ML090270418
| ML090270418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/2009 |
| From: | License Renewal Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | |
| GOODMAN N. NRR/DLR/RPB2 415-2703 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML090260687 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD8528, TAC MD8529 | |
| Download: ML090270418 (166) | |
Text
1 1
Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Red Wing, Minnesota May 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland
2 Introduction 1
On April 11, 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from 2
Northern States Power Co. (NSP) [formerly Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC)] for 3
renewal of the operating license of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 4
(PINGP 1 and 2). PINGP 1 and 2 are located in Red Wing, Minnesota, which is in Goodhue 5
County on the west bank of the Mississippi River. As part of the application, NSP submitted an 6
environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51.
7 10 CFR Part 51 contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental 8
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on 9
Environmental Quality (CEQ). Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation and submittal 10 of environmental reports to the NRC.
11 Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic 12 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The 13 GEIS, which identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license 14 renewal, was first issued as a draft for public comment. The staff received input from Federal 15 and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens before developing the final 16 document. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to 17 be small and to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These were designated as Category 1 18 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for 19 Category 1 impacts, absent new and significant information that may cause the conclusions to 20 fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have been determined 21 to be plant-specific and are required to be evaluated in the applicants ER.
22 The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision-23 making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials. Therefore, 24 an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power, or the 25 economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission 26 determined that the ER need not discuss any aspect of storage of spent fuel for the facility that 27 is within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in accordance with 28 10 CFR 51.23(b). This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 29 the Commissions Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.
30 On July 22, 2008, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (73 FR 42628),
31 to notify the public of the staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (SEIS) 32 regarding the renewal application for the PINGP 1 and 2 operating license. The plant-specific 33 supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ guidelines, and 34 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance 35 of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant, federal, state, local, and tribal 36 government agencies, local organizations, and individuals to participate in the scoping process 37 by providing oral comments at scheduled public meetings, which were held at the Red Wing 38 Public Library, in Red Wing, Minnesota on July 30, 2008, and/or submitting written suggestions 39 and comments no later than September 22, 2008. The NRC issued press releases, placed ads 40 in the local paper, and distributed flyers locally to advertise the public meetings. Approximately 41 75 people attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a 42 brief overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. Following the NRCs 43 prepared statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Several attendees 44 submitted written comments, others provided oral comments, which were transcribed by a 45 certified court reporter. The transcripts of the meetings were issued on September 3, 2008 for 46 the afternoon session and September 5, 2008 for the evening session. The transcripts are 47
3 available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 1
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the NRCs Agencywide 2
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 3
Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. The transcripts 4
for the public meeting can be found in ADAMS at accession numbers ML082470336 and 5
ML082490514. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in 6
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRCs Public Document Room 7
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at 8
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
9 The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be 10 addressed in the SEIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Federal Register Notice of 11 Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:
12 Define the proposed action 13 Determine the scope of the SEIS and identify significant issues to be 14 analyzed in depth 15 Identify and eliminate peripheral issues 16 Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact 17 statements being prepared that are related to the SEIS 18 Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements 19 Indicate the schedule for preparation of the SEIS 20 Identify any cooperating agencies 21 Describe how the SEIS will be prepared.
22 23
4 Scoping Comment Period Summary 1
During the scoping period, the NRC staff received six letters and three e-mails containing 2
comments related to the environmental review for the proposed license renewal of PINGP 1 and 3
- 2. Additionally, thirteen people provided oral comments or comments in writing during the July 4
30, 2008, scoping meetings.
5 Individuals and/or groups and their affiliation (if applicable) that provided comments during the 6
scoping period are identified in Table 1. A numerical commenter identification code (1-18) was 7
assigned to each commenter for purposes of categorizing the comments.
8 Table 1. Individuals and/or Groups Providing Comments during Scoping Period.
9 Commenters appear in alphabetical order, and each commenter has been 10 given a unique commenter identification number.
11 Commenter Affiliation (if stated)
Commenter ID Number Arneson, Scott Goodhue County Administrator 1
Betcher, Steve Goodhue County Attorney 2
Crocker, George Executive Director, North American Water Office 3
CURE Communities United for Responsible Energy 4
Eide-Tollefson, Kristen Resident, Florence Township MN 5
Foushee, Lea Environmental Justice Director, North American Water Office 6
Himanga, Katie Mayor, Lake City, Minnesota 7
Jackson, Mary Senior Planner, Dakota County Office Of Planning and Analysis 8
Johnson, Ron President, Prairie Island Tribal Council & Indian Community 9
Lemon, Gina Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 10 Lovejoy, Tom Environmental Impact Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 11 Marshman, Joan Chair, Florence Township Board of Supervisors 12 Muller, Alan Executive Director, Green Delaware 13 Overland, Carol none provided 14 PIIC Tribal Council Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) 15 Schultz, Michael Red Wing City Council 16 Vukmir, Andrija none provided 17 Wadley, Mike PINGP Site Vice President, Nuclear Management Company (NMC) 18 12 13
5 In order to evaluate the comments, the NRC staff gave each comment a unique identification 1
code that categorizes the comment by technical issue and also allows each comment or set of 2
comments to be traced back to the commenter and original source (transcript, letter, or e-mail) 3 from which the comments were submitted.
4 Comments were placed into one of twenty-eight technical issue categories, which are based on 5
the topics that will be contained within the staffs draft supplemental environmental impact 6
statement (SEIS) for PINGP 1 and 2, as outlined by the GEIS. These technical issue categories 7
and their abbreviation codes are presented in Table 2.
8 Table 2. Technical Issue Categories. Comments were divided into one of the 28 9
categories below, each of which has a unique abbreviation code.
10 Abbreviation Code Technical Issue Abbreviation Code Technical Issue AM(a)
Aging Management NW(a)
Non-radiological Waste AS Alternative Energy Sources ON(a)
Opposition to Nuclear Power AR Aquatic Resources OR(a)
Opposition to License Renewal CI Cumulative Impacts OS Outside of Scope(c)
CR Cultural Resources PA Postulated Accidents EJ Environmental Justice RW Radioactive Waste ER Environmental Report(b)
SD Shutdown and Decommissioning GW Groundwater SE Socioeconomics HH Human Health SN Support of Nuclear Power HP NRC Hearing Process SR Support for License Renewal LR License Renewal and its Process SW Surface Water LU(a)
Land Use TE Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat NO(a)
Noise TR Terrestrial Resources NS Nuclear Safety UR Uranium Fuel Cycle (a) No comments specific to the categories of aging management, land use, noise, non-radiological waste, opposition to nuclear power, or opposition to license renewal were submitted during the PINGP 1 and 2 scoping period.
(b) Comments contained in this category pertain to general quality or content of the applicants Environmental Report (c) Outside of Scope are those comments that pertain to issues that are not evaluated during the environmental review of license renewal and include, but are not limited to, issues such as need for power; emergency preparedness; security; terrorism; and spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal.
6 Presentation of Comments and Responses 1
2 Comments Received During the Scoping Period 3
This document contains a copy of each commenters submission(s) during the scoping period.
