ML070800451

Email from Mullins to Monette Regarding SSES Draft Appendices

ML070800451
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	03/19/2007
From:	Alicia Mullins NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB
To:	Monette F Argonne National Lab (ANL)
References
TAC MD3021, TAC MD3022
Download: ML070800451 (35)

Text

• Alicia Mullins - SSES Draft A-Dendices Paae 1 II From: Alicia Mullins To: Frederick A. Monette Date: 03/19/2007 4:11:48 PM

Subject:

SSES Draft Appendices Fred, Attached are the SSES Draft Appendices A through E. If you have any questions contact me.

Thanks CC: axm7; Halil I. Avci; Jennifer Davis; Kirk E. LaGory

I -- -- -

Ic:\temp\G\W}UUU1 .IMP Page 1 U Mail Envelope Properties (45FEEE83.3E0:14:10060)

Subject:

SSES Draft Appendices Creation Date 03/19/2007 4:11:47 PM From: Alicia Mullins Created By: AXM7@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time

,anl.gov Transferred 03/19/2007 4:12:09 PM avci CC (Halil I. Avci) fmonette (Frederick A. Monette) lagory CC (Kirk E. LaGory) nrc.gov OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 Delivered 03/19/2007 4:11:55 PM JXD10 CC (Jennifer Davis) Opened 03/19/2007 4:32:24 PM nrc.gov TWGWPOO1 .HQGWDOO1 Delivered 03/19/2007 4:11:48 PM AXM7 CC (Alicia Mullins) Opened 03/19/2007 4:44:26 PM Post Office Delivered Route anl.gov OWGWP003.HQGWDOO1 03/19/2007 4:11:55 PM nrc.gov TWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01 03/19/2007 4:11:48 PM nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 533 03/19/2007 4:11:47 PM AppxE.doc 106537 03/19/2007 9:56:06 AM AppxA.doc 126348 03/19/2007 8:06:34 AM AppxB.doc 49861 03/19/2007 12:04:14 PM AppxC.doc 43676 03/19/2007 1:53:52 PM AppxD.doc 21974 03/16/2007 2:26:16 PM Options Auto Delete: No Expiration Date: None Notify Recipients: Yes

c:\temo\GWIOO001 .MP Pame L I 7T -- - ___________________________________________________

Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard To Be Delivered: Immediate Status Tracking: Delivered & Opened

Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review I Part I - Comments Received During Scoping 2

3 On November 2, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of 4 Intent in the Federal Register 71 FR 64566, to notify the public of the staff's intent to prepare a 5 plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 6 of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal application 7 for the SSES operating licenses and to conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the 8 GElS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

9 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, 10 the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The 11 NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American 12 tribal organizations; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by 13 providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written 14 suggestions and comments no later than January 2, 2007.

15 16 The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Eagles 17 Building in Berwick, Pennsylvania onNovember 15, 2006. Approximately 28 members of the 18 public attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief 19 overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC's prepared 20 statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Two attendees provided oral 21 statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter and written 22 statements that were appended to the transcript. The afternoon and evening meeting 23 transcripts are available from NRC's AgencyWide Documents Access Management System 24 (ADAMS) under Accession Numbers ML063330279 and ML063330281 respectively.

25 26 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor(s) reviewed the tran-27 scripts and all written material to identify specific comments and issues. Each set of comments 28 from a given commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID), so that each set of 29 comments from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which the 30 comments were submitted. Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each 31 comment set. All of the comments received and the staff responses are included in the SSES 32 Scoping Summary Report dated April 2007.

33 34 Table A.1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental 35 review and the Commenter ID associated with each person's set(s) of comments. The 36 individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting, and in alphabetical January 2008 A-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A 1 order for the comments received by letter or e-mail. To maintain consistency with the Scoping 2 Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is retained 3 in this appendix.

4 5 Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific 6 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters.

7 The comments fall into one of the following general groups:

8 9 Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the 10 NRC environmental regulations related to license, renewal. These comments 11 address Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the 12 GELS. They also address alternatives and related Federal actions.

13 14 General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license 15 renewal or (2) on the renewal process, the NRC's regulations, and the regulatory 16 process. These comments may or may not be specifically related to the SSES 17 license renewal application.

18 19

• Questions that do not provide new information.

20 21 9 Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically 22 excluded from the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license 23 renewal. These comments typically address issues such as the need for power, 24 emergency preparedness, security, current operational safety issues, and safety 25 issues related to operation during the renewal period.

26 27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-2 January 2008

Appendix A Table A.1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Comment Source and Comment Adams Accession ID(a) Issue Category Number (b)

Sue Fracke, Sugarloaf, PA (Commenter 1) 1 MC-1-1, 2. General Radiological Health Effects Evening Scoping Meeting D-1-1 2 MC-1-2, 4. Alternatives Evening Scoping Meeting.

D-1-2 4 MC-1-4, 5. High-Level Radioactive Waste Evening Scoping Meeting D-1-4 Eric Epstein, TMI-Alert (Commenter 2) 5 MC-2-1 4. Alternatives Evening Scoping Meeting 7 MC-2-3 1. License Renewal Process Evening Scoping Meeting 13 MC-2-9 3. Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Evening Scoping Meeting 14 MC-2-10 1. License Renewal Process Evening Scoping Meeting 17 D-2-1 1. License Renewal Process Evening Scoping Meeting 19 D-2-3 5. High-Level Radioactive Waste Evening Scoping Meeting 24 D-2-8 3. Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Evening Scoping Meeting 26 D-2-10 1. License Renewal Process Evening Scoping Meeting (a) The comment ID is defined as illustrated: MC-1 -1 = Meeting Comment (MC), Commenter 1 (1),

Comment 1 (1); D-1-1 = Document (D), Commenter 1 (1), Comment 1 (1).

