ML032030456

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the Staff'S Review of the Application by Exelon Generation Company for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
ML032030456
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/21/2003
From: Larry Wheeler
NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP
To: Jamie Benjamin
Exelon Generation Co
Wheeler LL, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1444
References
Download: ML032030456 (27)
v • d • e


Text

July 21, 2003 Mr. Jeffrey A. Benjamin Vice President Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, Illinois 60555

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING

SUMMARY

REPORT ASSOCIATED WITH THE STAFFS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY EXELON GENERATION COMPANY FOR RENEWAL OF THE OPERATING LICENSES FOR QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2

Dear Mr. Benjamin:

From March 14, 2003 through May 12, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a scoping process to determine the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review of the application for renewal of the operating licenses for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC by letter dated January 3, 2003. As part of the scoping process, the NRC staff held two public environmental scoping meetings in Moline, Illinois on April 8, 2003, to solicit public input regarding the scope of the review. The scoping process is the first step in the development of a plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station.

The NRC staff has prepared the enclosed Environmental Scoping Summary Report identifying comments received at the April 8, 2003, license renewal environmental scoping meetings and by electronic mail. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), you are being provided a copy of the scoping summary report. The transcripts of the meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary issued on June 16, 2003. The meeting summary is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland; or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) under accession number ML031631260.

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, which provides access through the NRCs Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link.

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRCs PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

J. Benjamin 2 The next step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a draft supplement to the GEIS scheduled for November 2003. Notice of the availability of the draft supplement to the GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register notice. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please have your representative contact me at (301) 415-1444.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Louis L. Wheeler, Senior Project Manager Environmental Section License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page

J. Benjamin 2 The next step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a draft supplement to the GEIS scheduled for November 2003. Notice of the availability of the draft supplement to the GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register notice. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please have your representative contact me at (301) 415-1444.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Louis L. Wheeler, Senior Project Manager Environmental Section License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION DMatthews/FGillespie PTKuo DWheeler REmch JDavis JTappert TKim FLyon KStoedter, RIII OGC JStrasma, RIII MRing, RIII RLerch, RIII BMcDowell (LLNL)

RLEP R/F MFarber, RIII PUBLIC Accession no.: ML032030456

  • See previous concurrence Document Name:C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML032030456.wpd OFFICE LA:RLEP GS:RLEP PM:RLEP SC:RLEP OGC (NLO) PD:RLEP NAME YEdmonds* JDavis* DWheeler* JTappert (AJKugler for) AFernandez* PTKuo*

DATE 07/11/03 07/11/03 07/10/03 07/11/03 07/18/03 07/21/03 OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units No. 1 & 2 Rock Island County, Illinois April 2003 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland

Introduction On January 3, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for renewal of the operating licenses of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2. The QCNPS units are located in Rock Island County, Illinois. As part of the application, Exelon submitted an environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. 10 CFR Part 51 contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation and submittal of environmental reports to the NRC.

Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, was first issued as a draft for public comment. The staff received input from Federal and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens before developing the final document. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to be small and to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These were designated as Category 1 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts, absent new and significant information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to be evaluated in the applicants ER.

The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision-making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials.

Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power, or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission determined that the ER need not discuss any aspect of storage of spent fuel for the facility that is within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b). This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Commissions Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

On March 14, 2003, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (68 FR 12385), to notify the public of the staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS as part of its review of the renewal application for the QCNPS operating licenses.

The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ guidelines, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American organizations; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than May 12, 2003. The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at The Mark of the Quad Cities in Moline, Illinois, on April 8, 2003. Approximately 120 members of the public attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. Following the NRCs prepared statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Thirteen (13) attendees provided either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcripts of the meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting

summary, which was issued on June 16, 2003. The meeting summary is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or electronically from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS) under accession number ML031631259. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). (Note that the URL is case-sensitive).

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:

  • Define the proposed action
  • Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth
  • Identify and eliminate peripheral issues
  • Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS
  • Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements
  • Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS
  • Identify any cooperating agencies
  • Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. Four emails were also received during the scoping period. All comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted. Two commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g.,

afternoon and evening scoping meetings).

Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated with each person's set(s) of comments. The Commenter ID letter is preceded by QCS (short for Quad Cities scoping). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments in the ADAMS.

Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the applicable topic within the proposed supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS. Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according to subject area, the staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for the QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

comment. The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

  • A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.
  • A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or specifically, QCNPS) or that makes a general statement about the license renewal process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to 10 CFR Part 54.
  • A comment about a Category 1 issue that provided new information that required evaluation during the review, or provided no new information.
  • A comment about a Category 2 issue that provided information that required evaluation during the review, or provided no such information.
  • A comment regarding Alternatives to the proposed action.
  • A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS.

which includes comments regarding the Need for Power.

Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table 1 plus the comment number) is provided.

In those cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation will be performed.

The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (SEIS) will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American organizations; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the NRCs environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will provide substantial portions of the bases for the NRCs decision on the QCNPS license renewal application.

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

TABLE 1 - Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Commenters Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source and ID ADAMS Accession Number(a)

QCS-A Jim Bohnsack Rock Island County Board Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-B Leo Geerts Albany Fire Protection District Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-C Tim Tulon Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-D Fred Polaski Exelon Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-E Rob Lamb Quad Cities Development Group Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-F Stuart Whitt Whitt Law Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-G Chris Filbert Cordova Township Road Commission Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-H Larry Toppert Toppert Jetting Service Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-I Don Swensson Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS J Patrick OConner Newberg-Perinni/Stone and Webster Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-K John Malvik Rock Island County Board Afternoon Scoping Meeting QCS-L Tim Tulon Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Evening Scoping Meeting QCS-M Fred Polaski Exelon Evening Scoping Meeting QCS-N Sue Hebel Cordova District Library Evening Scoping Meeting QCS-O Leslie Perrigo Evening Scoping Meeting QCS-P David Olson Email (ML031400167)

QCS-Q Joyce/Jack Wiley Email (ML031400174)

QCS-R M.J. Regan Email (ML031400177)

QCS-S Scott Gardner Cordova Dragway Park Email (ML031700164)

(a) The afternoon transcripts can be found under accession number ML031640068 and the evening transcripts can be found under accession number ML031640085.

The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process, and discuss their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the Commenters ID and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in Table 1. Comments are grouped by category. The categories are as follows:

1. General Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power
2. Comments in Support of License Renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
3. Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
4. Comments Concerning Category 2 Aquatic Ecology Issues
5. Comments Concerning Category 2 Terrestrial Resource Issues
6. Comments Concerning Category 1 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues
7. Comments Concerning Category 1 Socioeconomic Issues
8. Comments Concerning Category 2 Socioeconomic Issues
9. Comments Concerning Alternatives
10. Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal: Operational Safety, Security, & Emergency Preparedness; Safeguards and Security; Aging Management; Need for Power; and Cost of Power QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comments

1. General Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power Comment: Any industry that produces this much high level radioactive waste, as a general practice, is neither clean or cheap.

(QCS-O-6)

Comment: Nuclear power is neither safe nor cheap.

(QCS-P-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are in opposition to nuclear power and do not provide any new information. These comments are not within the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 for the environmental review associated with the application for license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Therefore, these comments will not be considered further in the SEIS.

2. Comments in Support of License Renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Comment: So with that in mind on behalf of the Albany Fire Protection District we support the license renewal process for several reasons.

(QCS-B-1)

Comment: So we are very supportive of the relicensing process. Wed like to see it go through and we want to see the plant be there for another 20 years.

(QCS-B-6)

Comment: And so we concluded that the best thing to do from an environmental viewpoint is to continue to operate Quad Cities. The conclusion we reached and this is the overall Exelon team, and my own conclusion personally, is that I believe the Quad Cities is a safely operated plant; it can operate safely for an additional 20 years and it will provide 1800 megawatts of clean, reliable environmentally friendly economic electricity that benefits not only this community but the state of Illinois and our country.

(QCS-D-3)

Comment: We support the license renewal application for the Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station. The station is a vital part of the economy of the Quad Cities and has a broad impact on the economy in three areas.