4 For those that provided oral comments at the scoping meetings, comments are taken from the 5
meeting transcripts. Each comment is bracketed and labeled with a unique comment 6
identification number. Note that only those transcript pages on which each individuals 7
comments are contained are included in this document; however, the complete meeting 8
transcripts can be accessed online or in-person from ADAMS at accession numbers 9
ML082470336 and ML082490514. Please refer to the description of ADAMS above for an 10 explanation of how to access these documents.
11 Responses to Comments Received During the Scoping Period 12 The NRC staffs responses to each comment received during the scoping period are organized 13 by technical issue. Each response is prefaced by a summary of the issue to which the 14 comment(s) pertain and a list of the unique identification codes of the comments to which the 15 response applies. Similar comments within a technical issue area may be considered together 16 in the provided response. Some comments applied to more than one technical issue category 17 (indicated by a / in the comment identification code), and are, therefore, addressed in more 18 than one section of the staffs responses. For example, the 3-c-ER/HH pertains to both the 19 Environmental Report and Human Health and is, thus, addressed under both Environmental 20 Report and Human Health in the staffs responses.
21 Table 3 provides a complete list of comments received during the scoping period, along with the 22 commenter, comment source (transcript, letter, or e-mail), page number(s) on which the 23 comment and correlating response(s) appears in this document, and ADAMS accession number 24 for the original source of the comment.
25 The preparation of the SEIS will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the 26 scoping process. The SEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new 27 information identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by 28 information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and will include the analysis of Category 2 issues 29 and any new and significant information. The draft SEIS will be made available for public 30 comment. The comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant, interested 31 Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies, local organizations, and members of the 32 public to provide input to the NRCs environmental review process. The comments received on 33 the draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with 34 the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will be considered by the NRC in reaching a decision 35 on the PINGP 1 and 2 license renewal application.
36 37
7 Table 3. Comments Received during Scoping Period. Comments are listed 1
alphabetically by commenter, and each comment has a unique comment 2
identification code.
3 Comment ID Commenter Comment Source Comment Page No(s).
Response Page No(s).
ADAMS Accession Number 1-a-SR Arneson, S.
transcript(a) 13 163 ML082470336 2-a-SR Betcher, S.
transcript 15-16 163 ML082470336 3-a-LR Crocker, G.
transcript 18 157 ML082490514 3-b-HH Crocker, G.
transcript 19-20 154 ML082490514 3-c-ER/HH Crocker, G.
transcript 20-22 153, 154, 156 ML082490514 4-a-AS CURE letter 25 148, 149 ML083220369 4-b-AR/SW CURE letter 26-27 149, 163 ML083220365 4-c-SE CURE letter 27 163 ML083220365 4-d-AR/HH CURE letter 27 150, 154 ML083220365 4-e-HH CURE letter 27 154, 156 ML083220365 4-f-SW CURE letter 27-28 163 ML083220365 5-a-ER Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 31 153 ML083220377 5-b-GW/SW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 31 153, 164 ML083220377 5-c-LR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 31-32 158 ML083220377 5-d-SE Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 32 163 ML083220377 5-e-AR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 32 150 ML083220377 5-f-EJ/RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 32 152, 161 ML083220377 5-g-CI/LR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 33 151, 157 ML083220377 5-h-CI Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 33-34 151 ML083220377 5-i-OS Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 34 159 ML083220377 5-j-RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 34-35 161 ML083220377 5-k-OS/RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 35 159, 161 ML083220377 5-l-OS Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 35 159 ML083220377 5-m-CI/RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 35 151, 161 ML083220377 5-n-RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 35 161 ML083220377 5-o-CI/RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 35 151, 161 ML083220377 5-p-RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 36 161 ML083220377 5-q-CI/LR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 36 151, 158 ML083220377 5-r-CI/LR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 36-38 151, 152, 158 ML083220377
8 Comment ID Commenter Comment Source Comment Page No(s).
Response Page No(s).
ADAMS Accession Number 5-s-AS Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 38 148 ML083220377 5-t-AS Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 38 148 ML083220377 5-u-LR/OS Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 38-39 158 ML083220377 5-v-LR Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 39 158 ML083220377 5-w-CI Eide-Tollefson, K.
letter 39-42 151 ML083220377 5-x-CI Eide-Tollefson, K.
transcript 44 151 ML082490514 5-y-OS/RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
transcript 44-45 159, 161 ML082490514 5-z-NS Eide-Tollefson, K.
transcript 45 159 ML082490514 5-aa-RW Eide-Tollefson, K.
transcript 45-47 161 ML082490514 6-a-HH Foushee, L.
e-mail 49 154 ML083220386 6-b-EJ/UR Foushee, L.
e-mail 49 152, 165 ML083220386 6-c-HH Foushee, L.
e-mail 49-50 154 ML083220386 6-d-HH Foushee, L.
e-mail 51-52 154 ML083220372 6-e-HH Foushee, L.
e-mail 52 154 ML083220372 6-f-EJ/RW/UR Foushee, L.
e-mail 52-53 152, 161, 165 ML083220372 6-g-LR Foushee, L.
transcript 55-56 157 ML082490514 6-h-HH/LR Foushee, L.
transcript 57-61 154, 158 ML082490514 6-i-ER/HH Foushee, L.
transcript 62-63 153, 154 ML082490514 7-a-AR/RW/SW Himanga, K.
letter 65 149, 161, 163 ML082660657 7-b-AR/CR/SW Himanga, K.
letter 65-66 149, 151, 163 ML082660657 7-c-RW Himanga, K.
transcript 68-69 161 ML082470336 7-d-AR/CR/SW Himanga, K.
transcript 69 149, 151, 163 ML082470336 8-a-AR/PA/SW Jackson, M.
e-mail 71-72 150, 160, 164 ML083220385 9-a-LR Johnson, R.
transcript 74-75 157 ML082470336 10-a-CR Lemon, G.
letter 77 151 ML082660601 11-a-AR Lovejoy, T.
letter 79 149 ML083080277 11-b-NS Lovejoy, T.
letter 79 159 ML083080277 11-c-AR/SW Lovejoy, T.
letter 79 149, 163 ML083080277 11-d-EJ/SW Lovejoy, T.
letter 80 152, 163 ML083080277 11-e-AR Lovejoy, T.
letter 80 149 ML083080277 11-f-CI Lovejoy, T.
letter 80 151 ML083080277 12-a-RW Marshman, J.
transcript 82-83 161 ML082490514
9 Comment ID Commenter Comment Source Comment Page No(s).
Response Page No(s).