(b) The accession number for the afternoon transcript is ML063330279. The accession number for the evening transcript is ML063330281. The accession number for the attachments to the evening transcript is ML070380454.

January 2008 A-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A I

2 Comments applicable to this environmental review and the staff's responses are summarized in 3 this appendix. The alphanumeric designator in parentheses after each comment is the 4 Comment ID (from Table 1). More than one comment number after a comment indicates that 5 the same comment was made both orally and in a document submitted at the meeting. This 6 information, which was extracted from the SSES Scoping Summary Report, is provided for the 7 convenience of those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental 8 review. The comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for 9 SSES are not included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicable 10 comments can be found in the summary report. The ADAMS accession number for the 11 Scoping Summary Report is MLxxxxxxx.

12 13 This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document through the Public 14 Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

15 16 Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

17 '(Insert any corrections by OGC) 0* Comments Regarding the License Renewal Process 20 1. License Renewal Process 21 2. Radiological Health Effects 22 3. Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use 23 4. Alternatives 24 5. High-Level Radioactive Waste 25 26 27 1. Comments Regarding the License Renewal Process 28 29 Comment: And finally, we don't really have a lot of confidence in this process. As an 30 organization we were founded in '77. We have been to the Supreme Court twice. We have 31 litigated before the NRC almost nonstop for 30 years in just about every other venue. And as I 32 told some of the NRC employees before, we have no confidence in the Commission or the 33 adjudicatory process. I think the last three relicensing the first three were licensing contentions 34 that were admitted. So that we will participate and we will be involved to the end. But I'm 35 letting you know from the outset really since the implementation of the reactor oversight 36 process we've seen a precipitous decline in the NRC's relationship with the communities, 37 reactor communities. It's a shame. Because we worked hard at Peach Bottom and TMI.

38 Against Susquehanna not as much. (MC-2-10) 39 40 Comment: NRC's industry-driven relicensing process limits public involvement, and disallows 41 debate over factors involving a plant's safety and security record.

42 43 PPL is applying for the license renewal so early due to the rubber-stamp approach by the Bush 44 administration's NRC. PPL wants to secure an extension to preempt public challenges over 45 additional safety problems, which tend to increase as plant's age. (D-2-1 0) 46 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-4 January 2008

Appendix A I Comment: I really oppose the license extensions for a couple of reasons. Number one is we 2 think it's premature. There's 17 years left on this license. You know, this is a very strange 3 scenario where a license has that much time and you're going to relicense it before some of the 4 aging and safety issues manifest, which happens in an industrial application. That's reality.

5 6 Just look at Three Mile Island which obviously came on line ten years earlier. We replaced the 7 reactor vessel head there two years ago and we're going to change out the steam generators.

8 So there are industrial applications that are going to age that we're not going to evaluate, and I 9 think that's a shame. I think we should wait until we get closer to the end of its initial life span.

10 II (Page 22, Lines 9-4) Obviously, and I've raised this before, I think there's age related 12 problems. I would really hope that Susquehanna PPL would think about postponing their 13 relicensing until the plant is closer to the end of its initial useful period. I mean 17 years in my 14 mind makes no sense and it's premature. (MC-2-3) 15 16 Comment: Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA) announced its decision to oppose PPL's 17 premature request to relicense the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) to operate for 18 20 more years.

19 TMI-Alert believes PPL's application is premature. "It would be irresponsible for federal 20 regulators to begin a relicensing process 17 years before the original license expires. PPL 21 wants to secure an extension to preempt public challenges over additional safety problems, 22 which tend to increase as plants age." (D-2-1) 23 24 Response: These comments concern the license renewal process in general. The purpose of 25 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's environmental review is to carefully 26 consider the environmental consequences of renewing an operating license. Additionally, the 27 NRC has a safety review that focuses on managing the aging of structures, systems, and 28 components during the renewal term.

29 30 The NRC's environmental review process provides many avenues for public participation. As 31 part of the scoping process, the NRC staff held two public meetings seeking comments on the 32 scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on November 15, 2006. Additionally, 33 comments regarding the environmental review and preparationof the draft EIS can be sent by 34 e-mail to SusquehannaEIS@nrc.gov, by phone to the Environmental Project Manager,Alicia 35 Mullins, at 301-415-1224, or by mail to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of 36 Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 37 Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-000 1. Also, two public'meetings will be held regarding 38 the Draft EIS where members of the public can submit comments on the draft EIS and the 39 environmental review process.

40 41 The Commission has establishedrules for the environmental and safety reviews to be 42 conducted regardinga license renewal application. Section 54.17(c) of Title 10 of the Code of 43 FederalRegulations (10 CFR 54.17(c)) allows licensees to submit license renewal applications 44 up to 20 years before the expiration of the current license. Applications for license renewal are 45 submitted years in advance for several reasons. If a utility decides to replace a nuclearpower January 2008 A-5 J Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A I plant, it could take up to 10 years to design and construct new generatingcapacity to replace 2 that nuclearpower plant if license renewal is not granted.In addition, decisions to replace or 3 recondition major components can involve significant capitalinvestment. As such, these 4 decisions may involve financialplanning many years in advance of the extended period of 5 operation. The comment provides no new and significantinformation; therefore the comment 6 was not evaluated further.

