Final Environmental Statement

impacted. An expected increase in effluent water availability after 1986 can partially reverse these impacts (Sec. 5.5.1.1).

g. Salt from cooling tower drift could modify floral and faunal species composition on some acreage close to the site boundaries depending upon drift specification selected for cooling towers; however, this is not expected to generally affect the population structure and stability of areas further away (Sec. 5.5.2).

h. The total radiation dose to construction workers is estimated to be 15 man-rem. This dose is a small fraction of the approximately 470 man-rem which will be received by the construction force over the same period from natural background radiation. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials.

The upper bound estimate of dose to the public from operation of the plant is 156 man-rem/yr. This is a small fraction of the 21,000,000 man-rems/yr dose that persons living in the United States normally receive from background radiation. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure will be very low (Table 5.6 and Sec. 7).

i. Station construction and operation are likely to cause some community impacts: Influx of large numbers of construction workers may cause some impact on the Phoenix-area housing market and schools, depending on the pattern of worker relocation; however, an expected excess of both housing units and classroom space will tend to decrease the impacts. The relatively small, permanent station work force will be absorbed with little difficulty (Secs. 4.4.3 and 4.4.4). An increase in local traffic will occur during construction; however, the remoteness of the site and the adequacy of the road system will minimize the impact (Sec. 4.1.5). A decrease in scenic value will result from the location of the station (and its associated transmission system) against the desert surroundings. Sensible air quality is also likely to decrease in the immediate vicinity of the station due to operation of the cooling tower system (Secs. 5.1 and 5.3.2).

5. The following Federal, State, and local agencies were asked to comment on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement issued in November 1975.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce

Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Transportation

Energy Research and Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Power Commission

Federal Energy Administration

Arizona Atomic Energy Commission

Messrs. J. D. Garcia and R. M. Emrick

Arizona Clean Energy Coalition, Phoenix Branch

Arizona Friends of the Earth

Arizona Clean Energy Coalition, Tuscon

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Maricopa Audubon Society

Buckeye Irrigation Co. and Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District

Department of Economic Planning and Development, State of Arizona

Maricopa Association of Governments

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Comments on the Draft Supplement were received from the following:

Department of the Interior
Arizona Public Service Company

6. The Final Environmental Statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified agencies in September 1975.

7. The staff has evaluated the changes in environmental impact caused by replacing the 147-mile corridor previously evaluated (FSFES) with any of the corridors being environmentally analyzed in this document. The staff concludes that the benefits to be derived from the PVNGS project in terms of increased availability of electric power in the applicant's service areas still outweigh the total environmental and other costs resulting from the construction and operation of the station, no matter which of the alternative routings discussed in this joint statement is chosen.

8. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, the Final Environmental Statement, and the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, after weighing the environmental economic, technical, and other benefits of PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3 against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR 51 is the issuance of construction permits for the facility subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:

The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including adherence to his commitments summarized in Section 4.5.1, and additional staff requirements summarized in Section 4.5.2 of the Environmental Statement, during construction of the Station and associated transmission lines to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities.

The applicant shall establish a control program which shall include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed herein and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the adequacy of implementation of environmental conditions. The applicant shall provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval of the Director of Reactor Licensing for the activities.

d. If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of serious damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage.

e. In addition to the monitoring procedures described in the Environmental Report, with amendments, the staff requirements included in Section 6 of this document shall be followed.

f. If the Kofa Route is approved, no new access roads will be allowed from mileposts 88 to 90.5 (in Yuma Proving Ground).

g. For each 1 acre (0.4 hectare) of known habitat of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard that is permanently occupied, at least 1 acre (0.4 hectare) of suitable habitat is to be purchased in fee title and transferred to the appropriate agency.

h. When final transmission line and water pipeline corridor alignments are chosen, the applicant will be required to provide detailed description and analysis of the routes, prior to the initiation of construction for staff review and approval relating to route acceptability (FES, Sec. 3.8).

TABLE OF CONTENTS