Letter Sequence Other |
---|
|
Initiation
- Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request
- Acceptance
|
MONTHYEARML0429405082004-10-20020 October 2004 Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Project stage: RAI ML0431302602004-11-0505 November 2004 Summary of Telephone Conference Conducted on 10/04/2004, with Constellation Energy Group to Discuss the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Requests for Additional Information (Rais) for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Project stage: RAI ML0500603732005-01-0505 January 2005 Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the Staff'S Review of the Application by Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Project stage: Approval ML0504903262005-02-16016 February 2005 Summary of Telephone Conference Conducted on January 7, 2005, with Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station to Discuss the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Responses to Requests for Additional Information (Rais) for Nine Mile Point Uni Project stage: RAI ML0609401232005-10-18018 October 2005 NOAA 2004c, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0609402112005-10-20020 October 2005 Rredc 2004b, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0609402072005-10-20020 October 2005 Rredc 2004a, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0534604422005-11-17017 November 2005 11/17/05 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting to Discuss Dseis for License Renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Thursday, November 17, 2005, Oswego, Ny Project stage: Meeting ML0534604362005-11-17017 November 2005 11/17/05 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting to Discuss Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2, Thursday, November 17, 2005, Oswego, Ny - After ML0534601142005-11-17017 November 2005 Preliminary Results of Environmental Review Nine Mile Point Power Station, Units 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 17, 2005 Project stage: Other ML0534301142005-11-25025 November 2005 Comments (1) of Nancy Herter on Relicensing for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Project stage: Request ML0603104722005-12-0808 December 2005 Comment (4) of Tom Gurdziel, on NUREG-1437, Supplement 24, Draft. Until Listed Comments Have Been Completely Addressed, Extension to the License of These Plants Are Not Appropriate Project stage: Request ML0603104742005-12-13013 December 2005 Comment (5) of Andrew L. Raddant on NUREG-1437, Suppl 24, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. Project stage: Other ML0536403042005-12-15015 December 2005 Comments (2) of James A. Spina on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 ML0535505072005-12-21021 December 2005 12/21/05 - Summary of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Review of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application (TAC Nos. MC3274 and M ML0606205912006-01-20020 January 2006 E-mail Sent by Ken Stoffle of Constellation to NRC Contractor David Miller Information Related to the Hydrology in the Nine Mile Point Area Project stage: Request ML0609401882006-01-27027 January 2006 NYSDEC Undated, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0609402022006-01-27027 January 2006 Rathje C 2000, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0609700892006-01-27027 January 2006 E-mail Sent by Kent Stoffle of Constellation to Leslie Fields of NRC Forwarding Documents Related to the Expiration Dates of Permits Issued by the State to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Project stage: Request ML0609401172006-04-0303 April 2006 NOAA 2004a, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS Project stage: Request ML0610906202006-04-19019 April 2006 NYSDEC 2003k, Website Reference Used in Chapter 2 NMP FSEIS, Round Whitefish Fact Sheet. Project stage: Request ML0611804852006-04-28028 April 2006 NRC 2006 a, Gen&Sis - Census 2000 Low Income Ej Nine Mile Point License Renewal Project stage: Other ML0611800322006-04-28028 April 2006 NRC 2006, Gen&Sis - Census 2000 Minorities Ej Nine Mile Point License Renewal Project stage: Other ML0613700882006-05-16016 May 2006 Letter - Notice of Availability of the Final Plant-Specific Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (Geis) Regarding Nine Mile Units 1 & 2 (TAC Nos. MC3274 and MC3275) Project stage: Other ML0613701132006-05-16016 May 2006 FRN - Notice of Availability of the Final Plant-Specific Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (Geis) Regarding Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2 (TAC Nos. MC3274 and MC3275) Project stage: Other ML0613702032006-05-16016 May 2006 Letter - Final Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Project stage: Other ML0612903102006-05-31031 May 2006 NUREG-1437, Supp 24, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Final Report Project stage: Acceptance Review 2005-12-21
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML17181A4132017-06-29029 June 2017 Comment (1) of Matthew Senn Regarding Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; License Amendment Application; Opportunity to Comment, Request a Hearing, and to Petition for Leave to Intervene ML0620104732006-06-30030 June 2006 Comment (1) of John Filippelli on Renewal License of Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2. NRC Should Address Listed Concerns Prior to Completion of the NEPA Process ML0601102232005-12-23023 December 2005 Comment (3) of John Filippelli on Behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2 ML0603104752005-12-19019 December 2005 Comment (6) of Linda J. Bond-Clark Re Second Session of Nrc'S Public Hearing in Scriba, Ny on Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal Plants ML0536403042005-12-15015 December 2005 Comments (2) of James A. Spina on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 ML0603104742005-12-13013 December 2005 Comment (5) of Andrew L. Raddant on NUREG-1437, Suppl 24, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. ML0603104722005-12-0808 December 2005 Comment (4) of Tom Gurdziel, on NUREG-1437, Supplement 24, Draft. Until Listed Comments Have Been Completely Addressed, Extension to the License of These Plants Are Not Appropriate ML0534301142005-11-25025 November 2005 Comments (1) of Nancy Herter on Relicensing for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 ML0500504552004-10-12012 October 2004 Comment (1) of William A. Barclay Supporting Renewal of the Operating Licenses of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 ML0428901602004-10-0404 October 2004 Comment (1) of Jim W. Wright Supporting Relicensing of Nine Mile Point I and II Nuclear Facilities ML0428002592004-10-0101 October 2004 Comment (7) from John B. Hosmer on Behalf of Constellation Generation Group, Llc., Regarding Proposed Generic Communications; Draft Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 9900, Technical Guidance, Operability Determination and Resolution 2017-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
TAKE PRIDEr INAMERICA, United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 408 Atlantic Avenue -Room 142 Boston, Massachusetts 02210-3334 lelele&k December 13, 2005 ER-05/0848 Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director 1 _ _ .0 .:___ __ T i (K?)License Renewal 4m Environmental Impacts Program Div. of Regulatory Improvement Programs m C.Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 n
Dear Mr. Kuo:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the "Generic Envirorimntal Impair Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-1437, SupplemenCs 24), dated September 2005, regarding the relicensing of Ninemile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested comments on the GEIS which evaluates potential impacts from the relicensing of the Ninemile Point Power Plants for an additional 20-year period.C) C.:L C)-1 This report of the Department is submitted for project planning purposes under the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) were previously submitted in a letter dated November 3, 2004. Additional comments may be provided pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) in the future, if applicable, as well as other legislation.