7 8 2. Comments Concerning General Radiological Health Effects 9

10 Comment: Every year 20,000 people die of cancer from naturally occurring background II radiation. You would think that this fact alone would be enough to say let us not produce 12 anymore radiation as it will kill more people. With all our other means of making energy, 13 especially all the various kinds of solar energy that we now have the technology to do, it makes 14 no sense to me to use a source of energy that is dangerous and will cause more people to die 15 of cancer and other degenerative diseases.

16 17 In the Federal Register December 15, 1982 Part 2 by the Environmental Protection Agency, 18 40 CFR Part 61 on national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides final 19 rule and notice of reconsideration stated "On December 27, 1979 the EPA listed radionuclides 20 as a hazardous air pollutant. EPA determined that radionuclides are a known cause of cancer 21 and genetic damage and that radionuclides cause or contribute to air pollution that may 22 reasonably be incapacitating and anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase 23 in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness and therefore, constitute a hazardous 24 air pollutant within the meaning of section 11 2(a)(1). There are three major types of long term 25 health impacts from exposure to radiation. Cancer, hereditary effects and developmental 26 effects on fetus such as mental retardation. In addition, risk distribution from radiation from 27 most of the sources considered for regulation show that fatal cancers occur much more 28 frequently than nonfatal cancers and cancers generally occur more often than genetic or 29 developmental effects." It also states that "numerous studies have demonstrated that radiation 30 is a carcinogen. It has assumed that there is no completely risk-free level of exposure to 31 radiation to cause cancer." Radiation corrodes metals such as in the pipes of nuclear power 32 plants causing holes that constantly emit radiation in our air under the routine operation of the 33 plants. Radiation is cumulative in our bodies and the effects of exposure can sometimes take 34 many years before showing up. And we were worried that Saddam Hussein had weapons of 35 mass destruction.

36 37 Along with radioactive air pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 2002 38 24,379 U.S. non-nuclear facilities released 4.79 billion pounds toxins into the atmosphere. Of 39 these pollutants, 72 million pounds were known carcinogens. We have no concept of the 40 synergistic effects of these toxins when they are mixed with radioactive pollutants. These toxins 41 impinge on health during your entire life, even before birth. A study in New York City shows 42 that the genetic material in fetuses still in their mother's womb is damaged by air pollution.

43 44 From the Radiation and Public Health Project in Norristown, Pennsylvania they have found that 45 current rates of infant deaths, childhood cancer and thyroid cancer all known to be effected by 46 emissions in nuclear reactors are elevated in Luzerne County, the site of the Susquehanna Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-6 January 2008

Appendix A 1 Nuclear Plant.

2

.3 These findings and other data on local disease rates should be part of the federal decision on 4 whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should approve the application of PPL 5 Susquehanna LLC to operate the plant until 2044. The current license only allows operations 6 until 2024. This information was presented at a federal hearing today in Berwick on the 7 application.

8

.9 "These high disease rates should shock all Luzerne County residents and they should demand 10 a thorough study of the health risk posed by the Susquehanna plant," said Joseph Mangano, 11 MPH MBA of the Radiation and Public Health Project who presented the data. "If radioactive 12 emissions from the plant have been harmful, people should know this before the government 13 decides whether or not to extend the license."

14 15 The 2000-2004 [2003] county rate of white infants who died in their first month was 23 percent 16 above the U.S. rate based on 55 deaths. In that same period 43 Luzerne children under age 15 17 were diagnosed with cancer, a rate 38 percent above the nation. Data are taken from the 18 National Center for Health Statistics and the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry. (3) (4) 19 Thyroid cancer statistics may be most alarming. In the late 1980s as the two reactors at 20 Susquehanna were starting the Luzerne rate was 20 percent below the United States. However, 21 in 2000 to 2003 the Luzerne rate was a 100 percent above, double the nation. Radioactive 22 iodine found only in nuclear weapons and reactors seeks the thyroid gland where it kills and 23 impairs cells leading to cancer. (5) 24 25 Two large nuclear reactors have operated at Susquehanna beginning in 1982 and 1984 26 respectively. Virtually all of the 312,000 residents of Luzerne County live within 15 miles of the 27 plant and would be most likely to receive the greatest radiation exposures. Like all reactors, 28 Susquehanna routinely emits gases and particles into the air and water which enters human 29 bodies by breathing and the food chain. There are over 100 radioactive chemicals in this mix, 30 each causes cancer and is especially harmful to fetuses, infants and children.

31 32 INFORMATION ON SUSQUEHANNA NUCLEAR PLANT AND LOCAL HEALTH (submitted by 33 commenter, 11/15/06) 34 35 1. Susquehanna reactors 1/2 went critical (began producing radioactivity) on September 10, 36 1982 and May 8, 1984, respectively. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

37 www.nrc.gov.

38 39 2. From January 1, 1999 to September 30, 2006, Susquehanna 1 / 2 operated 91.8% and 40 93.0% of the time, an all time high. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 41 www.nrc.gov. Reactors operated 62345 and 63193 hours out of a maximum 67919.

42 43 3. From 2000-2003, 55 Luzerne county whites under 28 days old died out of 11601 live births, 44 a rate of 4.74 per 1000. This rate was 23% greater than the U.S. rate of 3.84. Source:

45 National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.qov, underlying cause of death.

January 2008 A-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A I

2 4. From 2000-2003, 43 Luzerne county children under age fifteen were diagnosed with cancer.

