ML12334A640
| ML12334A640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21542, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NYS00133D | |
| Download: ML12334A640 (153) | |
Text
NYS00133D Submitted: December 14, 2011 Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s), Accession Number ML091100702 ML091100703 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit ML091100704 ML091100705 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
ML091100706 ML091100707 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
ML091100722 ML091100723 ML091100724 ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 ML091100725 ML091100726 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 ML091100727 ML091100728 Exhibit #: NYS00133D-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 ML091100729 ML091100730 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:
ML091100731 ML091100732 ML091100735 Rejected: Stricken: ML091100736 In the Matter of:
Other: '.')1
~
"
~
~
~
{,?Jl.o "*
..,*'
....
..
ML091100737 ML091100738 ML091100739 o~
93J. .. .LS ML091100740 ML091100741 ML091100742 ML091100743 ML091100744 ML091100749 ML091100750 ML091100751 ML091100752 ML091100753 ML091100755 58-c-AQ/EC/SO Form Letter letter 661 ML091100591 ML091100592 ML091100593 ML091100595 ML091100596 ML091100597 ML091100598 ML091100599 ML091100600 ML091100603 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-24 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00460
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number ML091100604 ML091100605 ML091100606 ML091100607 ML091100609 ML091100610 ML091100611 ML091100612 ML091100613 ML091100622 ML091100623 ML091100624 ML091100625 ML091100626 ML091100627 ML091100628 ML091100629 ML091100630 ML091100631 ML091100654 ML091100655 ML091100656 ML091100657 ML091100658 ML091100660 ML091100661 ML091100662 ML091100663 ML091100664 ML091100671 ML091100672 ML091100673 ML091100674 ML091100675 ML091100676 ML091100677 ML091100678 ML091100679 ML091100680 ML091100686 ML091100687 ML091100688 ML091100689 December 2010 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00461
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s). Accession Number ML091100690 ML091100691 ML091100692 ML091100693 ML091100694 ML091100695 ML091100696 ML091100697 ML091100699 ML091100700 ML091100701 ML091100702 ML091100703 ML091100704 ML091100705 ML091100706 ML091100707 ML091100722 ML091100723 ML091100724 ML091100725 ML091100726 ML091100727 ML091100728 ML091100729 ML091100730 ML091100731 ML091100732 ML091100735 ML091100736 ML091100737 ML091100738 ML091100739 ML091100740 ML091100741 ML091100742 ML091100743 ML091100744 ML091100749 ML091100750 ML091100751 ML091100752 ML091100753 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-26 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00462
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number ML091100755 58-d-SR Form Letter letter 661 ML091100591 ML091100592 ML091100593 ML091100595 ML091100596 ML091100597 ML091100598 ML091100599 ML091100600 ML091100603 ML091100604 ML091100605 ML091100606 ML091100607 ML091100609 ML091100610 ML091100611 ML091100612 ML091100613 ML091100622 ML091100623 ML091100624 ML091100625 ML091100626 ML091100627 ML091100628 ML091100629 ML091100630 ML091100631 ML091100654 ML091100655 ML091100656 ML091100657 ML091100658 ML091100660 ML091100661 ML091100662 ML091100663 ML091100664 ML091100671 ML091100672 ML091100673 December 2010 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00463
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s). Accession Number ML091100674 ML091100675 ML091100676 ML091100677 ML091100678 ML091100679 ML091100680 ML091100686 ML091100687 ML091100688 ML091100689 ML091100690 ML091100691 ML091100692 ML091100693 ML091100694 ML091100695 ML091100696 ML091100697 ML091100699 ML091100700 ML091100701 ML091100702 ML091100703 ML091100704 ML091100705 ML091100706 ML091100707 ML091100722 ML091100723 ML091100724 ML091100725 ML091100726 ML091100727 ML091100728 ML091100729 ML091100730 ML091100731 ML091100732 ML091100735 ML091100736 ML091100737 ML091100738 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-28 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00464
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number ML091100739 ML091100740 ML091100741 ML091100742 ML091100743 ML091100744 ML091100749 ML091100750 ML091100751 ML091100752 ML091100753 ML091100755 59-a-LR Foster, Mary transcript 662 ML091410355 60-a-SE Fraiser, A. transcript 665 ML091410354 60-b-AQ/SE Fraiser, A. transcript 666 ML091410354 61-a-AE/ALIOR Friedman, C. e-mail 668 ML090640398 61-b-LE/RW/ST Friedman, C. e-mail 668 ML090640398 62-a-EJ/SR Frye, G. transcript 669 ML091410355 62-b-EJ/SR Frye, G. transcript 669 ML091410355 63-a-OR Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-b-RW Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-c-AE Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-d-LE Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-e-AM Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-f-RW/ST Funck, J. e-mail, letter 671 ML090640355 ML090711021 63-g-0R Funck, J. e-mail, letter 672 ML090640355 ML090711021 64-a- Furgatch, L. e-mail 673 ML090640376 LE/OM/OR/RW 65-a-SO/SR Garcia, F. transcript 674 ML091410354 65-b-EC/SR Garcia, F. transcript 674 ML091410354 65-c-EC/SO/SR Garcia, F. transcript 674 ML091410354 66-a-GI/OR Garisto, M. e-mail 676 ML090720675 66-b-OE Garisto, M. e-mail 676 ML090720675 66-c-RG Garisto, M. e-mail 676 ML090720675 67-a-SR Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 December 2010 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00465
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 67-b-EC/SO Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 67-c-EC Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 67-d-AL Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 67-e-SE/SO Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 67-f-SR Gordon, M. e-mail, letter 677 ML090700176 M L091680298 68-a-ALINE Gould, R. hand-in 678 ML091740490 68-b-DE/EF/NE Gould, R. hand-in 678 ML091740490 68-c-DE/EJ/NE Gould, R. hand-in 679 ML091740490 68-d-AL Gould, R. hand-in 680 ML091740490 69-a- Grady, P. e-mail 682 ML090700185 HH/LE/OR/PA 70-a-ON Raging Grannies transcript, 683 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 70-b-UF Raging Grannies transcript, 685 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 70-c-OR Raging Grannies transcript, 685 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 70-d-OR Raging Grannies transcript, 687 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 71-a-OE Gray, J. e-mail 691 ML090720680 71-b-PA Gray, J. e-mail 691 ML090720680 71-c-LE/RW Gray, J. e-mail 691 ML090720680 71-d-RW Gray, J. e-mail 691 ML090720680 72-a- Green, G. e-mail 693 ML090640378 EP/LE/OR/RW 73-a-HH Greene, M. transcript 694 ML091410354 73-b-EJ/LE Greene, M. transcript 694 ML091410354 73-c-EJ/HH/LE Greene, M. transcript 695 ML091410354 73-d-EP Greene, M. transcript 695 ML091410354 73-e-EJ/HH Greene, M. hand-in 697 ML091740490 73-f-ALlAQIWA Greene, M. hand-in 698 ML091740490 73-g-AE Greene, M. hand-in 698 ML091740490 73-h-AM/LRIST Greene, M. hand-in 698 ML091740490 74-a-LE Hassman, H. e-mail 699 ML090640394 74-b-SA Hassman, H. e-mail 699 ML090640394 75-a-OR Hawkins, G. e-mail 700 ML090640393 75-b- Hawkins, G. e-mail 700 ML090640393 EP/LE/OP/ST I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-30 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00466
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 75-c-EC/SA Hawkins, G. e-mail 700 ML090640393 76-a-AE/LE/OR Helman, L. e-mail 701 ML090640363 76-b-OR/PA Helman, L. e-mail 701 ML090640363 77-a-AE/OR Hirsh, S. e-mail 702 ML090640395 78-a-SR Hohlfeld, B. transcript 703 ML091410354 78-b-EC/GI/ST Hohlfeld, B. transcript 703 ML091410354 78-c-SO/SR Hohlfeld, B. transcript 703 ML091410354 79-a-HH Hudson River Sloop hand-in 705 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-b-EJ/HH Hudson River Sloop hand-in 706 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-c-AL Hudson River Sloop hand-in 706 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-d-LR/NE Hudson River Sloop hand-in 706 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-e-HH/SO Hudson River Sloop hand-in 709 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-f-HH Hudson River Sloop hand-in 711 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-g-S0 Hudson River Sloop hand-in 711 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-h-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 711 ML091740490 Clearwater, Inc.