ADAMS Accession Number 13-a-HH Muller, A.
transcript 85 154 ML082490514 13-b-LR Muller, A.
transcript 86-87 158 ML082490514 13-c-ER/LR Muller, A.
transcript 88-89 153, 158 ML082490514 13-d-LR Muller, A.
transcript 89-90 158 ML082490514 13-e-SD Muller, A.
transcript 90 162 ML082490514 13-f-OS Muller, A.
transcript 90-92 159 ML082490514 13-g-UR Muller, A.
transcript 93 165 ML082490514 13-h-RW Muller, A.
transcript 93-94 161 ML082490514 13-i-AS Muller, A.
transcript 94-95 148 ML082490514 13-j-HH Muller, A.
transcript 95 154 ML082490514 14-a-LR Overland, C.
transcript 97-98 158 ML082490514 14-b-AS Overland, C.
transcript 98-99 148 ML082490514 14-c-LR Overland, C.
transcript 99 157 ML082490514 15-a-ER PIIC Tribal Council letter 103-104 153 ML083200029 15-b-LR PIIC Tribal Council letter 104-105 157 ML083200029 15-c-LR PIIC Tribal Council letter 105 157 ML083200029 15-d-HH/EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 105 152, 154, 156 ML083200029 15-e-GW PIIC Tribal Council letter 105-108 153 ML083200029 15-f-HH/EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 108 152, 154 ML083200029 15-g-ER PIIC Tribal Council letter 108 153 ML083200029 15-h-HH PIIC Tribal Council letter 108-110 154, 156 ML083200029 15-i-RW PIIC Tribal Council letter 110-112 161 ML083200029 15-j-RW PIIC Tribal Council letter 112 161 ML083200029 15-k-AS PIIC Tribal Council letter 112 148 ML083200029 15-l-TR PIIC Tribal Council letter 112-114 164 ML083200029 15-m-CR PIIC Tribal Council letter 114-117 151 ML083200029 15-n-TE PIIC Tribal Council letter 117-119 165 ML083200029 15-o-SE PIIC Tribal Council letter 119-120 163 ML083200029 15-p-OS PIIC Tribal Council letter 120 159 ML083200029 15-q-SE PIIC Tribal Council letter 120 163 ML083200029 15-r-EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 120-121 152 ML083200029 15-s-EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 121 152 ML083200029 15-t-HH PIIC Tribal Council letter 121 157 ML083200029
10 Comment ID Commenter Comment Source Comment Page No(s).
Response Page No(s).
ADAMS Accession Number 15-u-PA PIIC Tribal Council letter 122 160 ML083200029 15-v-CI/OS/RW PIIC Tribal Council letter 123 151, 159, 161 ML083200029 15-w-OS/RW PIIC Tribal Council letter 123 159, 161 ML083200029 15-x-ER PIIC Tribal Council letter 123 153 ML083200029 15-y-ER/LR PIIC Tribal Council letter 123-124 153, 158 ML083200029 15-z-CI/ER PIIC Tribal Council letter 125 151, 153 ML083200029 15-aa-EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 125 152 ML083200029 15-bb-EJ PIIC Tribal Council letter 125-126 152 ML083200029 15-cc-AS PIIC Tribal Council letter 126 148 ML083200029 15-dd-SW PIIC Tribal Council letter 126 164 ML083200029 15-ee-OS/SW PIIC Tribal Council letter 126 159, 164 ML083200029 15-ff-OS PIIC Tribal Council letter 127 159 ML083200029 15-gg-HH PIIC Tribal Council letter 127 155 ML083200029 15-hh-OS PIIC Tribal Council letter 127 160 ML083200029 16-a-SR Schultz, M.
transcript 132-134 163 ML082470336 17-a-SN Vukmir, A.
transcript 136 163 ML082470336 17-b-SR Vukmir, A.
transcript 136 163 ML082470336 17-c-SN Vukmir, A.
transcript 136-137 163 ML082470336 17-d-RW Vukmir, A.
transcript 138 161 ML082470336 17-e-SR Vukmir, A.
transcript 138 163 ML082470336 18-a-SR Wadley, M.
transcript 140-142 163 ML082470336 18-b-NS Wadley, M.
transcript 142-144 159 ML082470336 18-c-NS Wadley, M.
transcript 145 159 ML082470336 18-d-SR Wadley, M.
transcript 145-146 163 ML082470336 18-e-SR Wadley, M.
transcript 146 163 ML082470336 18-f-SR Wadley, M.
transcript 146-147 163 ML082470336 (a) Comments were received orally during one of two scoping meetings held on July 30, 2009, and transcribed by a certified court reporter.
11 The following pages contain the original comment letters, e-mail messages, and public meeting transcripts pertaining to the PINGP 1 and 2 scoping summary report. Each commented is labeled and identified by a unique comment identification code.
12 The following pages contain the comments made by Scott Arneson during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
13 1-a-SR
14 The following pages contain the comments made by Steve Betcher during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
15 2-a-SR
16 2-a-SR (continued)
17 The following pages contain the comments made by George Crocker during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
18 3-a-LR
19 3-b-HH
20 3-b-HH (continued) 3-c-ER/HH
21 3-c-ER/HH (continued)
22 3-c-ER/HH (continued)
23 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by the Communities for Responsible Energy during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
24 4-a-AS
25 4-a-AS (continued)
26 4-b-AR/SW
27 4-e-HH 4-f-SW 4-d-AR/HH 4-c-SE 4-b-AR/SW (continued)
28 4-f-SW (continued)
29 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Kristen Eide-Tollefson during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
30
31 5-a-ER 5-c-LR 5-b-GW/SW
32 5-c-LR (continued) 5-d-SE 5-e-AR 5-f-EJ/RW
33 5-g-CI/LR 5-h-CI
34 5-i-OS 5-h-CI (continued) 5-j-RW
35 5-j-RW (continued) 5-m-CI/RW 5-n-RW 5-o-CI/RW 5-k-OS/RW 5-l-OS
36 5-p-RW 5-q-CI/LR 5-r-CI/LR
37 5-r-CI/LR (continued)
38 5-r-CI/LR (continued) 5-t-AS 5-u-LR/OS 5-s-AS
39 5-u-LR/OS (continued) 5-w-CI 5-v-LR
40 5-w-CI (continued)
41 5-w-CI (continued)
42 5-w-CI (continued)
43 The following pages contain the comments made by Kristen Eide-Tollefson during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
44 5-x-CI 5-y-OS/RW
45 5-y-OS/RW (continued) 5-z-NS 5-aa-RW
46 5-aa-RW (continued)
47 5-aa-RW (continued)
48 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Lea Foushee during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
49 6-a-HH 6-b-EJ/UR 6-c-HH
50 6-c-HH (continued)
51 6-d-HH
52 6-d-HH (continued) 6-e-HH 6-f-EJ/RW/UR
53 6-f-EJ/RW/UR (continued)
54 The following pages contain the comments made by Lea Foushee during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
55 6-g-LR (continued) 6-g-LR
56 6-g-LR (continued)
57 6-h-HH/LR
58 6-h-HH/LR (continued)
59 6-h-HH/LR (continued)
60 6-h-HH/LR (continued)
61 6-h-HH/LR (continued)
62 6-i-ER/HH
63 6-i-ER/HH (continued) 6-i-ER/HH (continued) 6-i-ER/HH (continued)
64 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Katie Himanga during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
65 7-b-AR/CR/SW 7-a-AR/RW/SW
66 7-b-AR/CR/SW (continued)
67 The following pages contain the comments made by Katie Himanga during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
68 7-c-RW
69 7-c-RW (continued) 7-d-AR/CR/SW
70 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Mary Jackson during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
71 8-a-AR/PA/SW
72 8-a-AR/PA/SW (continued)
73 The following pages contain the comments made by Ron Johnson during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
74 9-a-LR
75 9-a-LR (continued)
76 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Gina Lemon during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
77 10-a-CR
78 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by Tom Lovejoy during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
79 11-a-AR 11-b-NS 11-c-AR/SW
80 11-d-EJ/SW 11-e-AR 11-f-CI
81 The following pages contain the comments made by Joan Marshman during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
82 12-a-RW
83 12-a-RW (continued)
84 The following pages contain the comments made by Alan Muller during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
85 13-a-HH
86 13-b-LR
87 13-b-LR (continued)
88 13-c-ER/LR
89 13-d-LR 13-c-ER/LR (continued)
90 13-d-LR (continued) 13-e-SD 13-f-OS
91 13-f-OS (continued)
92 13-f-OS (continued) 13-g-UR