(QCS-E-1)

Comment: Relicensing of this plant is important to our families, our corporate citizens, our schools and our governments.

(QCS-E-5)

Comment: And people would say I cant believe youre moving in next to a nuclear plant. I can honestly say that I had never at one time been threatened because of it.

(QCS-G-1)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: They are a quiet neighbor and a caring neighbor.

(QCS-G-4)

Comment: Is Exelon a good neighbor? You bet. Is Exelon good for Cordova Township? With no doubt. I would like to thank the NRC for allowing me the time to speak todays forum and extend my support for the licensing of the Quad Cities Nuclear Station.

(QCS-G-6)

Comment: And from this position of being a close neighbor and a contractor I say that its Exelons continued dedication to the safety that has earned them the right to remain a significant part of our community for years to come. And I would urge the NRC to renew the license for the Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station.

(QCS-H-2)

Comment: We advocate the license extension of Quad Cities station and we encourage others to do the same.

(QCS-J-1)

Comment: The joint venture of Newberg-Perinni/Stone and Webster encourages your support for the license.

(QCS-J-7)

Comment: Im here to talk about the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station being a good neighbor. The station has had a positive impact on the environment in Cordova as well as in Port Byron.

(QCS-N-1)

Comment: My library board and I are very appreciative of their support, and therefore, we support the relicensing of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station.

(QCS-N-6)

Comment: In closing, I state that I am in favor of the operating license of the Quad Cities Generating Station - Cordova, be renewed. With the number of people throughout the country that visit Cordova Dragway Park each season, we have not had any questions or concerns in the regards to the Exelon Plant. The public views the plant essentially as I do, as a positive, safe and viable power generator for America.

(QCS-S-3)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

3. Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Comment: A few things, concerns that I regarding the relicensing of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant for an additional 20 years.

(QCS-O-1)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: The Cordova plant should not be relicensed.

(QCS-P-1)

Comment: The Cordova plant has a history of problems that will only become more dangerous as the plant ages.

(QCS-P-3)

Comment: Cordova was designed for a specific life span. That life span is coming to an end.

Retire it, dont keep that time bomb in operation.

(QCS-P-6)

Comment: However, we do not support renewal of the license.

(QCS-Q-2)

Comment: In regards to the relicensing of the Quad Cities Plants 1&2 at Cordova, IL I feel the environmental impact on the area is very negative.

(QCS-R-1)

Comment: I believe it is too risky to continue the life of this particular nuclear plant...It has served its purpose & left the area environmentally worse off than before its startup.

(QCS-R-5)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments oppose license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and do not provide new information. These comments are not within the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 for the environmental review associated with the license renewal application for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further in the SEIS.

4. Comments Concerning Category 2 Aquatic Ecology Issues As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 2 aquatic ecology issues are:

C Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages C Impingement of fish and shellfish C Heat shock Comment: I think many people probably do not realize that we are the only private sector facility to operate a fish hatchery on the Mississippi River. And ever since 1984 we have put four million fish right here locally in Mississippi pools 13 and 14.

(QCS-C-9)

Comment: Also, the station supports the fish hatchery and stocks the river with walleye and striped bass.

(QCS-N-3)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: Now because of the elevated temperature of the river which is directly related to the nuclear plant dumping radioactive warmer water back into the Mississippi, it no longer freezes completely...This has directly resulted in loss of larger clams which no longer can be found in the area.

(QCS-R-3)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to aquatic ecology issues and will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

5. Comments Concerning Category 2 Terrestrial Resource Issues As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 2 terrestrial resource issues are:

C Refurbishment impacts to terrestrial resources C Threatened or endangered species Comment: The plant keeps the river open in the winter time. Because of this, there are many more eagles and water fowl in the area.

(QCS-N-2)

Response: The comment is noted. The comment relates to terrestrial resource issues and will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

6. Comments Concerning Category 1 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues are:
  • Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste)
  • Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)
  • Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste)
  • Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle
  • Low level waste storage and disposal
  • Mixed waste storage and disposal
  • On-site spent fuel
  • Nonradiological waste Comment: There is no transportation plan for the one hundred thousand truckloads or twenty thousand train loads of high level waste that will pass through forty-five states over 38 years.