79-i-HH/SO Hudson River Sloop hand-in 711 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-j-HH Hudson River Sloop hand-in 711 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-k-SF Hudson River Sloop hand-in 712 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-I-AE Hudson River Sloop hand-in 712 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-m-AL Hudson River Sloop hand-in 713 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-n-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 714 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-o-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 716 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-p-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 716 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-q-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 718 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-r-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 720 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-s-EJ/HH Hudson River Sloop hand-in 720 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-t-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 721 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-u-EJ/SM Hudson River Sloop hand-in 724 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-v-EJ/EP/SM Hudson River Sloop hand-in 724 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-w-EJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 727 ML090780770 December 2010 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00467
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number Clearwater, Inc.
79-x-ALlEJ Hudson River Sloop hand-in 728 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-y-EJ/UF Hudson River Sloop hand-in 730 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-z-AL Hudson River Sloop hand-in 731 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
79-aa-LR Hudson River Sloop hand-in 734 ML090780770 Clearwater, Inc.
80-a- Imoberdorf, O. e-mail 736 ML090640366 EP/OR/RW/ST 80-b- Imoberdorf, O. e-mail 736 ML090640366 LE/RW/SF1ST 80-c-OR Imoberdorf, O. e-mail 736 ML090640366 81-a-UF Indusi, J. transcript 737 ML091410355 81-b-EC Indusi, J. transcript 737 ML091410355 81-c-AL Indusi, J. transcript 737 ML091410355 81-d-OR Indusi, J. transcript 738 ML091410355 82-a-OR Jacobs, M. transcript 739 ML091410354 82-b-GI/LR Jacobs, M. transcript 739 ML091410354 82-c-LR Jacobs, M. transcript 740 ML091410354 83-a-OS Johnson, T. transcript 743 ML091410355 84-a-RW Karamaty, V. transcript 744 ML091410354 84-b-OS Karamaty, V. transcript 744 ML091410354 84-c-ON Karamaty, V. transcript 744 ML091410354 85-a-EC/SO/SR Karas, J. transcript 747 ML091410355 85-b-AQ/HH Karas, J. transcript 747 ML091410355 85-c-EC/SO/SR Karas, J. transcript 747 ML091410355 86-a-OR Kardos, T. transcript 749 ML091410354 86-b-AQ Kardos, T. transcript 749 ML091410354 86-c-AL Kardos, T. transcript 749 ML091410354 86-d-AEIALIG L Kardos, T. transcript 750 ML091410354 86-e-OR Kardos, T. transcript 750 ML091410354 87-a-DE/EP Kardos, Th. e-mail 751 ML090771342 87-b- Kardos, Th. e-mail 751 ML090771342 HH/PAIRW/ST 87 -c-AM/HH/OM Kardos, Th. e-mail 751 ML090771342 87-d-AE Kardos, Th. e-mail 751 ML090771342 87-e-GL Kardos, Th. e-mail 752 ML090771342 87-f-AL Kardos, Th. e-mail 752 ML090771342 88-a-AQ Kearrey, G. transcript 753 ML091410355 88-b-EC/SR Kearney, G. transcript 753 ML091410355 88-c-EC/SR Kearney, G. transcript 753 ML091410355 89-a-HH/PA/SF Keenan, J. e-mail 755 ML090720664 90-a-SA Kelly, J. transcript 756 ML091410354 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-32 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00468
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 90-b-AQ Kelly, J. transcript 756 ML091410354 90-c-ALlAQ/HH Kelly, J. transcript 756 ML091410354 90-d-ALIEC/SO Kelly, J. transcript 757 ML091410354 90-e-ALIAQ Kelly, J. hand-in 759 ML091740490 91-a-OR Ketchum, A. e-mail 831 ML090720672 91-b-AE Ketchum, A. e-mail 831 ML090720672 91-c-AE Ketchum, A. e-mail 831 ML090720672 91-d-LE Ketchum, A. e-mail 831 ML090720672 91-e-OR/RW/ST Ketchum, A. e-mail 831 ML090720672 92-a-EC/SO/SR Klein, T. transcript 832 ML091410355 92-b-EC/SO Klein, T. transcript 832 ML091410355 92-c-ALIAQ Klein, T. transcript 833 ML091410355 92-d-SO/SR Klein, T. transcript 833 ML091410355 92-e-SO/SR Klein, T. letter 834 ML091682097 92-f-ALIEC Klein, T. letter 834 ML091682097 92-g-S0/SR Klein, T. letter 834 ML091682097 93-a-OE Knolmeter, L. e-mail 835 ML090720681 93-b-RIITE Knolmeter, L. e-mail 835 ML090720681 93-c-ALIEC Knolmayer, L. e-mail 835 ML090720681 93-d-AE/MP/RG Knolmayer, L. e-mail 835 ML090720681 93-e-AE/RG Knolmayer, L. e-mail 836 ML090720681 93-f-AE Knolmayer, L. e-mail 836 ML090720681 93-g-EJ/HH Knolmayer, L. e-mail 836 ML090720681 94-a-LR Knubel, J. transcript 838 ML091410355 94-b-AE Knubel, J. transcript 838 ML091410355 94-c-ALIEC Knubel, J. transcript 838 ML091410355 95-a-AL Koldewyn, K. e-mail 840 ML090720671 96-a-GE/LR Kopec, E. e-mail 842 ML090700186 96-b-LR/NE Kopec, E. e-mail 842 ML090700186 96-c-AM/LE/OM Kopec, E. e-mail 842 ML090700186 96-d-HH/LE/RI Kopec, E. e-mail 843 ML090700186 96-e-HH/LEIWA Kopec, E. e-mail 843 ML090700186 96-f-DC/LEIWA Kopec, E. e-mail 843 ML090700186 96-g-EJ/H H/LE Kopec, E. e-mail 843 ML090700186 96-h-EP Kopec, E. e-mail 844 ML090700186 96-i-EJ/UF Kopec, E. e-mail 844 ML090700186 96-j-LR/PA/RW Kopec, E. e-mail 844 5 ML090700186 1
96-k-AEITS Kopec, E. e-mail 844 ML090700186 96-I-AEIALIRG Kopec, E. e-mail 845 ML090700186 96-m-AE Kopec, E. e-mail 845 ML090700186 96-n-AM/LE Kopec, E. e-mail 845 ML090700186 96-o-AL Kopec, E. e-mail 845 ML090700186 December 2010 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00469
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 96-p-OR Kopec, E. e-mail 846 ML090700186 97-a-EJ/HH Kopshaw, K. transcript 847 ML091410355 97-b-TS Kopshaw, K. transcript 847 ML091410355 97-c-AQ/WA Kopshaw, K. transcript 848 ML091410355 97-d-AE Kopshaw, K. transcript 849 ML091410355 97-e-PA Kopshaw, K. transcript 849 ML091410355 97-f-DE/PA Kopshaw, K. e-mail 851 ML090720652 97-g-EP/PA Kopshaw, K. e-mail 851 ML090720652 97-h-AE/AL Kopshaw, K. e-mail 851 ML090720652 97-i-AE/OL Kopshaw, K. e-mail 851 ML090720652 97-j-TS Kopshaw, K. e-mail 851 ML090720652 97 -k-EJ/HH/LE Kopshaw, K. e-mail 852 ML090720652 98-a-EP/OR/PA Kourie, K. e-mail 853 ML090640375 98-b-ALISA Kourie, K. e-mail 853 ML090640375 98-c-HH/LE/RI Kourie, K. e-mail 853 ML090640375 98-d-OR/RE Kourie, K. e-mail 853 ML090640375 99-a-SR Kremer, A. transcript 854 5 ML091410354 9
