|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML14364A0122014-12-22022 December 2014
Comment (00011) of Anonymous Individual on Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML12032A0272011-12-19019 December 2011
Comment (4) of Raj Rana, on Behalf of Himself, on NUREG-1482, Rev 2, Appendix B
ML11354A1102011-12-14014 December 2011
Comment (74) of Lois Duvall & Faith Ruffing on Behalf of Themselves Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0682011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (69) of Kris Watkins on Behalf of Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau, Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Operated by Energy Northwest
ML11325A3172011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (60) of Thomas Buchanan, on Behalf of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, on Relicensing Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A1812011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (62) of Theodora Tsongas Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
ML11325A1822011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (63) of Laurence Vernhes Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant
ML11325A3152011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (59) Jill Reifschneider Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3182011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (61) of Allison O'Brien on Behalf of Us Dept of the Interior, on Re-licensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0692011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (70) of Christine B. Reichgott on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency, on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station License
ML11325A3102011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (54) of Gerry Pollet, on Behalf of Heart of America, on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Stati
ML11325A2462011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (50) of Delbert Mccombs, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants & Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3082011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (52) of Leslie March, on Behalf of the Sierra Club, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating
ML11325A3092011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (53) of Janice Castle Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A1842011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (65) by James W. Sanders on Behalf of Benton Pud, Supporting Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A1832011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (64) of Julie Longenecker on Behalf of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, on Draft Supplemental EIS for License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A2472011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (51) of Eric Adman, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3132011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (57) of Mary Twombly Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
ML11325A3112011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (55) of Chandra Radiance on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the Licenses Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3142011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (58) of Charles Johnson, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3122011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (56) of Hafiz Heartsun, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Re-Licensing of Columbia River Generation Station
ML11325A2452011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (49) of Susan Nash, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Gener
ML11325A2442011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (48) of Steven G Gilbert, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A2432011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (47) of Jacqueline Sorgen on Behalf of Himself Opposed to Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License
ML11325A2422011-11-12012 November 2011
Comment (46) of Louisa Hamachek, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings
ML11325A1902011-11-10010 November 2011
Comment (66) of Michelle Caird on Behalf of Inland Power and Light Co., Supporting License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0662011-11-10010 November 2011
Comment (67) of Stephen Posner on Behalf of the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Columbia Generating Station Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement - Supplement 47
ML11334A0702011-11-0808 November 2011
Comment (71) of Commissioners on Behalf of Mason County Pud Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generatin
ML11308A0302011-11-0101 November 2011
Comment (2) of Tom Clements on Behalf of Friends of the Earth, on Draft Strategic Plan About Testing of Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Made from Weapons-Grade Plutonium Required for NRC to License MOX Use in Boiling Water Reactors
ML11318A2562011-10-25025 October 2011
Comment (45) of William Gordon, Et. Al., on Behalf of Franklin Pud, Supporting Energy Northwest'S License Renewal for Columbia Generating Station
ML11305A0132011-10-19019 October 2011
Comment (43) of Henry T. Bernstein on Behalf of Himself, Opposing the Relicensing of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11305A0122011-10-18018 October 2011
Comment (42) of Diana Thompson on Behalf of Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County in Support of Energy Northwest'S Application to Renew Columbia Generating Station'S License for an Additional 25 Years
ML11291A1352011-10-16016 October 2011
Comment (38) of Linda on Behalf of Self Opposing the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station License
ML11293A0432011-10-13013 October 2011
Comment (41) of Leo Bowman, Shon Small & James Beaver on Behalf of Benton County, Wa, Board of Commissioners, Supporting the Relicensing of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11293A0422011-10-11011 October 2011
Comment (40) of the Board of Commissioners for Mason County Public Utility District, Supporting the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station'S Operating License for an Additional 20 Years
ML11291A1572011-10-0505 October 2011
Comment (37) of Ken S. Berg on Behalf of Us Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, on Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Informal Consultation
ML11280A1162011-10-0404 October 2011
Comment (31) of Unknown Individual Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A1172011-10-0404 October 2011
Comment (32) of Scott Mcdonald on License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A1152011-10-0303 October 2011
Comment (30) of Holly Graham Re Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A1102011-10-0101 October 2011
Comment (27) of Carol Hiltner Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A1092011-09-30030 September 2011
Comment (26) of Kathleen Wahl on NRC-2010-0029, Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal
ML11280A1082011-09-30030 September 2011
Comment (25) of Martin Mijal Re Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11279A2462011-09-29029 September 2011
Comment (18) of Judy Ginn on Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A2002011-09-29029 September 2011
Comment (22) of Theodora Tsongas Re Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal
ML11280A2032011-09-29029 September 2011
Comment (24) of Lonn Holman Re Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A1202011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (35) of Don C. Brunell, on Behalf of Association of Washington Business, Supporting License Renewal for Columbia Generating Station
ML11279A2412011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (13) of Tom May Requesting Regional Hearings on the Draft EIS for Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11279A2432011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (15) of Kathleen Bushman on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public
ML11279A2452011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (17) of Anne Moore on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetin
ML11279A2402011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (12) of Gary Petersen of Tridec on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and
2014-12-22
[Table view] |
Text
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS, TRIBAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS November 16, 2011 Cindy Bladey Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-BO1M .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 C. -
Re: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statem-t (DSEIS)N)r Cf) renewal of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) license EPA` Project Number: 11-4122-NRC.
Dear Ms. Bladey:
In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposed relicense of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) in the city of Richland, Benton County, Washington.
The EPA believes that the DSEIS provides adequate discussion of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and we have not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes. However, we do recommend that the final SEIS include updated information on the status of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application (p.
C-5) and measures to protect water quality; and outcomes of consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, including recommended measures to reduce risks and protect biota and habitat. Correspondingly, it will also be important to continue coordination with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife throughout the license period to monitor risks to species and take corrective action.
The EPA has rated the DSEIS as LO - "Lack of Objections". An explanation of this rating is enclosed.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this SEIS document and look forward to reviewing the final SEIS for the project.
Weg7,--
V2xc/- 6
If you have questions about our comments, please contact me at (206) 553-1601 or by electronic mail at reichgott.christine@epa.gov, or you may contact Theo Mbabaliye of my staff at (206) 553-6322 or by electronic mail at mbabalive.theosene@eDa. 2ov.
Sincerely, 72 Z j Christine B. Reichgott, Manager Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit Q Printedon Recycled Paper
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow-Up Action*
Environmental Impact of the Action LO - Lack of Objections The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
EC - Environmental Concerns EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment.
Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts.
EO - Environmental Objections EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no-action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement Category 1 - Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.
Category 2 - Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3 - Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
- From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February, 1987.
Q Printedon Recycled Paper