S Both Ninemile 1 and Ninemile 2 have the potential to entrain and impinge fish and other organisms.
For example, during the period of 1973 -1997, an average of approximately 700,000 fish were impinged annually at Ninemile 1. In 1997, an estimated 86.8 million ichthyoplankton were entrained at Ninemile 1 between April and August. We disagree that these impingement and entrainment losses can be characterized as "small", as concluded in the GEIS.We also disagree with the analysis presented in the GEIS that minimizes the significance of these losses by expressing them as a percentage of the total fish in Lake Ontario. The GEIS indicates that measures in place at Ninemile I provide mitigation for impacts related to entrainment and impingement, but the mitigative measures are not presented.
We recommend that the Final GEIS present the specific mitigative measures employed, with an analysis of how these measures serve to minimize and compensate for entrainment and impingement losses.The NRC has determined that entrainment and impingement impacts are "small" for all plants using closed cycle cooling systems (such as Ninemile 2) and do not require site-specific analyses szrX 5 f Pe)1 ~ ~ v ,e 9.bA- -9 f3/r A 7 : S 9=A- t 3 Qa 4&, ~ A 2 for purposes of license renewal. Ninemile 2 has an intake flow of about 77 million gallons per day (based on 53,600 gpm), compared to 418 million gallons per day at Ninemile 1. Although the volume of water is considerably less at Ninemile 2 than Ninemile 1, the water velocity at the intake of Ninemile 2 is 3 feet/second, compared with the 2 feet/second at Ninemile 1. This high water velocity at the intake may contribute to greater entrainment and impingement than may be anticipated with the flows at Ninemile 2. We recommend that data be collected to demonstrate actual entrainment and impingement losses at Ninemile 2, and that measures be taken to mitigate for impacts.The GEIS indicates in section 4.1.1. that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)published a final rule in 2004 addressing cooling water intake structures at existing power plants whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold of 50 million gallons per day (Phase II of EPA 316(b) regulations).
Therefore, Ninemile 2 may have to comply with these EPA guidelines to further reduce entrainment and impingement.
This point should be clarified in the Final GEIS.There is the potential for heated return water to adversely affect biota at the site of discharge.
Heat shock surveys from 1969 -1974 demonstrated that no aspect of the biotic community was impacted by the heated discharge of Unit 1. Due to changes in the biotic community in the past 30 years, we recommend that additional studies be performed in the vicinity of the heated discharge to support the preliminary conclusion of the GEIS that the potential impacts to fish and shellfish due to heat shock are "small".A filter boom, such as the Gunderboom System, may prevent fish larvae and eggs from entering the water intake pipes. Fish larvae, eggs, and debris are removed and released downstream of the boom with small bursts of air along the length of the filter. This system is currently being used at three other major power plants in New York and has been determined to be the Best Technology Available, where its use is feasible.
It is recommended that this type of technology be considered as a means to reduce fish entrainment and impingement.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page 2-22, Section 2.2.2 Water use, lines 13-22 It may be appropriate to do periodic water-quality analyses of the discharge from the dewatering activity to ensure that pumping of the groundwater does not draw contaminated water from the petroleum contaminant plume. This may not be necessary if the text included technical discussion as to the fate and transport of the petroleum contaminant plume. The discussion should include information about whether the cone of depression has reached equilibrium or is still expanding; and distance from the former vehicle maintenance area to the dewatering pumps.(Figure 2-4 on page 2-6 is too blurry to determine this information).
Page 2-23, Section 2.2.3 Water Quality, lines 30-32 This section describes the sources of water for Lake Ontario, but only describes surface water sources. As much as 42 percent of the water supply for the lake may be groundwater entering by direct and indirect pathways, which has implications for impacts of human activities on the quantity and quality of lake water. Information about the interaction of groundwater and surface water in the Great Lakes can be found on the internet at: http://mi.water.usgs.gov/splan8/spO8400/intlioint.php 3 The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GEIS. We hope these comments are useful during your project review. Please contact Anne L. Secord at the Service's New York Field Office, 607-753-9334, if there are any questions regarding this letter.Sincerely, Andrew L. Raddant is!Regional Environmental Officer