3 Based on an annual average population of 52,567, the cancer incidence rate was 20.45 per 4 100,000, which was 38% greater than the U.S. average of 14.78. Sources: PA Cancer Registry 5 (www.state.pa.us) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://wonder.cdc.gov, National 6 Association of Cancer Registries - represents 39 states).

7 8 5. From 1985-1988 the Luzerne county thyroid cancer incidence rate was 3.54 per 100,000, 9 based on 86 cases, or 20% below the U.S. rate of 4.40. From 2000-2003, the county rate was 10 16.41, based on 229 cases or 100% above the U.S. rate of 8.20. Sources: PA Cancer registry 11 (www.state.pa.us) and Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (www.seer.cancer.gov),

12 representing 9 states and cities. (MC-1 -1, D-1 -1) 13 14 Response: The NRC's primary mission is to protect the public health and safety and the 15 environment from the effects of radiationfrom nuclearreactors, materials,and waste facilities.

16 The NRC's regulatorylimits for radiologicalprotection are set to protect workers and the public 17 from the harmful health effects of radiationon humans and can be found in 10 CFR Part20 18 (Standardsfor ProtectionAgainst Radiation). The limits are based on the recommendations of 19 standards-settingorganizations. Radiation standardsreflect extensive scientific study by 20 nationaland internationalorganizations(InternationalCommission on RadiologicalProtection 21 [ICRP], National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [NCRP], United Nations 22 Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR], and the National 23 Academy of Sciences [NAS]) and are conservative to ensure that the public and workers at 24 nuclearpower plants are protected.

25 26 Health effects from exposure to radiationare dose-dependent. At low doses, radiationcan be 27 responsible for inducing cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer,and lung cancer. At very 28 high doses (severalhundred rem or higher) and dose rates, radiationhas been known to cause 29 prompt (or early, also called "acute")effects, such as vomiting and diarrhea,skin bums, 30 cataracts,and even death.

31 32 Currently, there are no scientifically conclusive data that unequivocally establish the occurrence 33 of cancer following exposure to low doses, below about 0. 1 Sv (10 rem). However, radiation 34 protection experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiationmay pose some risk of 35 causing cancerand that the risk is higher for higher radiationexposures. Therefore, a linear, 36 no-threshold dose response relationshipis used to describe the relationshipbetween radiation 37 dose and cancerinduction. Simply stated,any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in 38 an incremental increase in health risk. The NRC accepts this theory as a conservative model 39 for estimating health risks from radiationexposure and recognizes that the model probably 40 overestimates those risks. On the basis of this theory, the NRC conservatively establishes 41 limits for radioactiveeffluents and radiationexposures for workers and members of the public, 42 as found in 10 CFR Part20.

43 44 The amount of radioactivematerial released from the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 45 Units 1 and 2 (SSES) is well measured, well monitored, and known to be very small. The total 46 whole body dose from both ingested radionuclidesdue to liquid and gaseous releases and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-8 January 2008

Appendix A I direct radiation from SSES is negligible compared with the public's exposure from natural 2 background radiation, medical irradiation,and radiation from consumer products of more than 3 300 millirem per year. The annualradioactive offsite doses, since operationalin 1982, from 4 SSES have always been well below the limits as bounded by 10 CFR Part20. These doses 5 are so low that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not be expected.

6 7 Although a number of studies of cancerincidence in the vicinity of nuclearpower facilities have 8 been conducted, there are no studies to date that are accepted by the scientific community that 9 show a correlationbetween radiationdose from nuclearpower facilities and cancer incidence in 10 the generalpublic. Specific studies that have been conducted include:

11 12 In 1990, at the request of Congress, the NationalCancer Institute conducted a study of 13 cancermortality rates around 52 nuclearpower plants and 10 other nuclear facilities.

14 The study covered the period from 1950 to 1984 and evaluated the change in mortality 15 rates before and during facility operations. The study concluded that there was no 16 evidence that nuclearfacilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia 17 or from other cancers in populations living nearby.

18 19 In June 2000, investigators from the University of Pittsburgh found no link between 20 radiationreleased during the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island power plant and 21 cancerdeaths among nearby residents. Their study followed 32,000 people who lived 22 within 5 mi of the plant at the time of the accident.

23 24

• In January2001, the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering issued a report 25 on a study around the Haddam Neck nuclearpower plant in Connecticut and concluded 26 that radiation emissions were so low as to be negligible.

27 28 The American Cancer Society in 2001 concluded that although reports about cancer 29 clusters in some communities have raisedpublic concern, studies show that clusters do 30 not occur more often near nuclearplants than they do by chance elsewhere in the 31 population. Likewise, there is no evidence that links strontium-90 with increases in 32 breast cancer,prostate cancer, or childhood cancer rates. Radiation emissions from 33 nuclearpower plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for 34 nearby communities.

35 36 Also in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims that 37 there are striking increases in cancer rates in southeasternFlorida counties caused by 38 increasedradiationexposures from nuclearpower plants. However, using the same 39 data to reconstruct the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials 40 were not able to identify unusually high rates of cancers in these counties compared 41 with the rest of the state of Florida and the nation.

42 43

• In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department compared childhood cancer statistics for 44 counties with nuclearpower plants to similarcounties without nuclearplants and found 45 no statisticallysignificant difference.

January 2008 A-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A 1

2 Radiation exposure to the public during the license renewal term is a Category 1 issue that was 3 evaluated in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 4 Plants, NUREG- 1437 (GELS). As part of its search for new and significant information, the NRC 5 staff will review recent results from the licensee's effluent and environmental radiological 6 monitoring programs and perform a comprehensive evaluation. These programs and the 7 impacts from SSES radiologicaleffluents will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the 8 Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement (SEIS). The staff also will considerplanned 9 changes in the status of SSES, including the planned power uprate, in the preparationof the 10 SEIS. The comments provide no new and significant informationand, therefore, they will not 11 be evaluated further.