99-b-AQ/HH Kremer, A. transcript 854 ML091410354 99-c-ALIEC Kremer, A. transcript 855 ML091410354 99-d-ALIAQ Kremer, A. transcript 856 ML091410354 100-a-OR Lapido, H. e-mail 857 ML090640399 101-a-SR Ledwith, R. letter 858 5 M L091680292 9
101-b-EC Ledwith, R. letter 858 ML091680292 101-c-SO/SR Ledwith, R. letter 858 5 M L091680292 9
102-a-AL Lee, M. transcript 859 ML091410354 102-b-AE/GI Lee, M. transcript 859 ML091410354 102-c-RW/SF Lee, M. transcript 860 ML091410354 102-d-OW/PAIST Lee, M. transcript 860 ML091410354 102-e-OE Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-f-AL Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-g-AE Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-h-HH/RI Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-i-AM/GL Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-j-PA Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-k-RW Lee, M. e-mail 861 ML090641135 102-I-NE/PA Lee, M. e-mail 862 ML090641135 102-m-GE/OM Lee, M. e-mail 862 ML090641135 102-n-AM Lee, M. e-mail 862 ML090641135 102-o-0M Lee, M. e-mail 862 ML090641135 102-p-OE Lee, M. e-mail 862 ML090641135 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-34 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00470
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 103-a-ALlUF Leifer, S. transcript 863 ML091410355 103-b-RW/SF Leifer, S. transcript 863 ML091410355 103-c-ALlUF Leifer, S. transcript 863 ML091410355 104-a-LR Likes, P. hand-in 865 ML091740490 105-a-SO/SR Ludwigson, S. transcript 866 ML091410355 105-b-ALIEC Ludwigson, S. transcript 866 ML091410355 105-c-EC/SR Ludwigson, S. transcript 867 ML091410355 106-a- Mallon, Sister F. letter 868 ML090860660 AE/LE/RW/SF 107 -a-HH/RI Mangano, J. e-mail, 869 ML090640401 hand-in ML091740490 ML090540443 108-a-EC/SO/SR Marzullo, D. transcript 877 ML091410355 108-b-ALIGI/SR Marzullo, D. transcript 877 ML091410355 109-a-SO Mattis, J. transcript 879 ML091410354 109-b-EC/EP Mattis, J. transcript 879 ML091410354 109-c-SE/SO Mattis, J. transcript 879 ML091410354 109-d-SO/SR Mattis, J. transcript 880 ML091410354 110-a-OP/OR Maturo, M. e-mail 881 ML090771333 110-b-LEIWA Maturo, M. e-mail 881 ML090771333 110-c-ALIOP/ST Maturo, M. e-mail 881 ML090771333 111-a-SO McCann, Dr. D transcript 882 ML091410354 111-b-SO/SR McCann, Dr. D transcript 882 ML091410354 111-c-EC/SO McCann, Dr. D transcript 883 ML091410354 111-d-SO McCann, Dr. D transcript 883 ML091410354 112-a-ALlAQ/EC McCormick, J. transcript 885 ML091410354 112-b-ALlAQ/EC McCormick, J. transcript 886 ML091410354 112-c-AL McCormick, J. hand-in 889 ML091740490 112-d-ALIAQ McCormick, J. hand-in 889 ML091740490 112-e-ALIAQ McCormick, J. hand-in 892 ML091740490 112-f-ALIAQ McCormick, J. hand-in 892 ML091740490 112-g-ALlAQ/EC McCormick, J. hand-in 893 ML091740490 112-h-ALIRG McCormick, J. hand-in 894 ML091740490 112-i-SR McCormick, J. hand-in 894 ML091740490 113-a-SR McDonald, N. transcript 895 ML091410355 113-b-AEIALlEJ McDonald, N. transcript 895 ML091410355 113-c-EJ/GE McDonald, N. transcript 896 ML091410355 113-d-AQ/GLISR McDonald, N. transcript 896 ML091410355 113-e-SR McDonald, N. hand-in 899 ML091740490 113-f-ALIAQ McDonald, N. hand-in 899 ML091740490 113-g-AE/ALIAQ McDonald, N. hand-in 900 ML091740490 113-h-AE/GL McDonald, N. hand-in 901 ML091740490 113-i-ALIAQ McDonald, N. hand-in 902 ML091740490 December 2010 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00471
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 113-j-EC McDonald, N. hand-in 905 ML091740490 113-k-ALlAQfRG McDonald, N. hand-in 905 ML091740490 113-I-SR McDonald, N. hand-in 907 ML091740490 114-a-SE McGrath, J. transcript 908 ML091410355 115-a-SAfSEfSO Miranda, G. transcript, 910 ML091410354 hand-in ML091740490 115-b-SO Miranda, G. transcript, 910 ML091410354 hand-in ML091740490 116-a-SOfSR Miranda, R. transcript 915 ML091410354 116-b-ECfSO Miranda, R. transcript 915 ML091410354 116-c-LRfSR Miranda, R. transcript 916 ML091410354 117 -a-AMfLEfOR Mitchell, G. letter 917 ML090711022 117 -b-AMfLE Mitchell, G. letter 917 ML090711022 117 -c-DEfST Mitchell, G. letter 917 ML090711022 118-a-AQfEJfSR Montague, V. transcript 918 ML091410354 118-b-ECfEJfSR Montague, V. transcript 919 ML091410354 119-a-SR Mooney, W. e-mail, letter 921 ML090680019 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-b-ECfSO Mooney, W. e-mail, letter 921 ML090680019 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-c-AQfECfSO Mooney, W. e-mail, letter ML090680019 921 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-d-AQfSE Mooney, W. e-mail, letter 921 ML090680019 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-e-ECfGlfSO Mooney, W. e-mail, letter 921 ML090680019 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-f-SR Mooney, W. e-mail, letter 921 ML090680019 M L091680294 ML090680022 119-g-ECfSOfSR Mooney, W. transcript 922 ML091410354 119-h-AQ Mooney, W. transcript 922 ML091410354 119-i-SO Mooney, W. transcript 922 ML091410354 119-j-SEfSR Mooney, W. transcript 922 ML091410354 120-a-ECfSA Moore, Dr. P. transcript 924 ML091410355 120-b-HH Moore, Dr. P. transcript 924 ML091410355 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-36 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00472
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 120-c-ALIAQ/EC Moore, Dr. P. transcript 925 ML091410355 120-d-OS Moore, Dr. P. transcript 926 ML091410355 120-e-AE Moore, Dr. P. transcript 926 ML091410355 120-f-AE Moore, Dr. P. transcript 926 ML091410355 120-g-EC Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 928 ML091740490 120-h-OP/HH Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 928 ML091740490 120-i-ALlAQ/GI Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 929 ML091740490 120-j-ALIAQ Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 929 ML091740490 120-k-AE Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 930 ML091740490 120-I-LE Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 931 ML091740490 120-m-RW/SF Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 931 ML091740490 120-n-ST Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 931 ML091740490 120-o-LE Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 931 ML091740490 120-p-SR Moore, Dr. P. hand-in 932 ML091740490 121-a-DE/OR Murdock, C. e-mail 933 ML090771332 121-b-AM/LE Murdock, C. e-mail 933 ML090771332 121-c-OR/PA Murdock, C. e-mail 933 ML090771332 122-a-DE/PA/ST Murphy, R. e-mail 934 ML090640396 122-b-LE Murphy, R. e-mail 934 ML090640396 122-c-AE Murphy, R. e-mail 934 ML090640396 122-d-AL Murphy, R. e-mail 934 ML090640396 123-a-AE Musegaas, P. transcript 935 ML091410355 123-b-AE Musegaas, P. transcript 935 ML091410355 123-c-AE Musegaas, P. transcript 936 ML091410355 123-d-GE/SF Musegaas, P. transcript 936 ML091410355 123-e-RW/SF Musegaas, P. transcript 937 ML091410355 123-f-GE Musegaas, P. transcript 937 ML091410355 123-g-AL Musegaas, P. transcript 937 ML091410355 124-a-ALIRW/SF Myslinski, M. e-mail 939 ML090720655 124-b- Myslinski, M. e-mail 939 ML090720655 EJ/EP/HH/PA 125-a-DE/EP Nemeczek, J. e-mail 940 ML090720648 125-b-EP Nemeczek, J. e-mail 940 ML090720648 126-a- Newman, J. e-mail 941 ML090650457 oE/RW/S FIST 126-b-AE Newman, J. e-mail 941 ML090650457 126-c-LE Newman, J. e-mail 941 ML090650457 126-d-LE/RI Newman, J. e-mail 941 ML090650457 127 -a-SAISR Nicklas, D. transcript 942 ML091410355 127 -b-EC/SO Nicklas, D. transcript 942 ML091410355 127 -c-ALISR Nicklas, D. transcript 942 ML091410355 128-a-LR NYSDEC e-mail 948 ML090780782 128-b-AE/EPITS NYSDEC e-mail 948 ML090780782 December 2010 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00473
