsintheriverareaugmented bythemaintenance fromthereservoirs Duringlowflowperiods,whenthereservoir intakecannotbeused,andtherivermustbeaugmented byflowsfromtheimpoundment, willevaporative lossesbesignificant'vaporative lossesduringhotweatherarelarge.Theselossescoupledwithdrawdownmayindicateashorterusefulstoragecapacitythanisindicated inthedocument.

Insum,thissupplementary documentdoesnotadequately discussalternative measuresotherthanproviding flowsfromtheriveritselforotherreser-voirs.Alternative sitestotheonepresented herearegivenonlycursoryattention.

UnderthenewCEQguidelines, suchdocunents asthisaresup-posedtodescribethedecisionmaking processandnotmerelyrepresent themostfavorable arguments forchoosingthisalternative.

REVIEWOPFEDERALACTIONSIKPACTING THEBPIRONHENT CHAPTER3PREPARATION, APPROVALANDDISTRIBUTION OFCONHENTSONFEDERALACTIONSEnvironmental ImpactoftheActionLo-LackofObjections EPAhasnoobjections totheproposedactionasdescribed inthedraftimpactstatement orsuggestsonlyminorchangesintheproposedaction.ER-Environmental Reservations EPAhasreservations concerning theenvironmental effectsofcertainaspectsoftheproposedaction.EPAbelievesthatfurtherstudyofsuggested alternatives ormodifica-tionsisrequ'redandhasaskedtheoriginating Federalagencytoreassesstheseaspects.EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPAbelievesthat.theproposedactionisunsatisfactory becauseofitspotentially harmfuleffectontheenviron-ment.Furthermore, theAgencybelievesthatthepotential safeguards whichmightbeutilizedmaynotadequately pro-tect,theenvironment fromhazardsarisingfromthisaction.TheAgencyrecommends thatalternatives totheactionbeanalyzedfurther{including thepossibility ofnoactionatall).Category1-AdequateThedraftimpactstatement adequately setsforththeenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoractionaswellasalternatives reasonably available totheprojectoraction.Category2-Znsufficient information EPAbelievesthatthedraftimpactstatement doesnotcontainsufficient information toassessfullytheenvironmental impactoftheproposedprojectoraction.However,fromtheinformation submitted, theAgencyisabletomakeapreliminary determination oftheimpactontheenvironment.

EPAhasrequested thattheoriginator providetheinformation thatwasnotincludedinthedraftstatement.

Category3-Znadequate EPAbelievesthatthedraft.impactstatement doesnotadequately assesstheenvironmental impactofthe"pro-posedprojectoraction,orthatthestatement inadequately analyzesreasonably available alternatives.

TheAgencyhasrequested moreinformation andanalysisconcerning thepotential environmental hazardsandhasaskedthatsub-stantialrevisionbemadetothedraftstatement.

Zfadraftimpactstatement isassignedaCategory3,~rdinarily noratingwillbemadeoftheprojectoraction,sinceabasisdoesnotgenerally existonwhichtomakesuchadetermination.

CHAP3Figure3-1.Notification ofEPA'sClassification ofCommentsPage2of23]-)S