93 13-g-UR (continued) 13-h-RW
94 13-h-RW (continued) 13-i-AS
95 13-i-AS (continued) 13-j-HH
96 The following pages contain the comments made by Carol Overland during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
97 14-a-LR
98 14-a-LR (continued) 14-b-AS
99 14-b-AS (continued) 14-c-LR
100 The following pages contain the written comments submitted by the Prairie Island Indian Community during the scoping period for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal
101
102
103 15-a-ER
104 15-a-ER (continued) 15-b-LR
105 15-c-LR 15-d-HH/EJ 15-e-GW 15-b-LR (continued)
106 15-e-GW (continued)
107 15-e-GW (continued)
108 15-e-GW (continued) 15-f-HH/EJ 15-g-ER 15-h-HH
109 15-h-HH (continued)
110 15-h-HH (continued) 15-i-RW
111 15-i-RW (continued)
112 15-i-RW (continued) 15-j-RW 15-k-AS 15-l-TR
113 15-l-TR (continued)
114 15-l-TR (continued) 15-m-CR
115 15-m-CR (continued)
116 15-m-CR (continued)
117 15-m-CR (continued) 15-n-TE
118 15-n-TE (continued)
119 15-n-TE (continued) 15-o-SE
120 15-o-SE (continued) 15-q-SE 15-r-EJ 15-p-OS
121 15-r-EJ (continued) 15-s-EJ 15-t-HH
122 15-u-PA
123 15-v-CI/OS/RW 15-w-OS/RW 15-x-ER 15-y-ER/LR
124 15-y-ER/LR (continued)
125 15-z-CI/ER 15-aa-EJ 15-bb-EJ
126 15-bb-EJ (continued) 15-cc-AS 15-dd-SW 15-ee-OS/SW
127 15-ff-OS 15-gg-HH 15-hh-OS
128
129
130
131 The following pages contain the comments made by Michael Schultz during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
132 16-a-SR
133 16-a-SR (continued)
134 16-a-SR (continued)
135 The following pages contain the comments made by Andrija Vukmir during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
136 17-b-SR 17-a-SN 17-c-SN
137 17-c-SN (continued)
138 17-d-RW 17-e-SR
139 The following pages contain the comments made by Mike Wadley during the NRC public scoping meetings held on July 30, 2008
140 18-a-SR
141 18-a-SR (continued)
142 18-a-SR (continued) 18-b-NS
143 18-b-NS (continued)
144 18-b-NS (continued)
145 18-c-NS 18-d-SR
146 18-d-SR (continued) 18-e-SR 18-f-SR
147 18-f-SR (continued)
148 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Public Scoping Process Comments and Responses A.1. Alternative Energy Sources The following comment pertains to the no-action alternative outlined by NEPA:
15-cc-AS The NRC staff will address alternatives to the continued operation of PINGP 1 and 2, including the no-action alternative (not renewing the licenses) in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.
The following comments pertain to the scope of alternatives to be discussed in the DSEIS:
13-i-AS;15-k-AS The NRC staff will evaluate environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to the continued operation of PINGP 1 and 2 in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.
The following comments pertain to using either natural gas or a combination of wind and natural gas to power an alternative to PINGP 1 and 2:
4-a-AS; 5-s-AS; 14-b-AS The NRC staff will evaluate environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to the continued operation of PINGP 1 and 2 in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.
The following comment pertains to using the PINGP site for an alternate industrial purpose:
5-t-AS The comment describes the potential conversion of the PINGP 1 and 2 site to an energy and research facility that would produce hydrogen in addition to providing electricity. The NRC staffs examination of alternatives in Chapter 8 of the SEIS will be limited to energy alternatives that can replace or offset the capacity currently provided by PINGP 1 and 2.
As PINGP 1 and 2 do not currently produce hydrogen or provide a site for energy research and development efforts, alternatives to continued operation of PINGP 1 and 2 will not need to fulfill these roles.
The following comment pertains to the greenhouse gas emissions and efficiency of energy generation technologies:
4-a-AS The NRC staff will provide a comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of energy generation technologies in Chapter 6 of the SEIS. The NRC staff analysis of alternatives in Chapter 8 will also address relative levels of greenhouse gas emissions for alternatives.
149 The following comment pertains to policy or planning considerations in meeting future energy needs:
4-a-AS The NRC does not play a role in energy planning or energy policy development, though the NRC staff does take into account existing policies and regulations when evaluating energy alternatives.
A.2. Aquatic Resources The following comment pertains to the impacts to aquatic resources from the impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish:
11-a-AR The comment is related to aquatic ecology, specifically impingement, entrainment, and heat shock analysis. As part of its environmental review process and SEIS, NRC will review and assess pertinent information regarding impingement, entrainment, and heat shock in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
The following comment pertains to fish kills related to the cooling and intake systems of PINGP 1 and 2:
11-c-AR/SW The comment is related to operation of the plant's cooling system, and its effects in terms of fish kills and other thermal impacts. Potential impacts associated with the plant's cooling system will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Additionally, NRC will identify potential mitigation measures to limit fish kill impacts in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.
The State, not the NRC, manages thermal impacts through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process.
The following comments pertain to impacts from thermal discharges of the PINGP 1 and 2 cooling systems:
4-b-AR/SW; 7-a-AR/RW/SW; 7-b-AR/CR/SW; 7-d-AR/CR/SW These comments are related to operation of the plants cooling system, specifically the effects of the thermal discharge on aquatic and other resources. NRC will discuss the potential impacts associated with the plants thermal discharge will be presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The State, not the NRC, regulates thermal discharges through the NPDES permitting process.
The following comment pertains to impacts to aquatic resources from exotic species:
11-e-AR The comment is related to aquatic ecology. Invasive and exotic species as well as other impacts will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. The State, not the NRC, regulates discharge contaminants through the NPDES permitting process. Additionally, Chapter 2 will provide a description of measures undertaken to control biofouling at PINGP 1 and 2.
150 The following comments pertain to the area of consideration for the aquatic ecology review and analysis provided in the SEIS:
5-e-AR; 8-a-AR/PA/SW Issues pertaining to the area of consideration for review of aquatic ecology impacts are site specific, or Category 2 issues, and will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
The following comment pertains to potential releases of radioactive materials into the water:
4-d-AR/HH All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release small quantities of radioactive material to both the air and water during normal operation.
Airborne and liquid releases of radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Regulatory limits are placed on the radiation dose that members of the public might receive from all of the radioactive material released by the nuclear plant combined.
Licensees are required to report liquid, gaseous, and solid effluent releases as well as the results of their radiological environmental monitoring program annually to the NRC.