(QCS-O-5)

Comment: Until a way is found for safe disposal and rendering safe the byproduct of nuclear energy it is not a safe energy source.

(QCS-P-4)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: Furthermore, the storage problem of waste has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

Yucca Mountain still has many problems. Even if it didnt, transporting fuel rods there is not acceptable.

(QCS-Q-4)

Response: The comments are noted. Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact.

In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent repository.

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437 is based upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS that will be prepared regarding license renewal for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, will be based on the same assumption.

Likewise, the matter of processing and storage of low-level waste is considered a Category 1 issue. The conclusion regarding this issue in the GEIS included consideration of the long-term storage of low level waste on site during the license renewal term. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

7. Comments Concerning Category 1 Socioeconomic Issues As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 socioeconomic issues are:
  • Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation
  • Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment)

Comment: And I'll tell you, this is a significant recreational benefit for the local community.

(QCS-C-10)

Comment: We take, I feel that the nuclear generating plant is a concerned neighbor. They take pride in their facility and the grounds which surround them. They work very hard on keeping the appearance up.

(QCS-G-2)

Comment: But it is with a great deal of appreciation from the fishermen in this area to what is happening in the river. That section of the river, Pool 14 is probably the most outstanding walleye fishery and people talk about going north to fish for walleyes, Pool 14 is probably one of the better walleye fisheries in, on the Mississippi River.

(QCS-I-1)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: But the actions of the nuclear plant in maintaining a walleye fishery and a hybrid striped bass fishery is an outstanding achievement, for the sportsmen in this particular area.

(QCS-I-2)

Comment: The Exelon Plant grounds are maintained to a very high standard in appearance.

(QCS-S-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Public services involving recreation and aesthetic values were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 issues. The comments provide no new information on these public service issues, and therefore, will not be evaluated further.

8. Comments Concerning Category 2 Socioeconomic Issues As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 2 socioeconomic issues are:
  • Housing
  • Public services: public utilities
  • Public services, education (refurbishment)
  • Offsite land use (refurbishment)
  • Public services, transportation
  • Historic and archaeological resources.

Comment: And of course we could not go without saying that it does provide an economic stability in this area.

(QCS-B-3)

Comment: So it is an economic source that we dont want to lose.

(QCS-B-5)

Comment: We also have 700 families that are dependent on the plant to make a living.

(QCS-C-3)

Comment: So our payroll is 57 million dollars, 57 million dollars worth of payroll which directly helps the local community.

(QCS-C-4)

Comment: Right here in the Quad Cities to obtain that labor and so last year that resulted in 30 million dollars, a 30 million dollar payroll to these local craftsmen.

(QCS-C-5)

Comment: So I would offer to you that, Number one, is we are a very significant source of employment for the local area and Number two, we are a positive economic force.

(QCS-C-6)

Comment: And irregardless of any extreme positions that were taken in the appeal process at PECO and Chairman Bohnsack, I want to just tell you flat out is that we intend to pay property QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

taxes. We intend to be a good neighbor.

(QCS-C-7)

Comment: Also, I want to mention that our employees are generous and involved in many local activities.

(QCS-C-8)

Comment: The second is in terms of jobs. The station employs about 700 local citizens and provides good income to many area families. The annual payroll from the station puts about 50 million dollars into the greater Quad Cities community.

(QCS-E-3)

Comment: Finally, the station pays about three and a half million dollars in taxes annually.

These taxes support our schools and our community infrastructure making the greater Quad Cities more attractive to companies looking to expand in this area and making the Quad Cities a better place for our residents and corporate citizens as well.

(QCS-E-4)

Comment: Since that time the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station has had a significant positive impact upon the areas economic vitality. The county, the college and the school district all recognize and appreciate the positive benefits the station has brought to the area.

(QCS-F-1)

Comment: They have provided quality jobs to many residents of Cordova Township and funds to the area school district.

(QCS-G-3)

Comment: The biggest boost to the road and bridge district is the tax share supported by Exelon. Without that tax base our district would be in serious and desperate trouble.