12 13 3. Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use 14 15 Comment: Water supplies. I did talk to a gentleman from PPL. In the interest of open 16 disclosure, we met with the Susquehanna River Basis Commission in Pennsylvania and 17 especially the DEP is going through a statewide exercise in water use management. So a lot of 18 what we do tonight may be moot in terms of FERC and also the Susquehanna River Basin 19 Commission may rule. Again, in terms of open disclosure I've already stated to the Basin 20 Commission we're going to oppose the license extension until in our view you view water as a 21 commodity. It doesn't just evaporate. It comes from somewhere.

22 23 Everyday about 30 million gallons are taken from the river and not returned. That's even during 24 a drought. That's not being a good neighbor. You know, when we're being asked to conserve 25 water and the plant keeps churning the water, there has to be a balance. We're not saying you 26 can't use the water, but you have to moderate your use and pay your fair share. So I think 27 that's an issue that may not even be relevant to this particular venue, but an issue we will raise.

28 (MC-2-9) 29 30 Comment: The magnitude of the amount of water used at a nuclear power plant is readily 31 evidenced at the SSES every day. The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station loses 14.93 32 million gallons of water per unit daily as vapor out of the cooling tower stack. Eleven million 33 gallons per day are returned to the river as cooling-tower basin blow down. On average, 29.86 34 million gallons per day are taken from the river and not returned; even during periods of 35 drought! (PPL, Pennsylvania Environmental Permit Report) (D-2-8) 36 37 Response: The consumptive use of water by SSES is regulatedthrough the Susquehanna 38 River Basin Commission (SRBC), which manages water usage along the entire length of the 39 river. The currentpermit grantedto SSES is for consumptive usage of up to 40 million gal/day 40 (Permit # 19950301 EPUL-0578). SSES has submitted an application to the SRBC to increase 41 the amount of consumptive water usage to 44 million gal/day. The SRBC is reviewing the 42 applicationand will make a decision independent of the NRC with regard to the modification of 43 the current SSES permit to reflect the increasedconsumptive water usage. SSES is required to 44 adhere to the water usage limits set by the permit and to any mitigative measures set by the 45 SRBC for continued operation of the facility.

46 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-10 January 2008

Appendix A 1 4. Comments Concerning Alternatives 2

3 Comment: California closed down the Diablo County Nuclear Plant many years ago. Through 4 conservation solar and other forms of energy they created over 800 new jobs and lowered their 5 rates. Nuclear power is only 19 percent of our energy in the United States. Through 6 conservation and solar we could close down all the nuclear power plants in our country and 7 save thousands of lives. I know those little candlelights look cute at night in your windows. But 8 they aren't really necessary. Turning them off may help save someone's life, maybe your 9 child's.

10 11 Anyway who wants nuclear power plants, and our President wants 55 more in this country, 12 should be considered a terrorist. (MC-1 -2, D-1 -2) 13 14 Response: Decisionsregardingenergy policy and energy planning, including whether to 15 implement energy options like solarpower, conservation, or even nuclearpower, are also made 16 by the utility, State and Federal (non-NRC) decisionmakers. These decisions are based on 17 economics, energy reliabilitygoals, and other objectives over which the other entities may have 18 jurisdiction. The NRC does not have the authorityto make these decisions. During license 19 renewal, the NRC does, however, conduct an environmental review that compares the potential 20 environmental impacts of a nuclearplant during the period of extended operation with the 21 environmental impacts of energy alternativesas part of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act 22 (NEPA) process. The alternativesanalysis may include considerationof conservation or solar 23 power when reasonable,often in combination with other alternatives. In addition to an 24 environmental review, NRC staff also evaluate nuclearplant safety and aging management in 25 the course of license renewal. If the NRC decides to renew a plant's license, the decision of 26 whether to operate the nuclearpower plant or an alternativeis left up to the appropriateState, 27 utility, and/or Federalentities.

28 29 The NRC staff notes that Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 are currently still in operation, as are 30 San Onofre Units 2 and 3. In California, the Santa Susana SRE (Sodium Reactor 31 Experimental), Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant, Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Rancho 32 Seco Nuclear Power Plant, and San Onofre Unit 1 are no longer operating.

33 34 Comment: I'm saying that because Pennsylvania is primarily a coal and nuclear state. And I 35 think we made a mistake before when we became so dependent on two sources of energy. So 36 my plea is that we rationally evaluate relicensing and then think how we're going to meet future 37 energy demand as we move forward. (MC-2-1) 38 39 Response: Decisionsabout energy policy and energy planning, including choosing an energy 40 generation mix (sometimes referred to as a generation "portfolio'),fall under the authorityof the 41 utility, and State and Federal(non-NRC) decisionmakers. These entities may also decide 42 which energy generation options to implement in order to meet future energy demand. The 43 NRC does not have the authority orjurisdiction in energy policy and planning, or in deciding 44 whether to implement particularenergy generation options. The NRC makes its decision 45 whether or not to renew a license based on safety and environmental considerations. The final January 2008 A-1 1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Appendix A 1 decision on whether or not to continue operatingthe nuclearplant will be made by the utility, 2 State and Federal(non-NRC) decisionmakers.