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 128-c-GE/LR NYSDEC e-mail 949 ML090780782 128-d-GE/LR NYSDEC e-mail 949 ML090780782 128-e-AE NYSDEC e-mail 950 ML090780782 128-f-AE NYSDEC e-mail 951 ML090780782 128-g-AE NYSDEC e-mail 952 ML090780782 128-h-AEIAL NYSDEC e-mail 954 ML090780782 128-i-AL NYSDEC e-mail 956 ML090780782 128-j-AE NYSDEC e-mail 961 ML090780782 128-k-AE NYSDEC e-mail 962 ML090780782 128-I-AE NYSDEC e-mail 962 ML090780782 128-m-AE NYSDEC e-mail 963 ML090780782 128-n-AE NYSDEC e-mail 963 ML090780782 128-o-TS NYSDEC e-mail 963 ML090780782 128-p-TS NYSDEC e-mail 964 ML090780782 128-q-AE NYSDEC e-mail 966 ML090780782 128-r-SM/UF NYSDEC e-mail 967 ML090780782 128-s-EP NYSDEC e-mail 975 ML090780782 129-a-LR NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 986 ML090771328 General 129-b-UF NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 990 ML090771328 General 129-c-RW NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 994 ML090771328 General 129-d-ALILU NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 997 ML090771328 General 129-e-SM NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1002 ML090771328 General 129-f-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1006 ML090771328 General 129-g-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1008 ML090771328 General 129-h-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1014 ML090771328 General 129-i-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1016 ML090771328 General 129-j-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1017 ML090771328 General 129-k-ALlLR NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1018 ML090771328 General 129-I-AL NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1018 ML090771328 General 129-m-SM NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1022 ML090771328 General 129-n-SM NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1028 ML090771328 General 129-o-SM NYSO of the Attorney hand-in 1032 ML090771328 General 130-a-AQ/SR Oros, G. transcript 1044 ML091410354 130-b-OP/SO/SR Oros, G. transcript 1045 ML091410354 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-38 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00474
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 131-a-OS Otis, M. transcript 1046 ML091410355 131-b-SE Otis, M. transcript 1046 ML091410355 131-c-SE/SR Otis, M. transcript 1047 ML091410355 131-d-SE Otis, M. hand-in 1048 ML091740490 131-e-AQ/EC/SR Otis, M. hand-in 1049 ML091740490 132-a-AL Parker, J. transcript 1051 ML091410354 132-b-NE Parker, J. transcript 1051 ML091410354 132-c-AE Parker, J. transcript 1052 ML091410354 132-d-GI/LR Parker, J. transcript 1052 ML091410354 132-e-GI/LR Parker, J. transcript 1052 ML091410354 132-f-AE Parker, J. transcript 1053 ML091410354 132-g-GI/LR Parker, J. transcript 1053 ML091410354 133-a-EC/SO/SR Perry, S. transcript 1055 ML091410354 133-b-EC Perry, S. transcript 1055 ML091410354 133-c-AQ Perry, S. transcript 1055 ML091410354 133-d-ALIAQ/SR Perry, S. transcript 1056 ML091410354 134-a-ALlAQ/GI Perry, D. transcript 1057 ML091410355 134-b-ALlAQ/EJ Perry, D. transcript 1057 ML091410355 135-a-LE/OR Pilder, L. e-mail 1059 ML090640206 135-b-LE Pilder, L. e-mail 1059 ML090640206 135-c-RW/SF/ST Pilder, L. e-mail 1059 ML090640206 136-a-CRISO/SR Pockriss, P. transcript 1060 ML091410354 136-b-SO/SR Pockriss, P. transcript 1060 ML091410354 136-c-SE Pockriss, P. transcript 1061 ML091410354 137 -a-SA/SR Puglisi, L. transcript 1062 ML091410355 137-b- Puglisi, L. transcript 1063 ML091410355 GW/RW/PA/SF 137-c-NE Puglisi, L. transcript 1063 ML091410355 137 -d-LRIST Puglisi, L. transcript 1063 ML091410355 137-e-LR Puglisi, L. hand-in 1066 ML091740490 137-f- Puglisi, L. hand-in 1067 ML091740490 ALILE/PA/RF/SF 137-g-NE/RW Puglisi, L. hand-in 1067 ML091740490 137-h-AL Puglisi, L. hand-in 1068 ML091740490 137-i-PA Puglisi, L. hand-in 1068 ML091740490 137-j-RI Puglisi, L. hand-in 1068 ML091740490 137-k-RF Puglisi, L. hand-in 1069 ML091740490 137 -I-DC/RW Puglisi, L. hand-in 1069 ML091740490 137-m-LR Puglisi, L. hand-in 1071 ML091740490 137-n-LR Puglisi, L. hand-in 1071 ML091740490 137-0-S0 Puglisi, L. hand-in 1071 ML091740490 137-p-ST Puglisi, L. hand-in 1071 ML091740490 137-q-EP Puglisi, L. hand-in 1071 ML091740490 December 2010 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00475
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 137-r-LR Puglisi, L. hand-in 1073 ML091740490 138-a-EJ/HH/LE Race, K. e-mail 1074 ML090720659 139-a-TS Raddant, A. e-mail 1077 ML090771341 139-b-TS Raddant, A. e-mail 1077 ML090771341 139-c-AE Raddant, A. e-mail 1078 ML090771341 139-d-AE Raddant, A. e-mail 1078 ML090771341 139-e-AE Raddant, A. e-mail 1079 ML090771341 139-f-ALlLR Raddant, A. e-mail 1079 ML090771341 139-g-LR Raddant, A. e-mail 1080 ML090771341 140-a-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1082 ML090860983 140-b-EP Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1083 ML090860983 140-c-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1085 ML090860983 140-d-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1087 ML090860983 140-e-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1088 ML090860983 140-f-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1089 ML090860983 140-g-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1089 ML090860983 140-h-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1090 ML090860983 140-i-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1091 ML090860983 140-j-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1091 ML090860983 140-k-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1092 ML090860983 140-I-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1092 ML090860983 140-m-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1092 ML090860983 140-n-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1093 ML090860983 