Approximately 70 percent of the monies collected in taxes are Exelons share. This tax base helps keep our roads in tip top condition.

(QCS-G-5)

Comment: Last year our firm worked more than 750,000 person-hours at the Quad Cities Station. Thats the equivalent of 375 full-time employees working at the site throughout the year.

Our employees earned more than $30 million dollars much of which was returned to the local economy.

(QCS-J-2)

Comment: That investment has resulted in additional jobs for our employees in the short term and will mean plenty of work in the future for refueling outages and to maintain that equipment to a high state of readiness and availability.

(QCS-J-6)

Comment: Im also in charge of Academic Achievement Award Program for Riverdale High School, which is supported by the Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce, and the plant has been very generous with this scholarship program.

(QCS-N-4)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: Aside from the tax issue, the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station has been a good neighbor financially to the Cordova Library as well.

(QCS-N-5)

Response: The comments are noted. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The comments support license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

Comment: Our concern is that they pay their fair taxes, and I know this is talking about environmental, but also had calls from different public and private sectors in the last week saying Exelon or Mid America has called them asking them as a public relations and I think thats, thats not the fair gimmick or the thing that you want to hear today.

(QCS-A-1)

Comment: In their tax appeal they pretty much show that they want nothing, its over 700 million dollars and theyre saying they dont want to pay any, any property taxes. We think thats terrible. We are trying to negotiate with them now to have some kind of equitable property tax.

(QCS-A-2)

Comment: And so I want to make sure you understand that theyre worthy of, of running a good facility but they also need to be paying their fair share.

(QCS-A-3)

Comment: However, reduction of the stations taxable value as requested by the owners will have a devastating impact upon the local taxing districts responsible for those social services which are vital to the community. The county will lose over $400,000 and the college will lose over a quarter of a million resulting in substantial layoffs and the corresponding reduction of social services. The school district will lose more that two million dollars or nearly 29 percent of its entire budgeted revenues.

(QCS-F-2)

Comment: With this loss it will be impossible for the district to maintain a quality educational program for its students.

(QCS-F-3)

Comment: The county, the college and the school district all request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission solicit and accept statements from the local taxing bodies for inclusion in the supplemental environmental impact statement and further ask that Edison drop its appeal.

(QCS-F-4)

Comment: Exelon doesnt want to pay its fair share of taxes. Thats the bottom line. They dont want to pay as much in taxes as they are paying.

(QCS-K-1)

Comment: This giant and profitable corporation wants to shift its civic duty to pay taxes to the little guy, the working men and women of our community, our senior citizens, those who have to struggle to make ends meet.

(QCS-K-2)

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Comment: I realize that Cordova is a major employer for our area, but I would also like to point out that under deregulation, many jobs have already been cut.

(QCS-O-9)

Response: The comments are noted. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

9. Comments Concerning Alternatives Comment: During the preparation of the license extension paperwork a comparison was done to say okay, if you take the generation of Quad Cities and you dont use the nuclear option and you use a coal burning type of option what would that result in. The result would be 6,000 tons of sulphur dioxide emission to the environment. 1700 tons of both nitric oxides and also carbon monoxides. So its a very significant benefit I think that nuclear has is the avoidance of this greenhouse issue.

(QCS-C-11)

Comment: And we looked at other ways of generating nuclear power and determined that any alternative means of generating electricity that 1800 megawatts would have more of an impact on the environment than if we continued to operate Quad Cities for an additional 20 years.

(QCS-D-2)

Comment: Although the nuclear industry does produce far less, or does emit far less carbon than conventional plants such as coal, carbon dioxide is still emitted at every step of the nuclear fuel chain from uranium mining to the decommissioning of old reactors.

(QCS-O-7)

Comment: So it is possible to function in the Quad Cities without nuclear power plants, and we do have amazing potential for renewable energy.

(QCS-O-10)

Comment: Every year the sun emits two thousand times more energy than the world consumption needs. When resources in the West and Midwest have more potential energy than the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and together electricity and hydrogen can meet all the energy needs of a modern society.