3 4 5. Comments Concerning High-Level Radioactive Waste 5

6 Comment: Does everyone realize that our new plants are also becoming high level waste 7 sites? Everyone's life is at stake here. Do what's right. Shut them down. (MC-1 -4, D-1 -4) 8 9 Comment: The Susquehanna nuclear power plant produces approximately 30 metric tons of 10 high-level radioactive waste per year per reactor. The nuclear garbage has no forwarding I address. In reality, the SSES is a de facto high-level radioactive waste site on the 12 Susquehanna River. There is no solution in sight for disposal of highly radioactive "spent" fuel 13 rods, although the National Academy of Sciences and other technical experts argue that 14 moving all radioactive waste into hardened, dry storage would reduce the risks associated with 15 current high-density cooling ponds at each plant. Susquehanna is one of 21 nuclear power 16 plants where used reactor fuel pools have reached capacity. (D-2-3) 17 18 Response: The comments relate to Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management 19 issues. The environmentalimpacts of the uranium fuel cycle, including the onsite storage and 20 disposal of spent nuclear fuel, will be addressedin Chapter6 of the SEIS.

21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 A-12 January 2008

Appendix B Contributors to the Supplement

Appendix B Appendix B Contributors to the Supplement 1 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of 2 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The statement was 3 prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other 4 NRC organizations, the Argonne National Laboratory, and the Information Systems Laboratory.

5 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Alicia Mullins Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Backup Project Manager; Cultural Resources Dennis Beissel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology Jeffrey Rikhoff Nuclear Reactor Regulation Socioeconomics; Land Use; Environmental Justice Nathan Goodman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic Ecology Evan Keto Nuclear Reactor Regulation Terrestrial Ecology Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Scott Werts Nuclear Reactor Regulation Air Quality Drew Stuyvenberg Nuclear Reactor Regulation Alternatives Andrew Luu Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection Sarah Lopas Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Frederick Monette Team Leader Kirk LaGory Deputy Team Leader; Terrestrial Ecology Halil Avci Radiation Protection John Quinn Hydrology Dan O'Rourke Cultural Resources Bill Vinikour Aquatic Ecology Bill Metz Land Use Timothy Allison Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice Michael Lazaro Air Quality Konstance Wescott Alternatives INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORY b)

Bob Schmidt Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 6 Lauren Fleishman Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (a) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of Chicago.

(b) Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., is located in Rockville, Maryland.

7 8

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 B-2 January 2008

VA Fi6iii-M-LAII-ini Page 1lil Page Alicia Mullins - AppxC.doc Appendix C Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to the PPL Susquehanna, LLC Application for License Renewal of SSES, Units 1 and 2 January 2008 C-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

1ý Alicia Mullins - AppxC.doc Page LAl~a Mullins AppxC.doc Page 22~

jj Appendix C Appendix C Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to the PPL Susquehanna, LLC Application for License Renewal of SSES, Units 1 and 2 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) and other correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 51, of PPL's application for renewal of the SSES operating licenses. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, have been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and are available electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following web address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Aqencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included below.

August 2, 2006 Letter from PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) to NRC, "Pre-application activities regarding license application review schedule for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2" (Accession No. ML062140549).

September 13, 2006 Letter from PPL to NRC forwarding the application for renewal of operating licenses for SSES, Units 1 and 2, requesting extension of operating licenses for an additional 20 years (Accession No. ML062601570).

September 26, 2006 Letter from PPL to NRC, "Receipt and Availability of the license renewal application for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station" (Accession No. ML062690158).

October 2, 2006 FederalRegister Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for an Additional 20-year period (71 FR 58014).

October 24, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Clifford Farides, Executive Director Mill Memorial Public Library, regarding Maintenance of Reference Material Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 C-2 January 2008

1ý-Alicia-ladi`ns - AppxC.doc -Pag 3'Ij LPii Mlis ApC*o ag for SSES License Renewal at the Mill Memorial Public Library (Accession No. ML0629600791).

October 26, 2006 Letter from NRC to PPL transmitting Determination and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed Review Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding the Application from PPL Susquehanna, LLC., for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML062930293).

October 26, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Alice Zaikoski, Co-Director Berwick Public Library, regarding Maintenance of Reference Material for SSES License Renewal at the Berwick Public Library (Accession No. ML062960060).

November 1,2006 Letter to Ms. Susan Zacher, Historic Structures Section Chief, State Historic Preservation Office, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SHPO No. 05-1588-079-A) (Accession No. ML062960009).

November 2, 2006 Letter from PPL to NRC, "Susquehanna Steam Electric Station acceptability and sufficiency for docketing - application for renewed operating licenses numbers NPF-14 and NPF-22" (Accession No. ML063130413).

November 2, 2006 Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Environmental Scoping Process for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application (Accession No. ML062990010).

November 2, 2006 Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF22 for an Additional 20-year Period (71 FR 64566).

November 13, 2006 Letter to Mr. Don Klima, Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal review (Accession No. ML062980237).

November 13, 2006 Letter to Ms. Julie McMonagle, Director, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Northeast Regional Office, regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal review (Accession No.

