ML080660364
| ML080660364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/2008 |
| From: | Filippelli J Environmental Protection Agency |
| To: | Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 73FR4641 00001 | |
| Download: ML080660364 (2) | |
Text
- 00 tL P R ON RUES DF G1T VES UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2 290 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
-rC-h 0 FEB 2 5 2008 Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, DC 20555-0001
/c~7/i4" 5:'
R
~F: 1 7,. f-IDý
Dear Sir or Madam:
In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 31 (final SEIS) regarding James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) (CEQ #20080027). The proposed Federal action would renew the current operating license, which expires in October 2014, for an additional 20 years.
The.final SEIS was prepared as 4a ;plant specific supplement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions(g q06miGnrcEvrmet
- ieneRenewalof Nucle'ar P'inis -JJGIlJJ,;YViLI W'a~p~det sraln.1heicensem, renewal process -on the prerni§e that in gen~eral',
"he~nviroiiiien ta I impacts from -re,-,
licensing 'nuclear power p~lants are'sinriilaf That GEIS priopbsed that'NRC develop.;-
facility-specific SEIS documents for individual plants as the facilities apply for license renew~al. - EPA provided commnents on the GETS duringý the development process in 1992 and 1996.
The JAFNPP is located on approximately 702 ac~ "on the south shore of Lake Ontario, in Oswego Coin-ty, New York. JAFNPP is a single-cycle, forced-circulation Boiling-Water Reactor that produces steam for direct use *in the steam turbine. The rated thermal output of the unit is 2536 megawatts-thermal corresponding to an electrical output of approximately 881 megawatts-electric. The facility is refueled on a 24-month cycle.
fPlant cooling is provided by a once-through circulating water system that draws from and
ýdischarges to Lake Ontario.
K, MOt cncrn rai06diA eittteb
-the draft SI have o the.n, n s rie our*Auigust S0F15m I:.Sevre~ddrsse.
We wouýld liet not iCEPeli
- ~~iew'e-d'S~ectioirt5;-.12 on
- ccdet" n iia SISad a~~
ssu-ed itheThiAtt&r raised-riwour.ccmments with.NRC siaff. -We. ha~ve nof comments on thi's ecion-in'tde&final -SEIS:
Intern'et Add I ress (CiRL}
tp
ýweopagoi RclcýedI6ey~cmbIh *'Ptlntedd Wfth Vegetable mi Based Inks on.Recycled.Papq(iWmm3/
Potnser 6OA2~y 4~u~e-'
5
However, in our comment letter, 'EPA also expressed. concern that. the draft SELS relied upon biological studies dating from 1969 through 1974 performed near the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. This information is too old to accurately understand the current lake conditions, and therefore, support the conclusion that there continues to be no influence or impact to biota in the lake from the entrainment and impingement of aquatic animals from the JAFNPP facility. We also pointed out that, as stated in the draft SEIS, the fisheries species in Lake Ontario have changed markedly over the, past 10. years.with decreasing numbers of alewife and increasing numbers of invasive aquatic species, also rendering the information from the biological stu dies unreliable. EPA recognizes that JAFNPP is only one contributor to ecological conditions in Lake Ontario and is not responsible for the introduction of invasive species, but the current condition of aquatic life may make the, impacts from entrainmnent and impingement relatively more significant than they wereý when the original studies were done.
While the SEIS response is to restate that "based on the information currently available, the NRC staff concluded that losses of fish and shellfish from impingement and entrainment are SMALL" and defers this discussion to the New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit process, we maintain our belief that the NEPA process is the appropriate vehicle for addressing potential environmental impacts and 'Mitigation. Accordingly, we recommend that the Re 'cord of Decision for the license renewal include commitments to the mitigation measures that are expected to be required as part of the SPDES permit issuance.
In summary, EPA' s request for current aquatic information and minimization and mitigation for impacts to aquatic life remains unresolved. We encourage NRC to. address these concerns prior to completion of the NEPA process. Please feel free to contact
- Lingard Knutson at (212) 637-3747 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours, John Filippelhi, Chief Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch 2