The annual effluent release and radiological environmental monitoring reports submitted to the NRC are available to the public through the ADAMS electronic reading room through the NRC website. The NRC routinely inspects all licensees to ensure their compliance with these regulatory limits.
Additionally, in the spring of 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The major conclusion of the report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological protection that the NRC uses to develop its regulations. The NRC evaluated the BEIR VII report and discussed its findings in a report to the Commission (SECY 05-0202; Accession Number ML052640532). The NRC concluded that the BEIR VII report does not support the need for fundamental revision to the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations. Therefore, it is the NRCs position that the NRCs regulations continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment and that none of the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant changes to the NRC regulations. The BEIR VII report does not say there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it does not address safe versus not safe. It does continue to support the conclusion that there is some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that risk increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that risk of cancer induction at the dose levels in NRCs and EPAs radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions have been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V). The comment does not provide any new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
151 A.3. Cultural Resources The following comments pertain to issues regarding potential impacts to cultural resources surrounding the PINGP 1 and 2 site and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act:
7-b-AR/CR/SW; 7-d-AR/CR/SW; 10-a-CR; 15-m-CR; The comments are related to the potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and historical resources. NRC staff is aware of the Prairie Island Indian Communitys concern for the archaeological sites both on and within the vicinity of the PINGP 1 and 2 facilities. The comments are noted, and the impacts of extended operation of the PINGP 1 and 2 on cultural, archaeological, and historical resources will be assessed and discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. Additionally, the PIIC is a cooperating agency and will assist the NRC staff in its review. Several other tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office have been contacted by, and may provide their views to, the NRC under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A.4. Cumulative Impacts The following comments pertain to the assessment of a cumulative impacts analysis in the SEIS:
5-g-CI/LR; 5-h-CI; 5-r-CI/LR; 5-q-CI/LR; 5-w-CI; 5-x-CI; 11-f-CI; 15-z-CI/ER As part of the environmental review process, the NRC evaluates the potential for cumulative impacts of operations (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.7) during the renewal term. Chapter 4 of the SEIS will analyze the impacts of the proposed action in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at PINGP 1 and 2 and the activities of other industrial facilities and/or Federal agency actions in the area. As part of NRC's environmental review and SEIS, all pertinent information pertaining to cumulative impacts will be reviewed and assessed.
The following comments pertain to the cumulative impacts of spent fuel storage and spent fuel waste:
5-m-CI/RW; 5-o-CI/RW; 15-v-CI/OS/RW Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. Additionally, waste management issues were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been determined in the GEIS to have similar impacts across all sites and are, therefore, not reevaluated in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. Category 2 issues are site specific issues which must be thoroughly analyzed by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its environmental report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates the issue as part of its SEIS.
152 While cumulative impacts are site specific issues for some resources, these comments pertaining to cumulative impacts of spent fuel storage and spent fuel waste are not within the scope of the environmental review and will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to establishing a baseline for cumulative impacts in the areas of groundwater and hydrologic resources, human health, and aquatic resources:
5-r-CI/LR Cumulative impacts on each of these resource areas are a Category 2 issue and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS under cumulative impacts.
A.5. Environmental Justice The following comments pertain to the analysis of environmental justice within the SEIS:
6-b-EJ/UR; 6-f-EJ/RW/UR; 11-d-EJ/SW The comments are noted. Environmental justice is an issue specific to the plant and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. To perform a review of environmental justice in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, the NRC staff examines the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within 50 miles (80 km) of the site being evaluated. The staff uses the most recent census data available. Once the locations of minority and low-income populations are identified, the staff determines the extent to which these populations may be disproportionately affected.
The environmental impacts of various individual operating uranium fuel cycle facilities are outside the scope of license renewal but are addressed in separate EISs prepared by NRC. These documents include analyses that address human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income populations. Electronic copies of these EISs are available through the NRCs public Web site under Publications Prepared by NRC Staff document collection of the NRCs Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/; and the NRCs Agency wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
The following comments pertain specifically to the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC), and the inclusion of the PIIC in the analysis of environmental justice within the SEIS:
5-f-EJ/RW; 15-d-HH/EJ; 15-f-HH/EJ; 15-r-EJ; 15-s-EJ; 15-aa-EJ; 15-bb-EJ; The PIIC is a minority population living within the 50 mile (80 km) radius of PINGP 1 and
- 2. PIIC will be included in the environmental justice analysis in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.
Additionally, the PIIC is a cooperating agency and will assist the NRC staff in its review of environmental justice issues.
153 A.6. Environmental Report The following comments raise concerns pertaining to the information included within the Environmental Report submitted by the applicant:
3-c-ER/HH; 5-a-ER; 6-i-ER/HH;13-c-ER/LR; 15-a-ER;15-g-ER; 15-x-ER; 15-y-ER/LR; 15-z-CI/ER The comments assert that the Environmental Report failed to include information regarding the impacts of routine releases of radioactive effluents, the effects of continued operations on the health and on the Prairie Island Indian Community, the effects of the plants requested power uprate, the expansion of dry cask storage, and the replacement of the steam generator. The comments will be considered, as appropriate, during the environmental review for the license renewal of PINGP 1 and 2.
A.7. Groundwater The following comments pertain indirectly and cumulatively to impacts to the groundwater resources, mostly from tritium, surrounding PINGP 1 and 2:
5-b-GW/SW; 15-e-GW Groundwater is a Category 2 issue and discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. The comments, in general, are related to the public concerns regarding potential leaks at PINGP 1 and 2 and the PIICs as well as the public's request for additional information and monitoring data on the level and extent of potential environmental impacts. The requirement to obtain additional data and information on known leaks is part of the ongoing operating license and is currently being addressed by NRC and the applicant.
The comments, as they pertain to requiring additional environmental data, are not within the scope of the environmental review. However, the environmental impacts of identified leaks are within the scope of the environmental review and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
In addition, NRC regulations require licensees to make surveys, as necessary, to evaluate the potential hazard of radioactive material released in order to assess doses to members of the public and workers, recent discoveries of releases at other plants indicate that undetected leakage to groundwater from facility structures, systems, or components can occur resulting in unmonitored and unassessed exposure pathways to members of the public. The NRC has identified several instances of unintended tritium releases, and all available information shows no threat to the public. Nonetheless, the NRC is inspecting each of these events to identify the cause, verify the impact on public health and safety, and review licensee plans to remediate the event. The NRC also established a lessons learned task force to address inadvertent, unmonitored liquid radioactive releases from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. This task force reviewed previous incidents to identify lessons learned from these events and determine what, if any, changes are needed to the regulatory program. Detailed information and updates on these liquid releases can be found on the NRC public website at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.htm.
154 A.8. Human Health The following comments pertain to the assessment of human health impacts in the SEIS:
3-c-ER/HH; 4-d-AR/HH; 6-a-HH; 6-c-HH; 6-d-HH; 6-e-HH; 6-h-HH/LR; 13-a-HH; 13-j-HH; 15-d-HH/EJ; 15-f-HH/EJ; 15-h-HH The NRC staff will address the radiological impacts to human health during its evaluation of the PINGP 1 and 2 license renewal application. However, this issue is a Category 1 issue. Issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been determined in the GEIS to have similar impacts across all sites and are, therefore, not reevaluated in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. Category 2 issues are site specific issues which must be thoroughly analyzed by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its Environmental Report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates these issues as part of its SEIS.