(QCS-O-11)

Comment: This is a very exciting time in technology, so we would just like the NRC to consider other options and just acknowledge that there are other options out there and taking it into consideration all the safety concerns regarding nuclear power.

(QCS-O-12)

Comment: There are other sources of energy that are renewable and environmentally safe such as wind and solar that would also create good, high paying jobs.

(QCS-P-5)

Response: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives for the Quad Cities license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8 of the SEIS.

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

10. Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal Operational Safety, Security, & Emergency Comment: One, in working with station personnel - both senior management, mid-management and plant workers themselves - weve adopted many of their human performance standards that they have in place to improve the safety of running the plant.

(QCS-B-2)

Comment: In fact, we have several that are on our department that work at Exelon that provide a good base knowledge of training and are committed to the community.

(QCS-B-4)

Comment: And Im here to say to you that Exelon excels at managing the safety, security and the environment of the plant.

(QCS-H-1)

Comment: All the employees, whether or Exelon or contractor, work together to ensure that all the needed work is performed safely and with the highest quality.

(QCS-J-3)

Comment: I can tell you from working there that Quad Cities Station is safe, orderly and operated by a team of trained nuclear professionals. The safety of the community, employees, and plant systems is at the forefront of every activity performed at that site.

(QCS-J-4)

Comment: Our family appreciates the efforts made to operate a safe and efficient plant in our region.

(QCS-Q-1)

Comment: The Exelon Plant has provided enhanced security in and around the facility that allows our spectators and staff to feel comfortable at ease with their location being so close to our facility.

(QCS-S-1)

Response: The comments are noted and are supportive of license renewal at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. Operational safety is outside the scope of evaluation under 10 CFR Part 51 and 54. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Comment: Also of concern to me are the alerts which have put the surrounding communities on notice re safety problems. Most recently was the Wednesday April 16, 2003 emergency shutdown caused by a valve malfunction. In decifering the event report, there was a sudden rise in water temperature in the torus: the large tank of emergency cooling water. A valve was stuck open causing steam to leak in thus raising the temperature. The average water temperature in the torus in 50 degrees F. It is designed to handle a maximum 110 degrees F. At 1:59pm that Wednesday afternoon, it reached 118 degrees F. ......Approximately 22 minutes before this, the operators scramed the reactor which involved jamming the rods into the core...this took less than 2 seconds....Normally the core is submerged in water at or over 1000 degrees F, and is QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

pressurized over 1000 psi..It took nearly 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> for this water temperature to drop 212 degrees F and the steam leak to stop.....This location uses the General Electric MARK I Boiling Water Reactor which as you have just read has its problems...The torus designed portion of this reactor is not a safe feature for our community.

(QCS-R-4)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant.

Operational safety is outside the scope of this review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is conducted separately. Although a topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can be addressed under processes currently available for an existing operating license absent a license renewal application. The comments provide no new information, and do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore they will not be evaluated further.

Safeguards and Security Comment: We believe the Quad City area is too vulnerable in the case of a failure at the plant or a terrorist attack. The public has never received any instruction on evacuation plans for this area. Considering the congestion we now have with respect to the bridges, it is impossible to contemplate what would happen in the event of an emergency at the plant.

(QCS-Q-3)

Comment: You know, we have spent over a million dollars on strengthening security at the Quad Cities Station and we periodically monitor and adjust that program. I will tell you that domestic nuclear facilities are the best protected facilities, civilian facilities period.

(QCS-C-12)

Comment: Another concern is with the recent ruling that the NRC, of the NRC, to exclude the threat of terrorism from the relicensing process.

(QCS-O-3)

Comment: Design of spent fuel pool storage for General Electric Mark I boiling water reactors is particularly vulnerable, and Exelon has already stated that they have no plans to install hardened on-site storage. Hardened on-site storage for spent fuel would be resistant to an attack and should be viewed as a necessary component to Homeland Security.

(QCS-O-4)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant.

Appropriate emergency preparedness measures have been incorporated into the emergency preparedness plans. NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists.

