ML022480009
"Draft Supplement" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML022480009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/2002 |
| From: | Mueller H Environmental Protection Agency |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 67FR35839 00002 | |
| Download: ML022480009 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 r *-
'"-j'7 P
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
.2' 5
2
'*~LI
- 5 August 23, 2002
'_-j
"-4 4EAD Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 9 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 CEQ No. 020204
Dear Sir/Madam:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the document entitled, 'Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Supplement 9," NUREG 1437 (DGSEIS). We appreciate your compliance with the disclosure and public access aspects of the NEPA process. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of our review of the DGSEIS.
Rad waste, which is usually considered a "low volume waste stream," is any waste stream (i.e., ion exchange regenerate, etc.), that has a radioactive component. EPA Region 4's review of this DGSEIS found no issues related to nuclear or environmental radiation which were significant enough to comment on or to ask for clarification. However, EPA does not regulate the radioactive component of any waste streams; that is the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC regulates the alpha, beta, and gamma radioactivity of all the waste streams at nuclear plants.
Based on the sufficiency of information, alternatives evaluation, and potential environmental impacts over which EPA has authority, the document received a rating of "EC-1,"
(Environmental Concerns - Adequate Information). That is, the review identified environmental impacts which should be avoided, in order to fully protect the environment. Specifically, the possi'bility of environmental impacts resulting from a release due to a severe accident are a concern. However, we understand that NRC along with DOE, FEMA, and EPA are taking additional steps to ensure that nuclear plants are prepared for such an occurrence. In addition, while the DGSEIS provides reasonable analysis of the proposed action and alternatives, we look forward to the inclusion of clarifying information in the Final GSEIS. Our comments are attached.
Internet Address (URL)
- http I/www.epa gov Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minmum 30% Postconsumer) e~--e*1 (ste) 13 4f.
C-42P 19 -3~
7
-1 sL4 0
+14 R1t 1
-I
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments regarding this project. If you have any questions, you may contact Ramona McConney of my staff at (404) 562-9615.
Sincerely, Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Office of Environmental Assessment Attachment
EPA Comments on Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 8 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 CEQ No. 020204 General: The document does not mention whether power demands on the Catawba facility are expected to change significantly from present levels during the license renewal period (up to 20 years). If consumer power needs in the service area increase significantly, please clarify how this would this affect operations, particularly with regard to the cooling system, effluent release, and waste quantity.
Water: Section 4.5 discusses groundwater use and quality. The document (page 4-35) mentions that the facility uses <100 gpm from three existing groundwater wells (page 2-6). We note the statement on page 4-36 that "It is impossible to reliably predict the quantity of future withdrawals and groundwater demands over the renewal term." A similar statement on page 4-14 is made regarding surface water withdrawals. Information regarding the anticipated growth rate in the consumer service area and other applicable factors may provide information on future power demands and consequently water needs.
Waste Minimization: We appreciate your commitment to reducing waste volume from the facility (page 2-12).
Noise: Page 2-36 states that noise from the facility is "...noticeable but not obtrusive." Please clarify the decibel level.