The following comments pertain to the monitoring of radioactive effluents:
3-b-HH; 3-c-ER/HH 4-e-HH; 6-a-HH; 6-c-HH; 6-d-HH; 6-e-HH; 6-h-HH/LR; 6-i-ER/HH; 13-j-HH; 15-h-HH The applicants current operating license requires it to conduct environmental monitoring programs. Upon identification of a new pathway of potential radiological release, the applicant is required by 10 CFR Part 20 to perform radiological surveys to evaluate the radiological hazard from the release. While current operating issues are outside of the scope of the environmental review of this license renewal application, the NRC staff will consider the radioactive effluents monitoring and release points as part of its evaluation of the PINGP license renewal application. The staff will perform a historical review of the radioactive effluents released from the plant and of the data from the applicants radiological environmental monitoring program to determine if there are any significant or unusual trends that warrant additional evaluation. NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Radiological data relevant to the environmental review will be discussed as appropriate in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
This issue is a Category 1 issue. Issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been determined in the GEIS to have similar impacts across all sites and are, therefore, not reevaluated in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. Category 2 issues are site specific issues which must be thoroughly analyzed by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its Environmental Report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates these issues as part of its SEIS.
NRC regulations require licensees to control and limit releases to the environment (the air and water) to very small amounts. As part of the NRC requirements for operating a
155 nuclear power facility, licensees must keep releases of radioactive material to unrestricted areas during normal operation as low as is reasonably achievable (as described in the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.34a) and comply with radiation dose limits for the public as given in the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20.
In addition, NRC regulations require licensees to have various effluent and environmental monitoring programs so that the impacts from plant operations are minimized and the extent of releases are accurately recorded and reported. The NRC requires licensees to report plant discharges and results of environmental monitoring around their plants to ensure that potential impacts are detected and reviewed.
Licensees must also participate in an interlaboratory comparison program, which provides an independent check of the accuracy and precision of environmental measurements. Licensees are required to keep accurate records on releases to the air and water. In annual reports, licensees identify the amount of liquid and airborne radioactive effluents discharged from plants and calculate associated doses. Licensees also must report environmental radioactivity levels around their plants annually. These reports, which are available to the public, include sampling from thermoluminescent dosimeters (which measure radiation dose levels); airborne radioiodine and particulate samplers; samples of surface, groundwater, and drinking water and downstream shoreline sediment from existing or potential recreational facilities; and samples of ingestion sources such as milk, fish, invertebrates, and broad-leaf vegetation. The NRC conducts periodic onsite inspections of each licensees effluent and environmental monitoring programs to ensure compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC documents licensee effluent releases and the results of their environmental monitoring and assessment effort in inspection reports that are available to the public.
The following comments pertain to exposure from electromagnetic fields (EMF):
15-gg-HH The NRC staff will evaluate the actions taken by PINGP to ensure that the impacts from acute electromagnetic fields from their power lines adhere to safety standards issued by the National Electrical Safety Code. These safety standards are designed to ensure that any impacts remain within acceptable limits. This is a Category 2 issue that every plant seeking license renewal must address in its Environmental Report. The NRC staff will include a discussion of PINGP 1 and 2s program to manage acute electromagnetic fields in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
For impacts related to the chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields, biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields have not found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. There is currently no scientific consensus on this issue. Therefore, the NRC staff will not perform a specific health assessment for chronic exposure to EMF in the SEIS.
156 The following comments pertain to human health issues generically associated with nuclear power generating facilities:
3-b-HH; 3-c-ER/HH; 15-h-HH The GEIS evaluated human health issues and determined them to be a Category 1 issue. The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is well measured, well monitored, and known to be very small. The doses of radiation that are received by members of the public as a result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are so low that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not be expected. A number of studies of cancer incidence in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities have been conducted and there are no studies to date that are accepted by the scientific community that show a correlation between radiation dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer incidence in the general public. The comments are noted but provide no new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to added risk due to proximity to PINGP 1 and 2:
4-e-HH; 15-d-HH/EJ Human health issues were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 issues. The GEIS evaluated radiation exposures to the public for all plants including PINGP 1 and 2, and concluded that the impact was small. The information regarding increases in the population around PINGP 1 and 2, possible changes in the age distribution of that population, and increased radio-sensitivity of older people and other sensitive populations does not change this evaluation. The maximum dose to any member of the public living or working near PINGP 1 and 2 is well below one millirem per year, which is well below the radiation standards set by EPA and NRC. These comments provide no new and significant information regarding human health issues and therefore will not be evaluated further.
The following comment pertains to the BEIR VII Phase 2 report:
3-c-ER/HH In the spring of 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The major conclusion of the report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological protection that the NRC uses to develop its regulations. The NRC evaluated the BEIR VII report and discussed its findings in a report to the Commission (SECY 05-0202; ADAMS No.
ML052640532). The NRC concluded the BEIR VII report does not support the need for fundamental revision to International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations. Therefore, the NRCs regulations continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. None of the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant changes to the NRC regulations. The BEIR VII report does not say there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it does not address safe versus not safe. It does continue to support the conclusion that there is some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that risk increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that risk of cancer induction at the dose levels in NRCs and EPAs radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions have
157 been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V). The comment does not provide any new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
The following comment pertains to non-radiological human health concerns:
15-t-HH The GEIS evaluated human health issues related to plant operations during the period of extended operations and determined that the issues are generic Category 1 issues.
These issues include both radiological and non-radiological health effects. The comment is noted but because it provides no new and significant information, it will not be evaluated further.
A.9. License Renewal and its Processes The following comments pertain to the MOU between the NRC and the PIIC:
9-a-LR; 15-b-LR; 15-c-LR The NRC and the PIIC signed an MOU pursuant to which the PIIC is a cooperating agency and the NRC is the lead agency in four specific resource areas: environmental justice, land use, cultural resources, and historic and archeological resources. The MOU can be accessed through the NRCs Electronic Reading Room via ADAMS at accession number ML081710160. These scoping comments are general in nature and do not provide new information. Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to the publics ability to provide public comments and the time allotted for the public to do so:
3-a-LR; 5-g-CI/LR; 6-g-LR; 9-a-LR; 14-c-LR The NRC has established an open process to permit all members of the public to participate in the environmental scoping process. The NRC published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) of its intent to conduct environmental scoping pertaining to the PINGP 1 and 2 license renewal application on July 22, 2008. The environmental scoping period lasted for two months and closed on September 22, 2008. In this time, the NRC staff held two public meetings on July 30, 2008, to receive comments on the scope of the environmental review. These meetings were advertised on the NRC public website, in local newspapers, on notices posted throughout Red Wing, and by letter to individuals and groups on the NRCs most current distribution list.
The NRC makes every effort to inform interested persons or parties of their opportunity to be involved in the NEPA process. After the draft SEIS is published, the NRC staff will issue a FRN of the availability of the document, and this FRN will also open a 75-day period to comment on the draft SEIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will hold a public meeting to receive comments on the draft SEIS. Comments can be provided to the NRC in person, by mail, and by e-mail. These scoping comments identified above are general in nature and do not provide new information. Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.