Malevolent acts remain speculative and beyond the scope of a NEPA review. NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided to them by other Federal agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security levels. The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities and will not focus on site-specific evaluations of speculative environmental impacts. While these are legitimate matters of QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

concern, they should continue to be addressed through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities. The NRC has taken a number of actions to respond to the events of September 11, 2001, and plans to take additional measures. However, the issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is not unique to facilities that have requested a renewal to their license and, therefore, will not be addressed within the scope of this Supplement. The comments did not provide significant, new information and they do not pertain to the scope of license renewals set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

Aging Management Comment: We did that review and like I said we spent over 40 man years doing that, and our conclusion was that the equipment is being maintained properly and aging is being managed properly so the equipment will operate properly when its needed to.

(QCS-D-1)

Comment: In the last three years, Exelon has invested heavily in equipment improvements at Quad Cities Station to ensure that it will perform even better in the years to come.

(QCS-J-5)

Comment: In 1994, an unearned regulated inspection by the NRC, actually found evidence of core shell cracking at the Quad Cities Units which then, at that time, caused the NRC to reevaluate their process for their inspections. This is but one of the many costly repairs which are associated with the extension of an operating license.

(QCS-O-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant.

Safety matters related to aging are outside the scope of this review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is conducted separately. The comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental review. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the license renewal safety review for consideration.

Need for Power Comment: Both of the units are rated at 912 megawatts of electric, you know, to put that in more easy to understand terms that means that both units have the power to power 1.7 million homes. You know, think about that. 1.7 million homes. It is a powerful and significant source of electricity.

(QCS-C-1)

Comment: The first benefit is electricity. For three decades the plant has supplied the competitively priced, reliable and environmentally friendly source of power for our area.

(QCS-E-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The need for power is specifically directed to be outside the scope of license renewal in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2). The comments are interpreted as QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

expressing support for license renewal at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, however, they provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Cost of Power Comment: One, one advantage I think that is frequently overlooked within nuclear power is the issue of stable fuel prices. I want you to think about this is that both units at Quad Cities Station can run at a 100-percent power for two years without refueling. And so what that means is that the plant is not subject to short term supply disruptions.

(QCS-C-2)

Comment: As to the claim that nuclear power is cheap, the Department of Energy has recently released their budget projections for 2004. An anticipated $591 million alone is requested for Yucca Mountain. Of this, $438 million would come from taxpayers.

(QCS-O-8)

Response: The comments are noted. The economic costs and benefits of renewing an operating license are specifically directed to be outside the scope of license renewal in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2). The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Summary The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (called a SEIS) for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, will take into account all the relevant environmental issues raised during the scoping process that are described above. The draft SEIS will be made available for public comment. Interested Federal, State, and local government agencies, Native American organizations, local organizations, and members of the public will be given the opportunity to provide comments to be considered during the development of the final SEIS.

Concerns identified that are outside the scope of the staffs environmental review have been or will be forwarded to the appropriate NRC program manager for consideration.

QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Quad Cities Combined List cc:

