ML062790048
| ML062790048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/2006 |
| From: | Gillespie F NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| To: | Filippelli J Environmental Protection Agency |
| Franovich R, NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-1868 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML062790048 (10) | |
Text
October 6, 2006 Mr. John Filipelli Chief, Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866
SUBJECT:
FINAL SUPPLEMENT 24 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS REGARDING NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Mr. Filipelli:
This letter provides responses to your comments submitted June 30, 2006, on the final version of "Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding Nine Mile Point (NMP) Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2" (SEIS). We appreciate your thorough review of the final supplement and the responses to your comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Your continued interest in our assessments and suggestions for improvement are appreciated.
Although the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its environmental review for license renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, we believe that it is important to acknowledge your comments, incorporate improvements in our process where possible, and engage with your staff to improve communications on areas involving differing perspectives. Our responses to comments you provided on both the Draft and the Final SEISs related to the NMP license renewal are provided in the enclosure.
In accordance with 40 CFR 1500.4(i), the NRC developed a programmatic environmental impact statement for license renewal (the GEIS) to promote efficiency by eliminating repetitive discussions of issues that are common to all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. While the supplements are EISs in their own right, they are, in fact, tiered from the GEIS, NUREG-1437, which documents the NRC's extensive review of these common environmental issues. The GEIS also identifies those license renewal environmental issues that must be resolved on a site-specific basis.
The Commission clearly recognized that conditions may change over time or that new information may come to light that could bring into question the conclusions drawn for a generic issue. For those reasons, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) requires an applicant for license renewal to identify in the environmental report any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. And the public, including government agencies, is invited to provide such information to the NRC as we conduct our independent review. Any new information provided is carefully considered by the staff.
The NRC issued the Final GEIS for license renewal in 1996 after an exhaustive and extensive effort that involved Federal, State, Tribal and local governmental entities, public interest groups and the public. The NRC worked closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality to ensure that the GEIS approach is sound and satisfies our obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. In conjunction with the issuance of the GEIS, the NRC amended the environmental protection rules of 10 CFR Part 51, which codify the findings of the GEIS and establish the requirements for prospective applicants seeking license renewal. The GEIS is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff, and any updates to the GEIS will result in associated revisions to 10 CFR Part 51, as appropriate.
I believe that further dialogue on the issues that continue to be of concern to your staff would add significant value to our future reviews. I propose that my staff meet with you at your office to develop a mutual understanding of the issues and the roles and responsibilities of our respective organizations in accomplishing our distinct, but complimentary, missions. A member of my staff will be contacting you to set up a meeting. In the meantime, should you have any questions or wish to discuss items of particular interest to you, please contact Ms. Rani Franovich of my staff at (301) 415-1868.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Frank P. Gillespie, Director Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410 cc: See next page
The NRC issued the Final GEIS for license renewal in 1996 after an exhaustive and extensive effort that involved Federal, State, Tribal and local governmental entities, public interest groups and the public. The NRC worked closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality to ensure that the GEIS approach is sound and satisfies our obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. In conjunction with the issuance of the GEIS, the NRC amended the environmental protection rules of 10 CFR Part 51, which codify the findings of the GEIS and establish the requirements for prospective applicants seeking license renewal. The GEIS is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff, and any updates to the GEIS will result in associated revisions to 10 CFR Part 51, as appropriate.
I believe that further dialogue on the issues that continue to be of concern to your staff would add significant value to our future reviews. I propose that my staff meet with you at your office to develop a mutual understanding of the issues and the roles and responsibilities of our respective organizations in accomplishing our distinct, but complimentary, missions. A member of my staff will be contacting you to set up a meeting. In the meantime, should you have any questions or wish to discuss items of particular interest to you, please contact Ms. Rani Franovich of my staff at (301) 415-1868.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Frank P. Gillespie, Director Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410 cc: See next page Adams Accession No.:ML062790048 Document name: E:\\Filenet\\ML062790048.wpd OFFICE DLR:LA REBB:PM REBA: BC REBB:BC OGC DLR:D NAME Y. Edmond M.Masnik E. Benner R. Franovich NLO w/comments F. Gillespie DATE 10/03/06 09/29/06 10/04/06 10/03/06 10/05/06 10/06/06 OFFICIAL FILE COPY
Letter to J. Filipelli, dated October 6, 2006
SUBJECT:
FINAL SUPPLEMENT 24 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS REGARDING NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DISTRIBUTION:
F. Gillespie P. T. Kuo R. Franovich E. Benner S. Uttal, OGC B. McDowell, LLNL M. Schneider, Sr. Resident Inspector S. Kennedy, Resident Inspector K. Mangan, Resident Inspector N. Sheehan, Region I D. Screnci, Region I M. Masnik H. Nash S. Hernandez-Quinones R. Schaaf REBB/REBA R/F
Enclosure Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Comments Provided Regarding Final Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Entrainment and Impingement The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluates environmental impacts of the proposed action in accordance with NRCs regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are found in 10 CFR Part 51. That evaluation is based on the license renewal application and other available information, as verified by the NRC staff during its environmental review. The NRC staff developed standards for significance based on considerations of context and intensity as defined in Council on Environmental Qualitys regulations (40 CFR 1508.27). NRC staff describes impacts as small, moderate, or large, as defined in Footnote 4 to Table B-1 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.
