ML051160187

Transmittal of 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report

ML051160187
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	04/19/2005
From:	Leonard M Constellation Energy Group
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NMP2L 2122
Download: ML051160187 (5)

Text

Constellation Energy P.O. Box 63 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Lycoming, NY 13093 April 19, 2005 NMP2L 2122 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410; NPF-69 Transmittal of 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

In accordance with Appendix B of the Operating License (Environmental Protection Plan) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2, enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.

In the event you have any questions concerning the report, please contact Kent Stoffle, Principal Engineer, Environmental, at (315) 349-1364.

Very truly yours, M. Steven Leonard General Supervisor, Licensing MSL/KES/sac Enclosure xc: Mr. S. J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. G. K. Hunegs, Senior Resident Inspector Mr. P. S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, NRR (2 copies)

Page 2 NMP2L 2122 bec: D. Tomlinson (CEG Chief Counsel, Environmental)

L. Liden (CGG Environmental Services)

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004 for NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 Facility Operating License NPF-69 Docket Number 50-4 10

ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Subsection 5.4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), as contained in Appendix B of the Operating License for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2, requires that an Annual Environmental Operating Report be submitted to the Commission prior to May 1 of each year.

The following addresses the requirements found in Subsection 5.4.1 of the EPP for the submittal of the Annual Environmental Operating Report:

1. Providesummaries and analyses of the results of the envirohmentalprotectionactivities requiredby Subsection 4.2 (if any) of the EPPforthe reportperiod, including a comparison with relatedpreoperationalstudies, operationalcontrols (as appropriate),

andprevious non-radiologicalenvironmentalmonitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment. If harmfil effects or evidence of trends toward irreversibledamage to the environment are observed, a detailed analysis of the data and a proposedcourse of mitigating action shall be provided.

Subsection 4.2 of the EPP denotes three areas of environmental monitoring:

• Subsection 4.2.1 (Aquatic Monitoring) has no specific monitoring requirements although it is noted that the Commission will rely on the decisions made by the State of New York under the authority of the Clean Water Act for any requirements. Aquatic monitoring is specified in the station's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (SPDES Permit) which is a site permit applicable to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 and Unit 2. The SPDES Permit requires a limited Aquatic Monitoring Program (referred to in the permit as a Biological Monitoring Program) which, at the present time, is only applicable to Unit 1. Therefore, no Aquatic Monitoring Program is presently required for Unit 2.

• Subsection 4.2.2 (Terrestrial Monitoring) does not contain any monitoring requirements.

• Subsection 4.2.3 (Noise Monitoring) does not contain any monitoring requirements.

2. Providea list of EPPnon-compliancesand corrective actions.

A review of the EPP requirements and plant records showed that there was one non-compliance with the EPP requirements during 2004.

The status of the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit renewal approval was submitted later than 30 days as specified in the EPP. The deficiency has been placed into the facility's corrective action program.

Page 1 of 2

3. Provide a list of all changes in station design or operation,tests, and experiments made in accordancewith EPPSubsection 3.1 vwhich involved a potentiallysignificant unreviewed environmental question (non-radiological).

A review of plant records showed that there were no changes during 2004 in station design/operation, tests, or experiments that involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental question (non-radiological).

4. List all nonroutinereports submitted during 2004 in accordancewith Subsection 5.4.2 of the EPP.

During 2004, there were no nonroutine reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2 of the EPP.

Page 2 of 2