ML070430252
| ML070430252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2007 |
| From: | Kevin Johnson Environmental Protection Agency |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 71FR70997 00003 | |
| Download: ML070430252 (2) | |
Text
VED Sr~4 R1S C UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 JAN 3 12007 5]o C__CC)Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop T-6D 59 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 To Whom It May Concern: RE: Wolf Creek Generation Station License Renewal, Coffey County, Kansas This letter responds to your November 30, 2006, correspondence regarding National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the proposed Wolf Creek'Generation Station License Renewal Project in Coffey County, Kansas. -Thank yot for including the EPA in your communications to identify the scope of thb environmentaal review for this project.Our main environmental and human health concerns with nuclear generating stations include safety, water quality, and spent fuel storage. The unintended release of tritium and strontium from plant operations and the impacts on groundwater is an emerging issue at some power plants, as well as the local impacts of transporting high-level waste (spent fuel) once a long-term repository is finalized.
We recommend that these issues be analyzed and discussed in the EIS.Impingement and entrainment at the intakes for the cooling system should also be addressed in the EIS. As you are probably aware, on January 26, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision remanding to EPA the 2004 Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Phase II rule, which regulates cooling water intake structures at existing power producing facilities, (Riverkeeper, Inc. v EPA , 2d Cir. Jan.25, 2007). Although this decision may modify the regulation, 316(b) will still apply to the Wolf Creek facility.We are also0int&erted in hoi'W the Nuclear RegulatoryommisSion will ddress issues and actions that may arise between'the license renewal date in 2009 and.2025'when the lenewedlicense becomes effective.
The useful 'life' of an EIS is considered to be 5 years; after that time period, additional analysis and documentation may be required.&~7~ ~A-t~ -~2 /3 c-~ /7/~&~- RECYCLE,11 For more information, see the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) website http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm and the "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" (http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30-40.HTM#32).
Thank you again for including us in your scoping efforts for this project. We look forward to meeting with you in the future and reviewing the environmental impact statement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or need any additional information, please call me at 913-551-7975.
Sincerely, Kimberly 0. Johnson, P.E.NEPA Reviewer