While NRCs regulatory jurisdiction is limited to the characterization of impacts in accordance with NEPA, the EPAs regulatory authority regarding aquatic impacts at nuclear power plants is defined by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. For impacts related to impingement and entrainment, EPAs Section 316(b) Phase II regulations established national performance standards for intake structures. The performance standards (impingement reduction of 80 to 95 percent and entrainment reduction of 60 to 90 percent) are based on what is achievable by the best technology available. However, reduced impingement and entrainment resulting from the implementation of additional intake mitigation measures may not always result in population-level improvements.
Typically, licensees request renewal without proposing any modifications to their intake structure or operation. The staff assesses the impact of continued operation on the aquatic environment based on projecting current impacts into the period of extended operation. We do not assess impacts based on presumed compliance with national performance standards for intake structures that are not yet specified in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. We do acknowledge the authority of other agencies to impose requirements that may result in changes to impacts. However, we cannot speculate as to what the specific New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit requirements might be or what, if any, mitigation measures the licensee may propose to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, the staff analyzes aquatic impacts based on the information available.
With respect to license renewal of Nine Mile Point, we completed the analysis, characterized impacts relating to entrainment and impingement as small, and determined that, since the impacts were small, no further mitigation was warranted. We also stated that EPA has 316(b)
Phase II regulations that may result in additional SPDES requirements, such as mitigation or conversion to closed-cycle cooling, and that such activities would reduce the impact.
Biological Studies Your letter makes reference that our final SEIS states that conditions in the lake are currently similar to the late 1970s. While we cannot find such a claim in our final SEIS, it is possible that the thermal condition in the lake was the subject of the claim. While studies defining the thermal plume have not been repeated within the last 20 years, plant operating conditions have not changed significantly; therefore, the extent and distribution of the thermal plume would likely remain the same. The small areal extent of the thermal plume relative to the size of Lake Ontario, the lack of any reported fish kills due to heat shock, and the absence of any data indicating that the existence of sub-lethal effects on residual fish populations in the immediate vicinity of the station led the NRC staff to conclude that the impacts related to the thermal discharge would be small. Additionally, an impingement and entrainment study was conducted within the last ten years, and data from this study indicate that impacts on biota remain small although the lake-wide ecosystem has changed noticeably. With such a dynamic ecosystem as in Lake Ontario and the lack of recent lake-wide data, predicting impacts can be difficult; nevertheless, we have provided conservative estimates of impacts related to impingement and entrainment.
Lake Effects The greatest proportions of lake-wide stocks of the rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) that were lost due to impingement were 0.05 percent in 1985 and just under 0.02 percent in 1984, respectively. Such losses to populations of forage fish do not have ecosystem-wide effects. It is unlikely that current and future losses due to impingement would have any significant effects on lake-wide populations and biomass.
Similarly, the lack of observable impacts related to plant thermal discharges also make it highly unlikely that heat shock would have a more significant impact to lake-wide populations now than during the earlier studies.
With respect to your comment on temperature-sensitive species, the issue was analyzed quite extensively in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). Section 4.2.2.1.6 of the GEIS documents the conclusions, which were referenced in the Nine Mile Point SEIS. Specifically, the GEIS states, effects on geographic distribution of aquatic organisms could be reduced by changing to a closed-cycle cooling system or by reducing the plant's generation rate. However, because the effects on geographic distribution of aquatic organisms are considered to be impacts of small significance and because these changes would be costly, the staff does not consider the implementation of these potential mitigation measures to be warranted.
Waste Recycling and Pollution Prevention Environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are addressed in Section 6.1 of the SEIS; however, the SEIS does not explicitly discuss fuel reprocessing. On Page 6-3 of the SEIS, reference is made to Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51(b) titled, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data. Table S-3 presents environmental considerations and the data associated with their effects; effects from fuel reprocessing are included in Table S-3. As is explained in Footnote 1 of Table S-3, the NRC considered recycling in the basis for its rulemaking (see the Environmental Survey of Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1238).