January 2008 C-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Page 4 KAlic -ia M-u-1-1-i-n-s Alicia Mullins - AppxC.doc-

- AppxC.doc Page 4]

Appendix C ML062980195).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Mark Hartle, Chief, Aquatic Resources Section, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal review (Accession No. ML062990018).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Clint Halftown, Heron Clan Representative, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063030091).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Raymond Cline, Chairman, Delaware Trust Board inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063030370).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Gerald Danforth, Chairman, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, inviting participation inscoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050363).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Charles D. Enyart, Chief, East Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050355).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Raymond Halbritter, Nation Representative, Oneida Indian Nation, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063030437).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Leo R. Henry, Clerk, Chief, Tuscarora Nation, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040107).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Ms. Rebecca Hawkins, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 C-4 January 2008

1I-Ahii--a Mullin-s - AppxC.doc Shawnee Tribe, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050595).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Tony Gonyea, Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050590).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Barry Snyder, Sr., President, Seneca Nation of Indians, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040153).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Ms. Karen Kaniatobe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050370).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. James Ransom, Chief, St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040006).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Paul Spicer, Chief, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040032).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Irving Powless, Jr., Chief, Onondaga Indian Nation, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040171).

November 14, 2006 Letter to Mr. Robert Chicks, Tribal Chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee January 2008 C-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

[IAicia Mullins - Appx C.docP P-a66-611 Appendix C Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063050608).

November 15, 2006 Letter to Mr. Roger Hill, Chief, Tonawanda Band of Seneca, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063040075).

November 15, 2006 Letter to Ms. Tamara Francis, NAGPRA, Director, Delaware Nation of Western Oklahoma, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063030206).

November 15, 2006 Letter to Jennifer Kagel, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, inviting participation in scoping process related to NRC's environmental review of the license renewal application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML062990053).

November 17, 2006 Letter to Ms. Chris Firestone, Native Plant Program Manager, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal review (Accession No. ML062990170).

November 20, 2006 Letter from Douglas McLearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection to NRC "Regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station License Renewal Salem Township, Luzerne County: Area of Potential Effect" (ER 05-1558-079-C) (Accession No. ML063470607).

November 27, 2006 Letter from Greg Bunker, Environmental Manager, Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians, regarding request for comments concerning the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station license renewal review (Accession No. ML070240192).

December 7, 2006 Letter from Anthony Wonderley, Historian, Oneida Indian Nation, regarding request for comments concerning the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station license renewal review (Accession No. ML070240190).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 C-6 January 2008

1'A!i6aMUfihss_-Ap iC 66 Page 71

.....7 I FIAliia u.ins..pp..dc...

December 15, 2006 Correction to the Notice of the Public Comment Period on the Environmental Scope of the Plant-Specific Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML063100474).

December 20, 2006 Letter from Mark Rubin, NRC Branch Chief to Rani Franovich, NRC Branch Chief, "Request for additional information to support the staff's Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Review for Susquehanna Steam Electric station, Units 1 and 2" (Accession No. ML063600388).

December 21, 2006 Letter from David Densmore, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, forwarding a list of protected species which are under evaluation for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal (Accession No. ML070040431).

December 29, 2006 Summary of Scoping Meeting Held in Support of the Environmental Review for the SSES License Renewal Application (Accession No. ML063470573)

January 8, 2006 Letter from Rebecca Bowen, Environmental Review Specialist, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, forwarding a list of protected species which are under evaluation for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal (Accession No. ML070190672).

January 16, 2007 Letter to PPL from NRC Request for Additional Information Related to the Staff's Review of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for SSES (Accession No. ML070030463).

March 1, 2007 Letter from David Densmore, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding USFWS Project #2007-1111. (Accession No. ML070720347).

March 2, 2007 Letter to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station summarizing the telecommunication to discuss the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Requests for Additional Information (RAIs)

(Accession No. ML070580092).

Date, year Note to Michael Lesar, Rules and Directives Branch, "Receipt of Comments Concerning the Scope of the Environmental Review of SSES, Units 1 and 2" (Accession No. MLXXXXXX)

January 2008 C-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

j--Afi&ia--M'-u1lin-s-'-' A'p'pxC.-do---c-- ge8...

Pag Alicia..........ns ..AppxC....

Appendix C June X, 2007 Letter to PPL from NRC, "Request for Additional Information Related to the Staff's Review of the License Renewal Environmental Report for SSES" (Accession No. MLXXXXXX)

June X, 2007 Summary of Site Audit to Support Review of License Renewal Application of SSES (Accession No. MLXXXXXXX)

April X, 2007 Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the Staff's Review of the Application by PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for SSES (Accession No. MLXXXXXX)

Date, year Letter from PPL to NRC, "Response to Request for the Review of the SSES License Renewal Application." (Accession No. MLXXXXX)

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 C-8 January 2008

Ikic--ia-M-ullins --App~xD.doc- Page 1'I Appendix D Organizations Contacted

Alicia Mullins - Ap___px__D__.doc- P5a'-6e I AIi6la MiI~ns -AppxD.doc Paae 2~I11l Appendix D Appendix D Organizations ContactedOrganizations Contacted During the course of the staff's independent review of environmental impacts from operations during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies were contacted:

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma Band of Mohawk Indians, Akwesasne, Wyoming Borough of Berwick, Berwick, Pennsylvania Cayuga Nation, Versailles, New York Chamber of Commerce, Berwick, Pennsylvania Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, Anadarko, Oklahoma Delaware Trust Board, Bartlesville, Oklahoma East Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca, Missouri Luzerne Township, Pennsylvania Oneida Indian Nation, Verona, New York Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin Onondaga Indian Nation, Nedrow, New York Onondaga Nation, Nedrow, New York Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania January 2008 D-2 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 32

AppxD.doc Mullins - AppxD.doc Alicia Mullins Page 3~I Alicia -

Page 3 !l faq ýj Appendix D Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Northeast Regional Office, Luzerne, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Historical Preservation Office, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma Seneca Nation of Indians, Irving, New York Shawnee Tribe, Miami, Oklahoma Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin, Bowler, Wisconsin Tonawanda Band of Seneca, Basom, New York Town Supervisor, Berwick, Pennsylvania Tuscarora Nation, Lewistown, New York U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State College, Pennsylvania Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 D-3 January 2008