158 The following comments pertain to the regulations and procedures regarding NRC staffs review of information, assessment, and analysis during the environmental review process, as well as the availability of information to the public:
5-q-CI/LR; 6-h-HH/LR; 13-b-LR Pertaining to the staffs regulations on the environmental review process under NEPA, 10 CFR 51 contains the NRC regulations that implement NEPA. These regulations define the NRC staffs scope of review and its analysis of information in the SEIS.
Regarding the availability of information to the public, the NRC is required to protect information deemed sensitive. Before any NRC-or licensee-generated materials can be released for public inspection, the NRC must complete a sensitivity review to ensure the documents do not contain information that should be designated sensitive.
The following comments pertain to the environmental review process, how it determines impacts on the environment, and how NRC staff should prepare its SEIS:
5-c-LR; 5-r-CI/LR; 5-u-LR; 5-v-LR; 15-y-ER/LR As part of the environmental review process, the NRC evaluates site-specific data provided by the applicant, other Federal agencies, State agencies, tribal and local governments, as well as information from members of the public. In addition, the NRC performs independent reviews of the plant-specific environmental impacts of license renewal in accordance with NEPA and the NRCs requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. The following technical areas are commonly included in the review: land use, ground and surface water use, ground and surface water quality, air quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, radiological impacts, socioeconomic factors, environmental justice issues, historical and archaeological resources, related federal project activities, postulated accidents, uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, decommissioning, alternatives to license renewal, and irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments. Site specific Category 2 impacts will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Other areas may be included as a result of information obtained during the NRC staffs review or from public comments during or following meetings that are held in the vicinity of the nuclear power reactor.
The following comments pertain to the availability of the applicants license renewal application:
13-c-ER/LR; 13-d-LR; 14-a-LR 10 CFR 51.66 specifies the requirements for availability and distribution of the applicants environmental reports required by the applicant. In addition to providing copies to the NRC, applicants must maintain the capability to generate additional copies of the environmental report for distribution to Federal, State, and local officials, and any affected Indian tribes. Applicants are not required to provide copies of the application to other interested persons or parties. However, once a license renewal application is accepted for review by the NRC, the publicly available portions of the application are included on the NRCs website on the license renewal webpage at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html under the link entitled, Status of Current Applications and Industry Initiatives. Applications are also available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the NRCs
159 ADAMS. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Copies of the application are also available at the Red Wing public library.
A.10. Nuclear Safety The following comments pertain to nuclear safety, the safety of operations at PINGP 1 and 2, and the safety of fuel storage:
5-z-NS; 11-b-NS; 18-b-NS; 18-c-NS The NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the 20-year period of extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Operational safety issues and issues related to the safety of fuel storage are outside the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54 and will not be evaluated further in the SEIS. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental review.
A.11. Outside of Scope The following comment pertains to general background information about the NEPA process:
5-l-OS The comment provides general background information and is outside of the scope of the environmental review process and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to a proposed license amendment request regarding transition to a new fuel type at PINGP 1 and 2:
5-y-OS/RW; 13-f-OS License amendment requests completed during the original 40 year term or during the term of extended operation if the license renewal is granted are reviewed by the NRC for any environmental or safety concerns at the time of the amendment. These comments are outside of the scope of the environmental review process and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to the extended power uprate proposal by NSP and issues of electricity supply:
5-i-OS; 5-k-OS/RW; 5-y-OS/RW; 15-p-OS; 15-v-CI/OS/RW; 15-w-OS/RW; 15-ee-OS/SW; 15-ff-OS The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. The NRC does not assess the need for power as part of its license renewal environmental review, and 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) provides that the SEIS is not required to discuss such need.
160 With respect to power uprates or any modifications made to increase power, these actions are not within the scope of license renewal and they require a separate licensing action. The NRC staff would prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), or an EIS, if needed, for the power uprate application. These comments provide no new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
The following comment pertains to issues surrounding security and terrorism:
15-hh-OS Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to license renewal, but are considered to be issues that need to be dealt with constantly as a part of the current operating license. Security issues are periodically reviewed and updated (and extended) at every operating plant. These reviews will continue throughout the period of any extended license. If issues related to security are discovered at a nuclear plant, they would be addressed immediately, and any necessary changes reviewed and incorporated under the operating license, rather than waiting for the period of extended operation. The NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Appropriate safeguards and security measures have been incorporated into the site security and emergency preparedness plans. Any required changes to emergency and safeguard contingency plans related to terrorist events will be incorporated and reviewed under the operating license. The comments provide no new information and do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as defined under 10 CFR Part 51 and 54. Therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.
A.12. Postulated Accidents The following comments pertain to the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis:
8-a-AR/PA/SW; 15-u-PA The comments are related to the impacts of design basis accidents and severe accidents. The impacts of design basis accidents and severe accidents were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be small for all plants; therefore, they are Category 1 issues. Technical issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been generically evaluated in the GEIS and are not reevaluated in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. Category 2 issues are site specific issues which must be thoroughly analyzed by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its environmental report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates the issue as part of its SEIS.
However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. During the plant-specific environmental review of PINGP 1 and 2, the NRC will determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analysis in the GEIS. The applicant provided a
161 severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis as part of the license renewal application for PINGP 1 and 2. The NRC staffs review of the SAMA analysis will be discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix F of the SEIS for PINGP 1 and 2.
Concerning the potential for accidental drawdown at Lock and Dam 3, this scenario is outside the scope of the environmental review and will not be considered further.
Concerning the effects of a severe accident on the Prairie Island Indian Community specifically, socioeconomic issues, including disproportionate effects to minority or low-income communities, will be dicussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
A.13. Radioactive Waste The following comments pertain to long term storage of spent fuel:
5-j-RW; 5-k-OS/RW; 5-m-CI/RW; 5-n-RW; 5-o-CI/RW; 5-p-RW; 5-y-OS/RW; 5-aa-RW; 6-f-EJ/RW/UR; 7-a-AR/RW/SW; 7-c-RW; 12-a-RW; 13-h-RW; 15-i-RW; 15-j-RW; 15-v-CI/OS/RW; 17-d-RW Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue and the safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been evaluated by the NRC in the Waste Confidence Rule. The Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time. In its Statement of Considerations for the 1990 update of the Waste Confidence Rule (55 FR 38472), the Commission addressed the impacts of the disposal of spent fuel discharged from the current fleet of reactors operating under existing and renewed licenses and from a new generation of operating reactors. The rule was last reviewed by the Commission in 1999 when it reaffirmed the findings in the rule (64 FR 68005). The rule is currently the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking (73 FR 59547) that proposes to simplify the rule to state that spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs until a disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available. Because the issue of spent fuel storage is a Category 1, generic issue, comments regarding spent fuel storage are not within the scope of the environmental review and will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) system in place at PINGP 1 and 2:
5-f-EJ/RW; 5-k-OS/RW; 5-y-OS/RW; 15-i-RW; 15-v-CI/RW; 15-w-OS/RW The comments relate to spent fuel management and storage issues specifically those regarding the PINGP 1 and 2 independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Waste management issues and on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. In addition, the safety and environmental effects of long-term, on-site, storage of spent fuel onsite was addressed by the NRC, in the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23). In the Waste Confidence
162 Rule, Finding 4, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the rule asserts that spent fuel will be moved to a permanent repository. In October 2008, the NRC proposed to revise Finding 4 in the Waste Confidence Decision so that it reads as follows: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin and either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.