140-o-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1094 ML090860983 140-p-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1094 ML090860983 140-q-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1094 ML090860983 140-r-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1096 ML090860983 140-s-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1096 ML090860983 140-t-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1097 ML090860983 140-u-GW/SA Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1097 ML090860983 140-v-GW/HH/RI Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1099 ML090860983 140-w-GW/HH/RI Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1100 ML090860983 140-x-HH Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1102 ML090860983 140-y-AE/C I Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1105 ML090860983 140-z-AE/CI Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1105 ML090860983 140-aa-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1106 ML090860983 140-bb-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1106 ML090860983 140-cc-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1110 ML090860983 140-dd-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1114 ML090860983 140-ee-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1115 ML090860983 140-ff-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1115 ML090860983 140-gg-UF Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1117 ML090860983 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-40 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00476
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 140-hh-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1119 ML090860983 140-ii-SM/UF Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1119 ML090860983 140-jj-SM Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1120 ML090860983 140-kk-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1122 ML090860983 140-II-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1122 ML090860983 140-mm-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1123 ML090860983 140-nn-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1124 ML090860983 140-oo-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1124 ML090860983 140-pp-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1125 ML090860983 140-qq-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1126 ML090860983 140-rr-AL Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1126 ML090860983 140-ss-LR Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1127 ML090860983 140-tt-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1133 ML090860983 140-uu-TS Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1142 ML090860983 140-w-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1142 ML090860983 140-ww-AE/CI Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1142 ML090860983 140-xx-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1142 ML090860983 140-yy-AE Riverkeeper, Inc. e-mail 1143 ML090860983 141-a-OR ROAR letter 1151 ML090860662 141-b- ROAR letter 1151 ML090860662 AM/DE/PA/RW 141-c-AE/LE/RI ROAR letter 1151 ML090860662 141-d-ALIOR ROAR letter 1151 ML090860662 142-a-LE/OR Rogers, Sister Mary letter 1152 ML091680291 Christine 143-a-GI/OR/RW Rosenfeld, A. e-mail 1153 ML090700174 144-a-EC/SA/SR Ryan, T. transcript 1154 ML091410355 144-b-EC/SO Ryan, T. transcript 1154 ML091410355 144-c-ST Ryan, T. transcript 1155 ML091410355 144-d-ALIOS Ryan, T. transcript 1155 ML091410355 145-a-AM/PA Ryan,M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-b-RW/SF/ST Ryan,M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-c-HH/LE Ryan,M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-d-LE/OM/WA Ryan,M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-e-AE Ryan, M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-f-DE/OR Ryan, M. e-mail 1157 ML090771330 145-g-0E Ryan,M. transcript 1158 ML091410355 146-a-EP/SE Safian, K. transcript 1159 ML091410355 146-b-EC Safian, K. transcript 1160 ML091410355 146-c-AQ/SR Safian, K. transcript 1160 ML091410355 146-d-EC/SO Safian, K. transcript 1161 ML091410355 147 -a-GLILE Sam brook, A. e-mail 1162 ML090700175 147-b-NE/PA Sambrook, A. e-mail 1162 ML090700175 December 2010 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00477
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 147-c-AM Sam brook, A. e-mail 1162 ML090700175 147-d-OR Sam brook, A. e-mail 1162 ML090700175 148-a-ALISO Samuels, A. transcript 1163 ML091410354 148-b-ALISO Samuels, A. e-mail 1166 ML090700184 148-c-ALISO Samuels, A. hand-in 1167 ML091740490 149-a-AE Scarola, J. e-mail 1172 ML090720657 149-b-EJ/HH Scarola, J. e-mail 1172 ML090720657 149-c-HH/LE Scarola, J. e-mail 1172 ML090720657 149-d-EP/HH/RI Scarola, J. e-mail 1173 ML090720657 149-e-TS Scarola, J. e-mail 1173 ML090720657 150-a-SA/SE Seeger, B. transcript 1174 ML091410355 150-b-SA/SO Seeger, B. transcript 1174 ML091410355 150-c-SA/SE Seeger, B. transcript 1175 ML091410355 150-d-EC/SR Seeger, B. letter 1177 ML091680296 150-e-AQ/OP/SO Seeger, B. letter 1177 ML091680296 150-f-SO/SR Seeger, B. letter 1177 ML091680296 151-a-OR Seeman, L. transcript 1178 ML091410355 151-b-OS Seeman, L. transcript 1178 ML091410355 151-c-SA Seeman, L. transcript 1179 ML091410355 151-d-EP Seeman, L. transcript 1180 ML091410355 151-e-OR Seeman, L. transcript 1181 ML091410355 152-a-GE/PA Shapiro, S. transcript 1182 ML091410354 152-b-AM/SA Shapiro, S. transcript 1183 ML091410354 152-c-LE/OP Shapiro, S. transcript 1183 ML091410354 152-d-AM/OP Shapiro, S. transcript 1184 ML091410354 152-e-NE Shapiro, S. transcript 1185 ML091410354 153-a-LE Shaw, G. transcript 1186 ML091410355 153-b-LE Shaw, G. transcript 1186 ML091410355 153-c-OM Shaw, G. transcript 1187 ML091410355 153-d-AM/LE/OM Shaw, G. transcript 1187 ML091410355 153-e-AM/DE Shaw, G. transcript 1188 ML091410355 154-a-HH/LE/MP Shepard, M. transcript 1189 ML091410355 154-b-AL Shepard, M. transcript 1191 ML091410355 155-a-EC/SO Sherman, A. transcript, 1192 ML091410354ML091 hand-in 740490 155-b-PA Sherman, A. transcript, 1192 ML091410354ML091 hand-in 740490 155-c-ALISA Sherman, A. transcript, 1193 ML091410354 hand-in ML091740490 155-d-OR Sherman, A. transcript, 1193 ML091410354 hand-in ML091740490 156-a-SE/SR Skanes, B. transcript 1194 ML091410354 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-42 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00478