I!kli amuiriiiý-APPXEA06 Page6 11 ýII Page I Alicia Mullins - AppxE.doc Appendix E' Appendix E PPL Susquehanna, LLC's Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence January 2008 E-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

Page 2i1 Mullins - AppxE.doc Alicia Mullins IFAicla -

4pxLd6c Page 2Ij Appendix E Appendix E PPL Susquehanna, LLC's Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL)

Correspondence received during the process of evaluation of the application for renewal of the license for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) is identified in Table E-1. Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State, regional, and local authorities for SSES, are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence Source Recipient Date of Letter U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State Historical Preservation Office November 1,2006 Commission (R. Franovich) (S. Zacher)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Pennsylvania Environmental November 13, 2006 Commission (R. Franovich) Council, Northeast Regional Office (J. McMonagle)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Pennsylvania Fish and Boat November 14, 2006 Commission (R. Franovich) Commission (M. Hartle)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cayuga Nation (C. Halftown) November 14, 2006 (a)

Commission (R. Franovich)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service November 15, 2006 Commission (R. Franovich) (J. Kagel)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Pennsylvania Department of November 17, 2006 Conservation and Natural Commission (R. Franovich)

Resources (C. Firestone)

State Historical Preservation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory November 20, 2006 Office (D. McLearen)

Commission (R. Franovich)

Stockbridge-Munsee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory November 27, 2006 Community (G. Bunker)

Commission (R. Franovich)

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement_32 E-2 January 2008 May 2001

kAlicia Mullins - AppxE.doc Pagle 3 11 Aicia Mull.ns - ADxEdo Paci 311 Appendix E Oneida Indian Nation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory December 7, 2007 (A. Wonderley) Commission (R. Franovich)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory December 21, 2006 (D. Densmore) Commission (R. Franovich)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Pennsylvania Department of January 8, 2007 Conservation and Natural Commission (A. Mullins)

Resources (R. Bowen)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory March 1, 2007 (D. Densmore) Commission (R. Franovich)

(a) Similar letters were sent to fifteen other Native American Tribes listed in Appendix C.

January 2008 E-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32

AiiaMuin-ApEdc-P Appenjdix E Contractor Input Needed for Table E-2 Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Agency Authority Description Number Issue Expiration Remarks Date Date NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license, Authorizes operation of Unit 1 SSES NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license, Authorizes operation of Unit 2 SSES FWS Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permit The permit authorizescarcass (16 USC 703-712) salvage and iniured bird transport.

FWS Section 7 of the Endangered Consultation Requires a Federal agency to Species Act (16 USC 1536) consult with FWS regarding whether a proposed action will affect endangered or threatened species NMFS Section 7 of the Endangered Consultation Species Act (16 USC 1536)

Pennsylvania Section 106 of the National Consultation The National Historic Division of Historic Preservation Act Preservation Act requires Historic (16 USC 470f) Federal agencies to take into Resources account the effect of any undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 E-4 January 2008

If-A~i Muf'in-s - "A5ppE.doc Paae 6i Appendix E April 2002 Pennsylvania Statutes National Pollution Permit for discharge of_

4403.088, FDEPRule 62-620, Discharge wastewater and once-through E-6 Pennsylvania Elimination System cooling water to the closed Draf Administrative Code Permit cycle recirculatingcooling tNUREG- canal system.Section I.E. 15 1437, of the permit states that the permit constitutes certification Supplement of compliance with 4401 of the 32 FederalWater Pollution App ControlAct (Clean Water Act).

endix E PDEP PDEP Pennsylvania Statutes $?? Wastewater Permit for the onsite sewage treatment permit treatment facility PDEP PennsylvaniaStatutes. Annual storage This authorizationcovers chapter XXX tank registration operation of seven above-ground storagetanks for petroleum products and one above- ground tank for sulfuric acid.

PDEP PennsylvaniaStatutes. Annual storage This authorizationcovers three chapterXXX tank registration above-ground and two undergroundpetroleum storage tanks.

PDEP PennsylvaniaStatutes, Air emissions The permit authorizes chapterXXX permit emissions from nine diesel emergency generators.

miscellaneous diesel engines.

and miscellaneous emissions units and activities.

PDEP PennsylvaniaStatutes. Underground The permit authorizes disposal chapterXXX injection control of sanitary wastewater to permit wells.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement_32 E-6 January 2008

SAlicia Mullins - AppxE.doc Paae 7 i7 Appendix E PDEP Pennsylvania Special purpose The permit authorizes live Administrative Code, permit capturinq of 1)crocodiles for chapter 39 marking and scientific data collection purposes, and

2) alligators and Eastern indigo snakes to avoid their harm in the performance of PPL activities.

Draft Code of Luzerne County, Multiple source The permit covers the boiler NUREG- chapter? annual operating makeup water treatment permit system, fleet operations.two 1437, undergroundstorage tanks.

Supplement_ barge slip operations,and 32 E-7 refrigerantuse and recovery.

Jan auray 2008 Appendix E DERM DERM Code of Luzerne County. Domestic Sewage treatment facility chapter? wastewaterannual operating permit Luzerne Burning permit County, FloridaFire Rescue Department CFR = Code of Federal Regulations DERM = Luzerne County Department of Environmental Resources Management FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PDEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service USC = United States Code E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008 January 2008 E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32