The GEIS is based on the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent. The SEIS for PINGP 1 and 2, is based on the same assumption.
With respect to the PINGP 1 and 2 ISFSI, specifically, any modifications to the ISFSI pad or containers themselves may require separate licensing actions. NRC regards these actions as part of the current operating licenses and thus they fall outside of the scope of license renewal. These comments provide no new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
A.14. Shutdown and Decommissioning The following comment pertains to how much time is budgeted for relicensing, and whether or not PINGP 1 and 2 should be decommissioned:
13-e-SD The NRC makes its decision whether or not to renew the license based on safety and environmental considerations. The final decision on whether or not to decommission the nuclear plant will be made by the utility, state, and federal (non-NRC) decision makers.
This final decision may be based on economics, energy reliability goals, environmental considerations and potential impacts, and other objectives over which the other entities may have jurisdiction.
The environmental review generally takes 22 months to complete if no hearing is granted and 30 months if a hearing is granted.
Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the GEIS and in NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, published in 2002. The findings from these two documents are used to support the findings in the SEIS by the use of tiering. Tiering is a process by which agencies eliminate repetitive discussions and focus on the more pertinent issues. The effect of license renewal on the impacts of decommissioning will be discussed in Chapter 7 of the SEIS.
163 A.15. Socioeconomics The following comments pertain to NRC staffs assessment of socioeconomics:
4-c-SE; 5-d-SE; 15-o-SE; 15-q-SE The comments are related to the socioeconomic impacts associated with the continued operation or closure of PINGP 1 and 2. Socioeconomic impacts such as housing, transportation, taxes, employment, and land use are Category 2 issues. These issues will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
A.16. Support for License Renewal The following comments pertain to the support of PINGP 1 and 2 license renewal:
16-a-SR; 17-b-SR; 17-e-SR The comments are in support of license renewal of PINGP 1 and 2, and are general in nature. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) discussed the need for power, which is outside of the scope of license renewal. These comments provide no new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.
The following comments pertain to the support of Xcel Energy and NMC:
1-a-SR; 2-a-SR; 16-a-SR; 18-a-SR; 18-d-SR; 18-e-SR; 18-f-SR The comments are in support of Xcel/NSP (formerly NMC/Xcel) and/or their philanthropic activities. The comments are outside of the scope of the staffs environmental review and will not be evaluated further.
A.17. Support for Nuclear Power The following comments are in support of nuclear power, generally:
17-a-SN; 17-c-SN The need for power is outside of the scope of license renewal and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2), need not be addressed in this SEIS. The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of the PINGP 1 and 2 operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current operating licenses and thereby meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. These comments are outside the scope of the staffs environmental review and will not be evaluated further.
A.18. Surface Water The following comments pertain to the effects of thermal discharge on the Mississippi River and other surface waterbodies:
4-b-AR/SW; 4-f-SW; 7-a-AR/RW/SW; 7-b-AR/CR/SW; 7-d-AR/CR/SW; 11-c-AR/SW; 11-d-EJ/SW
164 The comments are related to operation of the plants cooling system, specifically the effects of thermal discharge on surface water, and aquatic and other resources. A discussion of the potential impacts associated with the plants thermal discharge will be presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.
The following comments pertain to protecting the surface water resources as well as assessing impacts to surface water resources near PINGP 1 and 2:
4-b-AR/SW; 5-b-GW/SW; 15-dd-SW Water use and water quality issues are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
The following comments pertain to Lock and Dam 3, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owned and operated facility and associated erosion impacts:
8-a-AR/PA/SW; 15-ee-OS/SW Issues pertaining to the construction and safety of Lock and Dam 3 are not within the scope of review for license renewal. However, concerns relating to the Mississippi River and other surface waterbodies near PINGP 1 and 2 will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Issues pertaining to water use and quality, including erosion, are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
A.19. Terrestrial Resources The following comment pertains to impacts to avian mortality within the transmission line corridors surrounding PINGP 1 and 2:
15-l-TR Impacts from bird collisions with transmission lines was determined to be a Category 1 issue in the GEIS. Technical issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been generically evaluated in the GEIS and are not reevaluated in the SEIS because the conclusions reached would be the same as in the GEIS, unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. This study, as well as other pertinent information concerning this issue, will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. However, this issue will remain Category 1 unless the NRC staff finds new and significant information during the environmental review.
Impacts to terrestrial ecology and non-threatened and endangered species are a Category 1 issue. Impacts to threatened and endangered species, including any protected avian species, is a Category 2 issue and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
165 A.20. Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat The following comment pertains to the threatened and endangered Higgins eye pearlymussel:
15-n-TE The potential impacts of the continued operation of PINGP 1 and 2 on threatened and endangered species is a site specific, or Category 2 issue and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS under aquatic resources. Further, NRC staff will issue a Biological Assessment on the Higgins eye pearlymussel, which can be found in Appendix D of the draft SEIS.
A.21. Uranium Fuel Cycle The following comments pertain to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management:
6-b-EJ/UR; 6-f-EJ/RW/UR; 13-g-UR The NRC evaluated the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle which comprises uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities. The wide range of activities associated with the uranium fuel cycle are geographically located throughout the United States and affect a diverse population. The impacts on the environment of the uranium fuel cycle is a Category 1 issue. Technical issues classified as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 have been generically evaluated in the GEIS and are not reevaluated in the SEIS because the conclusions reached would be the same as in the GEIS, unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists for the specific site being evaluated that would change the generic conclusion for a Category 1 issue into a Category 2 issue. Category 2 issues are site-specific issues which must be thoroughly analyzed by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its Environmental Report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates the issue as part of its SEIS.
The NRC has conducted several transportation studies to evaluate the risk of transportation of radioactive material. NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977b), supported NRC's 10 CFR Part 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material" rulemaking.
Based on this study, the Commission concluded that the transportation regulations are adequate to protect the public against unreasonable risks from the transportation of radioactive materials, including spent fuel. The NRC sponsored another study in the 1980s entitled, "Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions," NUREG/CR-4829 (Fischer et al. 1987), or the "Modal Study." Based on the results of this study, the NRC staff concluded that NUREG-0170 overestimated spent fuel accident risks by about a factor of three. In March 2000, the NRC initiated another spent fuel study, "Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates," NUREG/CR-6672 (Sprung et al. 2000). This study focused on risks of a modern spent fuel transport campaign from reactor sites to possible interim storage sites and/or permanent geologic repositories. This study concluded that accident risks were much less than those
166 estimated in NUREG-0170 and that more than 99 percent of transportation accidents are not severe enough to damage NRC-certified spent fuel casks. While very severe accidents could cause cask damage, the studies show that releases of material would be small and pose little risk to the local population/public. The most severe accidents might cause greater releases, but their likelihood is so remote that the NRC considers the risk to public health to be low. The comments are noted. However, they do not provide any new and significant information and will not be evaluated further.