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 157-a-OP Slevin, J. transcript 1196 ML091410354 157-b-ALIEC/SO Slevin, J. transcript 1196 ML091410354 157-c-AQ/EC Slevin, J. transcript 1197 ML091410354 157 -d-EC/SR Slevin, J. transcript 1197 ML091410354 157-e-OP Slevin, J. letter 1199 ML090711019 157 -f-ALIEC/SO Slevin, J. letter 1199 ML090711019 158-a-EJ/SR Smith, Rev. G. R. transcript 1201 ML091410354 158-b-ALlAQ/EC Smith, Rev. G. R. transcript 1202 ML091410354 159-a-EC/GL Smith, C. transcript 1204 ML091410354 159-b-ALISA/SR Smith, C. transcript 1204 ML091410354 159-c-EC/SR Smith, C. transcript 1205 ML091410354 159-d-EC Smith, C. transcript 1205 ML091410354 159-e-ALIAQ/SR Smith, C. transcript 1205 ML091410354 160-a-ALIORISA Sorbello, D. e-mail 1206 ML090640372 161-a-GI Starke, A. transcript 1207 ML091410355 161-b-GI/LE/WA Starke, A. transcript 1207 ML091410355 161-c-RW/ST Starke, A. transcript 1207 ML091410355 161-d-GI/OR Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 161-e-AE Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 161-f-LE/WA Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 161-g-ST/UF Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 161-h-DE/ST Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 161-i-ALIOR Starke, A. e-mail 1209 ML090771338 162-a-OR/RW Sullivan, J. transcript 1211 ML091410354 162-b-ALISF1ST Sullivan, J. transcript 1211 ML091410354 162-c-OR Sullivan, J. e-mail 1212 ML090771345 162-d-GW/LE/PA Sullivan, J. e-mail 1212 ML090771345 162-e-AM/RW Sullivan, J. e-mail 1212 ML090771345 162-f-OR Sullivan, J. e-mail 1212 ML090771345 163-a-SE/SO/SR Swertfager, D. e-mail 1213 ML090640368 164-a-PA/ST Taormino, M. transcript 1216 ML091410355 164-b-EP Taormino, M. transcript 1216 ML091410355 164-c-LEITE Taormino, M. transcript 1216 ML091410355 164-d-LR/OM Taormino, M. transcript 1217 ML091410355 164-e-EP Taormino, M. transcript 1217 ML091410355 164-f-EJ/EP Taormino, M. e-mail 1219 ML090720660 164-g-LE/MP Taormino, M. e-mail 1219 ML090720660 164-h-UF Taormino, M. e-mail 1220 ML090720660 164-i-GL Taormino, M. e-mail 1220 ML090720660 165-a-OR/PA Tompkins, D. e-mail 1221 ML090640357 166-a-AE Tracey, M. letter 1222 ML091680293 166-b-ALIEC/SO Tracey, M. letter 1222 ML091680293 December 2010 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00479
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 166-c-ALlHH Tracey, M. letter 1222 M L091680293 166-d-SO/SR Tracey, M. letter 1222 ML091680293 166-e-SO/SR Tracey, M. hand-in 1223 ML091740490 166-f-ALIEC Tracey, M. hand-in 1223 ML091740490 166-g-AE/SO Tracey, M. hand-in 1224 ML091740490 167-a-AE Unknown (Sister A?) letter 1225 ML090860665 167 -b-OR/RW/SF Unknown (Sister A?) letter 1225 ML090860665 168-a-OS Various Authors hand-in 1226 ML091740490 169-a-ALIEC/SO Vitale, P. transcript 1289 ML091410354 169-b-ALlAQ/EC Vitale, P. transcript 1289 ML091410354 170-a-OR Walsh, M. e-mail 1291 ML090780761 170-b-HH Walsh, M. e-mail 1291 ML090780761 170-c-DE/PA Walsh, M. e-mail 1291 ML090780761 170-d-PA/SM Walsh, M. e-mail 1291 ML090780761 170-e-LEIWA Walsh, M. e-mail 1293 ML090780761 170-f-HH/PAlUF Walsh, M. e-mail 1293 ML090780761 170-g-AL Walsh, M. e-mail 1293 ML090780761 170-h-HH/OR Walsh, M. e-mail 1293 ML090780761 171-a-SO Waltzer, R. transcript 1295 ML091410355 171-b-PA/ST Waltzer, R. transcript 1295 ML091410355 172-a-HH/RI Wanshel, J. e-mail 1296 ML090771331 MI090820080 172-b-DE/EP Wanshel, J. e-mail 1296 ML090771331 MI090820080 172-c-ST Wanshel, J. e-mail 1296 ML090771331 MI090820080 172-d-LR Wanshel, J. e-mail 1296 ML090771331 MI090820080 173-a-AE/EP/ST Warren, R. e-mail 1297 ML090640387 173-b-ALIOR Warren, R. e-mail 1297 ML090640387 174-a-HH/RI Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-b-RI Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-c-HH Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-d-PA Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-e-NE/PA Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-f-G 110M Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-g-AM Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-h-SA Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-i-AL Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 174-j-OR Weininger, E. e-mail 1298 ML090700177 175-a-OP/OR/PA Weininger, A e-mail 1299 ML090720672 176-a-OR Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-44 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00480
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s}. Accession Number 176-b-AE Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 176-c-AE Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 176-d-LE Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 176-e-RW/SF/ST Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 176-f-OR Weinstein, D. e-mail 1300 ML090700183 177 -a-AQ/EC/SO Wilson, C. transcript, 1301 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 177-b-EC Wilson, C. transcript, 1301 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 177-c-AQ Wilson, C. transcript, 1302 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 177 -d-AQ/EJ/SR Wilson, C. transcript, 1302 ML091410355 hand-in ML091740490 178-a-LE/OR/RW Withrow, L. e-mail 1304 ML090640359 179-a-SA/SF/RW Wolf, P. transcript 1305 ML091410354 179-b-LE/OP/SA Wolf, P. transcript 1306 ML091410354 179-c-PA Wolf, P. transcript 1306 ML091410354 179-d-DE Wolf, P. transcript 1307 ML091410354 179-e-LEIWA Wolf, P. transcript 1307 ML091410354 179-f-RW/SF/ST Wolf, P. transcript 1307 ML091410354 179-g-AM Wolf, P. transcript 1307 ML091410354 179-h-ORISA Wolf, P. transcript 1307 ML091410354 179-i-OE Wolf, P. e-mail 1309 ML090771340 180-a-HH/LE/RI Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-b-AL Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-c-AE Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-d-AM/GL Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-e-PA Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-f-RW Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-g-PA Wood, P. e-mail 1310 ML090700178 180-h-GI/OM Wood, P. e-mail 1311 ML090700178 180-i-AM Wood, P. e-mail 1311 ML090700178 180-j-OM Wood, P. e-mail 1311 ML090700178 181-a-SE/SR Yanofsky, J. transcript 1312 ML091410354 182-a-LE/OR Yarme, J. e-mail 1315 ML090720678 182-b- Yarme, J. e-mail 1315 ML090720678 AE/HH/RW/SF 182-c-EP/ST Yarme, J. e-mail 1315 ML090720678 182-d-ALlEJ/OR Yarme, J. e-mail 1315 ML090720678 183-a-EP/HH/PA Yaroscak-Lanzotti, H. e-mail 1316 ML090771344 183-b-AM/OM Yaroscak-Lanzotti, H. e-mail 1316 ML090771344 183-c-EP/HH/PA Yaroscak-Lanzotti, H. e-mail 1316 ML090771344 December 2010 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00481
Appendix A Comment ID Commenter Comment Comment ADAMS Source(a) Page No(s). Accession Number 183-d-ST Yaroscak-Lanzotti, H. e-mail 1316 ML090771344 (a) Transcript comments were received orally during one of two dSEIS comment meetings held on February 12, 2009, and transcribed by a certified court reporter.
