ML20198F421

Discusses Preliminary Review of Environ Rept.Rept Generally Acceptable from Standpoint of Need for power,socio-economic Impact & cost-benefit Analysis.Comments Listed

ML20198F421
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/11/1977
From:	Cleary D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0882, CON-WNP-882 NUDOCS 8605280502
Download: ML20198F421 (2)

Text

'k

! w - ,

FEP 1 '

477 MEMORANDUM FOR: William H. Regan, Jr., Chief, Environmental Projects Branch No. 2 FROM: Dc uld P. Cleary, Section Leader, Regional Impact Analysis Section CBAB. ET, DSE

SUBJECT:

ACCEPTANCE REVIEW PLANT tWiE: WPFSS Nuclear Project No. 2 LICENSING STAGE: OL PROJECT NUMDER: 50-397 PROJECT MANAGER: R. R. Boyle REVIEW STATUS. ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - Complete We have perforried a preliminary review of the Environmental Report and frou the standpoint of need for power (Chapter 1), socioeconomic impacts (Sections 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.0) ,

and cost benefit analysis (Chapters 8, 9,10, and 11) we find the report is generally acceptable for the review stage. We have also reviewed A:tl staff questions and i sve the following coments:

(1) Question 10f goes beyond the bounds of information required for the OL review.

(2) Unless " scenic areas' (Q.10g) is a term which is used by local planners in the regional plan to catesonic significant landscape features the staff should recognize that the Applicant will use his own judgment for estab-l

, Hshing criteria. In any event, inforration of this basic nature should have been covered during the CP stage.

, (3) For the purposes of the OL review, I do not understand

! the relevance of Questions 11,15, and 17.

(4) Question 14 is vaguely worded, this question should bc l rewritten as follows:

How has the applicant helped local communities to . . ,

anticipate and mitigate comunity level impacts? "

Does the Applicant intend to assist local comunities during the operating period?

i l

on,ic s , _ . . _ .

,. 8605280502 770211 PDR ADOCK 05000397 on., C, PDR ,

NRC PORM $18 (M6) NRCM 0240 h us e.oovanmuswv painreme errecs. s ve -emse

k

. - . s  % ,

William H. Regan, Jr. (5) Question 33 should be sufficiently answered by Figures 2.1,2 and 2.1-3. If these maps do not include the details required, the reviewer should indicate his requirements.

(6) I do not understand Question 52.

(7) Question 53 is irrelevant.

In addition, the following question should be added to ANL's list:

(1) Does the Applicant have information to suggest WNP-2 where WP40perettng worMdfrs-MOP 1i've?

(2) Has the Applicant estimated the total direct population impact of the operating force, that is, the total number of adult dependents, and school-age children accompanying operating workers.

(3) Does the Applicant anticipate that the influx of WNP-2 operating workers and their families will cause adverse impacts on the following public and private comunity services:

a. housing

b. recreation

c. sewer and water

d. education

e. hospitals (4) Does the Applicant anticipate, as a result of operating workers moving into local connunities, that investment in service-oriented businesses will be induced? If such investments are anticipated, where would they rest probably locate.

Mike Kaltman (492-7900) was responsible for conducting this review.

/

Donald P. Cleary, Section Leader Regional Impact Analysis Section l Cost-Benefit Analysis Cranch Division of Site Safety and Fnvimnmental Am1vtit DSIj/ytI: AB DSE "BAB 0%:ET:C)AB

.,,,% Q;--j{;--$gyj p - -

M M , n: nt Dd.l(i

.u

• D _L hash.. eary BJYkudblood

n. ka itm n 2-fj-77 2 ii-77 2-A .

NBC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W us e. oovannu swv parmveme orrices e s74 - eso4aJ i

_ _. - _ _ -_. -