Site Vice President - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Exelon Generation Company, LLC Office of Nuclear Facility Safety 22710 206th Avenue N. 1035 Outer Park Drive Cordova, IL 61242-9740 Springfield, IL 62704 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Plant Document Control Desk-Licensing Manager Exelon Generation Company, LLC Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road 22710 206th Avenue N. Warrenville, IL 60555 Cordova, IL 61242-9740 Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services Regulatory Assurance Manager - Quad Cities Exelon Generation Company, LLC Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road 22710 206th Avenue N. Warrenville, IL 60555 Cordova, IL 61242-9740 Vice President Quad Cities Resident Inspectors Office Mid-West Operations Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exelon Generation Company, LLC 22712 206th Avenue N. 4300 Winfield Road Cordova, IL 61242 Warrenville, IL 60555 William D. Leech Senior Vice President Manager - Nuclear Mid-West Regional Operating Group MidAmerican Energy Company Exelon Generation Company, LLC P.O. Box 657 4300 Winfield Road Des Moines, IA 50303 Warrenville, IL 60555 Vice President - Law and Regulatory Affairs Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory MidAmerican Energy Company Affairs One River Center Place Exelon Generation Company, LLC 106 E. Second Street 4300 Winfield Road P.O. Box 4350 Warrenville, IL 60555 Davenport, IA 52808 Director - Licensing Chairman Mid-West Regional Operating Group Rock Island County Board of Supervisors Exelon Generation Company, LLC 1504 3rd Avenue 4300 Winfield Road Rock Island County Office Bldg. Warrenville, IL 60555 Rock Island, IL 61201 Senior Counsel, Nuclear Regional Administrator Mid-West Regional Operating Group U.S. NRC, Region III Exelon Generation Company, LLC 801 Warrenville Road 4300 Winfield Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Warrenville, IL 60555 QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Manager Licensing - Dresden and Quad Cities Rob Lamb Exelon Generation Company, LLC 1830 Second Ave 4300 Winfield Road Suite 200 Warrenville, IL 60555 Rock Island, IL 61201 Mr. John L. Skolds, President Exelon Nuclear Patrick OConnor Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4231 North Damen 4300 Winfield Road Chicago, IL 60618 Warrenville, IL 60555 Leslie Perrigo William D. Maher 1825 West 40th License Renewal Environmental Lead Davenport, IA 52806 Exelon Nuclear 200 Exelon Way Kathryn M. Sutton Kennett Square, PA 19348 1400 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Frederick W. Polaski License Renewal Manager Don Swensson Exelon Nuclear 5301-11th Ave C 200 Exelon Way Moline, IL 61265 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Stuart Whitt Albert A. Fulvio 105 East Galena Exelon Nuclear Aurora, IL 60505 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 Alwyn Cecil Settles IDNS Ms. Lisa Ford, Director 1035 Outer Park Drive River Valley Library Springfield, IL 62704 214 South Main Street Port Byron, IL 61275 Chris Quebert 21624 River Road North Ms. Cathy Stone Cordova, IL 61242-9621 Reference Manager Davenport Public Library The Honorable Harold Frank, Chairperson 321 Main Street Forest County Potawatomi Tribal Community Davenport, IA 52801-1490 P.O. Box 340 Crandon, WI 54520 Ms. Sue Hebel, Director Cordova District Library The Honorable Zachariah Pahmahmie, 402 Main Avenue Chairman Post Office Box 247 Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribal Council Cordova, IL 61242-0247 16281 Q Road Mayette, KS 66439 Chief Leo Geerts Albany Fire Protection District P.O. Box 314 Albany, IL 61230 QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

The Honorable John A. Barrett, Jr., The Honorable Lawrence P. Murray Chairperson Chairperson Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 1901 South Gordon Cooper Drive Route 1, Box 721 Shawnee, OK 74801 Perkins, OK 74059 Ms. Jackie Kang, Executive Secretary The Honorable Danny Kaskaske Hannahville Indian Community Chairperson N14911 Hannahville B1 Road Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Wilson, MI 49896-9728 P.O. Box 70 McCloud, OK 74851 The Honorable Gil Holliday, Chairperson Huron Potawatomi, Inc., Michigan The Honorable Don Abney 2221 One-and-a-Half Mile Road Principal Chief Fulton, MI 49052 Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma Route 2, Box 246 The Honorable Alex Walker, Jr., Chairperson Stroud, OK 74079 Sac & Fox Nation of the Mississippi in Iowa 349 Meskawaki Road The Honorable John Miller, Chairperson Tama, IA 52339 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan and Indiana The Honorable Steve Cadue, Chairperson P.O. Box 180 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 58620 Sink Road Reservation in Kansas Dowagiac, MI 49047 P.O. Box 271 Horton, KS 66439 The Honorable Juan Garcan, Jr.

Provisional Chairperson The Honorable Lewis DeRoin, Chairperson Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska HC1, Box 9700 3345 Thrasher Road Eagle Pass, TX 78853 White Cloud, KS 66094 The Honorable David K. Sprague, Chairperson Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan P.O. Box 218 Dorr, MI 49323 The Honorable Sandra Keo Chairperson Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas

& Nebraska 305 North Main Street Reserve, KS 66434 QCNPS Units 1 & 2 July 2003

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML032030456&oldid=2651288"