1 2 A.2 Comments and Responses 3 Comments and responses in this section are grouped in the following categories:
4 A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process A-48 5 A.2.1.1 NEPA A-54 6 A.2.1.2GEIS A-56 7 A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Indian Point Nuclear 8 Generating Units 2 and 3 A-58 9 A.2.3 Comments in Opposition of License Renewal at Indian Point Nuclear 10 Generating Units 2 and 3 A-60 11 A.2.4 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, Groundwater, 12 and Water Use Issues A-60 13 A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, General 14 Ecology, and Threatened and Endangered Species A-62 15 A.2.6 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues A-92 16 A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues A-101 17 A.2.7.1 Demographics A-106 18 A.2.7.2Aesthetics A-108 19 A.2.7.3Psycho-Social Effects A-109 20 A.2.7.4Environmental Justice A-110 21 A.2.8 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues A-121 22 A.2.9 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents A-123 23 A.2.10 Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) A-127 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-46 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00482
Appendix A 1 A.2.11 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 2 Issues A-134 3 A.2.12 Comments Concerning Radiological Impact A-142 4 A.2.13 Comments Concerning Spent Fuel A-144 5 A.2.14 Comments Concerning Alternatives A-150 6 A.2.15 Comments Concerning Decommissioning Issues A-160 7 A.2.16 Comments Concerning Greenhouse Gases A-162 8 A.2.17 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues A-164 9 A.2.18 Comments Concerning Refurbishment A-166 10 A.2.19 Comments Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License 11 Renewal: Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging 12 Management; Need for Power; Energy Costs, etc. A-167 13 14 December 2010 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00483
Appendix A 1
2 A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process 3 The following comments offer general opposition to the NRC's method of regulation:
4 3-a-AE/LE/LR; 82-b-GI/LR; 82-c-LR; 104-a-LR; 12S-a-LR; 128-a-LR; 132-d-GI/LR 5 Response: The NRC welcomes public participation in the rulemaking process. There are 6 several ways for the public to participate in the rulemaking:
7
- The public may provide comments in response to a Federal Register notice. The NRC 8 publishes notices of rulemaking activities in the Federal Register to solicit public 9 comments, and may also publish a notice of a meeting or workshop to be held regarding 10 a rule. The Federal Register notice contains information on how to provide specific 11 comments on a proposed rule to the NRC.
12
- The public may provide comments on the NRC's Rule Forum website. The NRC's Rule 13 Forum is a web-based computer forum that was developed to provide an easy means for 14 a member of the public to access and comment on NRC rulemaking activities. The Rule 15 Forum contains proposed rule makings that have been published by the NRC in the 16 Federal Register, petitions for rule makings that have been received and docketed by the 17 NRC, and other types of documents related to rulemaking.
18
- Members of the public can provide comments on the NRC's Technical Conference 19 Forum website. The Technical Conference Forum is a web-based forum that facilitates 20 public participation on NRC issues related to the development of draft rule makings, draft 21 guidance documents, and other initiatives.
22
- Members of the public may petition the NRC to develop, change or rescind a rule by 23 filing a petition for rulemaking in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR 2.802.
24 Before filing a petition for rulemaking, a member of the public may consult with the NRC 25 concerning questions about NRC regulations by calling the Rules and Directives Branch at 301-26 415-7163 or tol/-free at 800-368-5642, or by writing the fol/owing address; 27 Chief 28 Rule and Directives Branch 29 Division of Administrative Services 30 Office of Administration 31 US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 32 Washington, DC 20555-0001 33 The information that members of the public can receive when consulting with the NRC about a 34 petition for rulemaking includes a description of the procedures and process for filing and 35 responding to a petition for rulemaking, clarification of an existing NRC regulation and the basis 36 for the regulation, or assistance in clarifying their potential petition so that the Commission is 37 better able to understand the nature of the issues that are concern.
38 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-48 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00484
Appendix A 1 Petitions should be submitted to the following address:
2 Secretary 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 5 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 6 E-mail: secv@nrc.qov 7 Fax: 301-415-1101 8 The petitions must, as a minimum, outline a general solution to a problem, or present the 9 substance or text of any proposed regulations or amendment or specify the regulation that the 10 petitioner proposes to be rescinded or amended. In writing a petition, a member of the public 11 should state clearly and concisely his or her grounds for, and interest in the proposal, and also 12 include a statement in support of the petition that outlines the specific issues involved: the views 13 or arguments regarding those issues; the relevant technical, scientific or other data that is 14 reasonably available; and any other pertinent information to support the proposal.
15 The following comment states that the NRC cannot issue a renewed operating license 16 until New York State concurs with Entergy's application for consistency certification:
17 18 4-a-AE/LR 19 Response: The NRC's process for making a decision to grant or deny a license renewal 20 application is based on whether there is reasonable assurance that the requirements in the 21 NRC's regulations for license renewal can be met. If the applicant meets the requirements in the 22 regulations, the NRC may approve renewal of the license.
23 Under the authority granted to New York State by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 24 and codified in 15 CFR Part 930, the State must determine whether a Federal action is 25 consistent with the State's Coastal Management Plan. The NRC recognizes that the New York 26 State Department of State will review Entergy's application for consistency with the State's 27 Coastal Management Plan, and also recognizes that continued operation of IP2 and IP3 will 28 require a positive consistency determination by the State. Objections by the Department of 29 State may be appealed to the U. S. Commerce Secretary.
30 The NRC will continue to monitor the actions of New York State regarding Entergy's consistency 31 certification relating to IPEC's license renewal application.
32 The following comments state that the views of local agencies regarding the preparation 33 of the Environmental Impact Statement should be considered:
34 35 59-a-LR; 137-d-LRIST 36 Response: Governmental agencies other than the NRC are invited through the environmental 37 scoping process to assess whether or not they should be considered cooperating agencies 38 under the regulatory structure afforded by the President's Council on Environmental Quality 39 (CEQ). It also invites them to identify whether or not they have a particular expertise on an 40 issue that may be invaluable to the NRC, or have consultation roles under other statues that 41 may have a bearing on site-specific issues.
December 2010 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00485
Appendix A 1 A notice of the receipt of the license renewal application is posted in the Federal Register 2 shortly after it is received by the NRC. The notice indicates where copies are available and how 3 they can be obtained. Other Federal, State, and local governmental agencies that are interested 4 in reviewing the application can obtain a copy and provide comments to the NRC during the 5 scoping process or after publication of the draft site-specific supplement to the generic 6 environmental impact statement. The NRC considers those comments during its review of the 7 license renewal application and its development of the draft and final environmental impact 8 statement.
9 The following are general comments indicating the NRC is required to comply with 10 NEPA:
11 79-d-LR/NE; 128-d-GE/LR; 140-ss-LR 12 Response: The NRC fully supports the principles of NEPA which establishes a national policy 13 that:
14
- encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, 15
- promotes efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 16 stimulate the health and welfare of man, and 17
- enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 18 Nation.
19 The NEPA regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) direct Federal 20 agencies on matters related to environmental policy, including the public scoping process, use 21 of lead agencies, and selection of alternatives. The NRC is an independent regulatory agency.
22 As an independent agency, the NRC has established its own regulations to implement NEPA.
23 The Commission's policy is to take account of the CEQ's regulations voluntarily. The NRC's 24 requirements for compliance with NEPA is contained in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A; National 25 Environmental Policy Act - Regulations Implementing Section 102(2).
26 The Commission recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its domestic licensing and 27 related regulatory functions in a manner that is both receptive to environmental concerns and 28 consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an independent regulatory agency for 29 protecting the health and safety of the public.
30 The following comment suggests that the determination of impacts in the SEIS should be 31 based on more recent and comprehensive studies:
32 79-aa-LR 33 Response: The Comment suggests that in order to adequately assess the impacts of license 34 renewal, the NRC staff must obtain more recent and comprehensive studies related to 35 radiological impacts on human health, aquatic resources, and environmental justice.
36 The impact on each of these resource areas have been evaluated and documented in the draft 37 SEIS, and additional information related to these resource areas were also considered during 38 the NRC staff's review of comments on the draft SEIS.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-50 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00486
Appendix A 1 With respect to radiological impacts on human health impacts, which is a Category 1 issue, the 2 staff considered new information to determine whether it would indicate that the impacts are 3 beyond those described in the GElS. The staff's finding, as documented in Section 4.3, did not 4 change for radiological impacts on human health.
5 With respect to impacts on aquatic resources, the staff has considered and performed an 6 evaluation of additional information from several sources as part of preparing the final SEIS. Its 7 findings are documented in Section 4.1. Similarly, additional information on environmental 8 justice was also considered and evaluated in Section 4.4.6.