Subsequent to the rulemaking, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.95-242 (22 USC 3201 et seq.), was enacted. This Act significantly affected the disposition of spent nuclear fuel by deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power program. While the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel was subsequently lifted, economic circumstances changed, reserves of uranium ore remained stable, and the stagnation of the nuclear power industry provided little incentive for industry to pursue reprocessing. During the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (119 Stat. 594 [2005]), was enacted. While it authorized U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a research and development program in advanced fuel recycling technology, it is limited to evaluating proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental or public health and safety impacts. Although Federal policy does not prohibit reprocessing, additional DOE efforts would be required before commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence.
Your comments regarding pollution prevention are appreciated and under consideration. We are in the process of updating the GEIS, which provides a timely opportunity to evaluate the potential to include discussion of applicants pollution prevention programs in our updated GEIS as well as future SEIS publications.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 126 Lycoming, NY 13093 Supervisor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382 Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. James R. Evans LIPA P.O. Box 129 Lycoming, NY 10393 Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Paul D. Eddy Electric Division NYS Department of Public Service Agency Building 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Mr. C. Adrienne Rhodes Chairman and Executive Director State Consumer Protection Board 5 Empire State Plaza, Suite 2101 Albany, NY 12223-1556 Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire Counsel Constellation Energy Group 750 East Pratt Street, 5th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Mr. Michael J. Wallace, President Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC c/o Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. Carey W. Fleming, Esquire Sr. Counsel - Nuclear Generation Constellation Generation Group, LLC 750 E. Pratt Street, 17th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. Peter R. Smith, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. James Ross Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I St., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. M. Steven Leonard General Supervisor - Nuclear Regulatory Matters Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Peter A. Mazzaferro Site Project Manager - License Renewal Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Mark Flaherty Manager - Fleet Licensing R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1503 Lake Rd.
Ontario, NY 14519 Mr. Mike Heffley Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Constellation Generation Group 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 500 Annapolis, MD 21401 The Honorable Stephen P. Lyman County Administrator 46 East Bridge Street Oswego, NY 13126 The Honorable Russ Johnson Chairman, Oswego County Legislature County Office Building 46 East Bridge Street Oswego, NY 13126 The Honorable John Gosek Mayor of Oswego City Hall 13 West Oneida Street Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Carla Logan 1005 Brandon Shores Road Baltimore, MD 21226 Ms. Jennifer Hill Chamber of Commerce 156 West Second Street Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Nancy Bennett Penfield Library State University of New York Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Thomas Dellwo 316 Maple Street Syracuse, NY 13210 Mr. Ian Smith 7205 State Route 104 Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Jean Chambers 149 East 7th Street Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Linda Bond-Clark 608 Sundown Road Fulton, NY 13069 Mr. Geroge Joyce P.O. Box 240 Sterling, NY 13156 Ms. Linda Clark 40 Hughes Road Mexico, NY 13114 Ron Maxwell 1207 County Route 1 Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Bill Leaf WSYR - Radio 500 Plum Street Syracuse, NY 13204 Mr. James Wellington 4221 County Route 4 Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Sue Collins 220 Bronson Road Syracuse, NY 13219 Ms. Katherine Hobbs 260 Roosevelt Avenue Syracuse, NY 13210
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Ms. Julia Hovey 1095 Legacy Lane Aiken, SC 29803 Ms. Yvonne Abernethy 6120 Woodside Executive Court Aiken, SC 29803 Mr. Kent Stoffle P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Greg DeCamp Constellation Energy Group 6120 Woodside Executive Court Aiken, SC 29803 Mr. Edwin Acevedo 18 Canal Landing Fulton, NY 13069 Ms. Jolene Des Rosiers 1030 James Street Syracuse, NY 13203 Mr. Steve Yablonski 26 Beech Drive Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Patricia Egan Oswego County EMO 200 North Second Street Fulton, NY 13069 Ms. Maureen Quinlan 1 South First Street Fulton, NY 13069 Mr. Reuel Todd Oswego County Sheriff 39 Churchill Road Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189 Peebles Island Waterford, NY 12138-0189 Mr. Michael Stoll Fish and Wildlife Biologist New York Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045 Mr. Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director Northeast Regional Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589 Ms. Grace Musumeci, Chief Environmental Review Section Division of Environmental Planning and Protection 290 Broadway 25th floor New York, NY 10007-1866 Anne L. Secord U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045 Michael J. Calaban New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife, & Marine Resources 625 Broadway - 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4756