9 The following comments are opposed to comments brought up in public meetings being 10 classified as out of scope or not being addressed:
11 73-h-AM/LRlST; 96-b-LRlNE; 96-j-LRIPA/RW; 132-e-GI/LR; 137-e-LR; 164-d-LRlOM; 172-d-12 LR 13 Response: The comments are opposed to the scoping criteria used by the NRC for the 14 environmental review process. The NRC staff's review of license renewal applications 15 addresses safety and environmental matters relevant to license renewal. The comments are 16 general in nature and provide no new information related to the IPEC review. No change to the 17 SEIS will be made as a result of these comments.
18 The following comment is opposed to the time and money spent on the license renewal 19 process for Indian Point:
20 117-c-LRISR 21 Response: The comments are opposed to the time and money spent on the license renewal 22 process for IPEG. The NRC is responsible, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 23 as amended, to review operating license renewal applications such as the IP2 and IP3 LRA.
24 The comments are general in nature and provide no new information. No change to the SEIS 25 will be made as a result of these comments.
26 The following comment states that the draft environmental impact statement did not 27 adequately analyze the potential visual impact of cooling towers in the context of the 28 Scenic Areas of State Significance (SASS) documentation:
29 4-b-ALlLR 30 Response: The topic of cooling towers is considered an alternative which is discussed in 31 chapter 8.1.1 under "Close Cycle Cooling Alternatives" of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38. The 32 NRC's environmental review regulations implementing NEPA, in 10 CFR Part 51, require that 33 the NRC consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed action before acting on a proposal, 34 including consideration of the no-action alternative.
35 IP2 and IP3 currently use a once-through cooling-water system that withdraws water from and 36 discharges water to the Hudson River. The type of cooling system currently used by Indian 37 Point is known to have a more adverse effect on the aquatic environment than cooling towers.
38 On April 8, 2003, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - which holds 39 authority under the Federal Clean Water Act to regulate pollutant discharge - proposed to 40 modify the SPDES permit to require IP2 and IP3 reduce the impacts to aquatic organisms 41 caused by the once-through cooling system. Accordingly, the alternative of a closed-cycle 42 cooling system is considered in this SEIS.
December 2010 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00487
Appendix A 1 Aesthetics was one of the impacts considered in the environmental review and as seen in Table 2 8.1 of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 it is addressed. As stated in Table 8.1, construction of two 3 towers that could stand 150-165 feet tall is considered to have a moderate impact. The height of 4 these towers would have noticeable impact on the aesthetics of the site, while the existing once-5 through cooling system is considered to have a small impact on the aesthetics of the site.
6 A final decision has not been made by the State of New York on the building of cooling towers 7 at IPEG. If a decision is made to build cooling towers at IPEC, construction and operation of 8 those towers could require an NRC licensing action and a separate environmental evaluation.
9 The following comment is a general statement that the fuel storage disposal and 10 groundwater contamination must conform to state standards:
11 4-c-LRIU F 12 Response: The NRC's process for the license renewal of nuclear power facilities does involve 13 substantial participation of state and local government agencies. The following requirements 14 are contained in 10 CFR 51.71 (d):
15 "Consideration will be given to compliance with environmental quality standards and 16 requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having 17 responsibility for environmental protection, including applicable zoning and land-use regulations 18 and water pollution limitations or requirements issued or imposed under the Federal Water 19 Pollution Control Act. The environmental impact of the proposed action will be considered in the 20 analysis with respect to matters covered by environmental quality standards and requirements 21 irrespective of whether a certification or license from the appropriate authority has been 22 obtained. While satisfaction of Commission standards and criteria pertaining to radiological 23 effects will be necessary to meet the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the 24 analysis will, for the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects of the proposed action 25 and alternatives."
26 Additional information about spent fuel is discussed in the Spent Fuel comment response 27 section.
28 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 29 the final SEIS.
30 The following comments request the SEIS to provide detailed analysis supported by data 31 as to how the proposed licensing would impact coastal land and water uses:
32 4-d-CI/LRlSO; 4-e-LR 33 Response: Information on land and water use can be found in section 2.2 "Plant Interaction 34 with the Environment." Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the 35 environment near IPEC, and detailed descriptions where needed to support the analysis of 36 potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operations during the renewal term. Land 37 use is a one of many issues considered in the NRC environmental review.
38 IPEC is located within the State's Coastal Zone which is regulated by the New York Coastal 39 Management Program (CMP), and authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
40 The CMP includes a total of 44 policies which are applicable to development and use proposals 41 within or affecting the State's coastal area. Activities related to the seeking of permits, licenses, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-52 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00488
Appendix A 1 waivers, certification or similar types of approval from a Federal agency (such as relicensing of 2 IPEC) within or affecting such areas are subject to reviews for consistency with these policies.
3 The New York Oepartment of State will conduct a separate consistency review for that process.
4 Section 2.2.5 of the draft SEIS, Aquatic Resources, describes the physical, chemical and 5 biological characteristics of the Hudson River estuary as well as major anthropogenic events 6 that have influenced the estuary and the history of regulatory action over the past 50 years. This 7 section is sufficient for NRC decision-making purposes and provides a detailed discussion of 8 how the current licenses have impacted coastal lands and water use.
9 The following comment consists of general statements questioning the NRC's role in 10 development of the Environmental Impact statement:
11 1G-d-LR 12 Response: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) allows the US. Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission (NRC) to issue licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 14 years. -NRC regulations allow for the renewal of these licenses for up to an additional 20 years 15 beyond the initial licensing period depending on the outcome of an assessment to determine 16 whether the reactor can continue to operate safely during the 20-year period of extended 17 operation. The license renewal process includes reviewing the license renewal application, 18 conducting a thorough assessment of the safety and environmental impacts of the proposed 19 action, and if appropriate, renewing the license. The NRC's review of a license renewal 20 application proceeds along two tracks: one for safety issues and another for environmental 21 issues. The license renewal process is defined by a clear set of regulations that are designed to 22 ensure safe operation and protection of the environment during the period of extended 23 operation.
24 The following comments are general statements expressing support for proceeding with 25 the license renewal process:
26 2G-a-EC/LR; 40-wwwww-GE/LR; 4S-c-LR; 49-c-LRlSR; 94-a-LR; 11G-c-LRISR 27 Response: The comments are supportive of the license renewal process. The comments are 28 general in nature, provide no new information and, therefore will not be evaluated further.
29 The following comment is opposed to the GO-day period in 2007 during which NRC 30 provided an opportunity for interested parties to request an adjudicatory hearing:
31 137-n-LR 32 Response: On October 1, 2007, the Commission extended the period in which interested 33 parties could file requests for adjudicatory hearings through November 30, 2007. The 34 Commission has acted to address this concern, and the time period for filing a timely petition to 35 intervene has expired. The comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated 36 further.
37 The following comments request the relicensing to be contingent upon or postponed 38 until all environmental issues and problems have been addressed:
39 137-m-LR; 139-g-LR December 2010 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00489
Appendix A 1 Response: Many environmental issues are not within the NRC's regulatory authority to 2 resolve. For example, environmental issues related to the facility's once-through cooling system 3 are regulated, monitored, and permitted by the New York State Oepartment of Environmental 4 Conservation through the power delegated to the State under the Clean Water Act. While the 5 NRC coordinates with other regulatory authorities, the NRC cannot address issues that are not 6 under its jurisdiction. The NRC's responsibilities in the license renewal review include assessing 7 and comparing environmental impacts from license renewal and other alternatives that meet the 8 SEIS's applicable purpose and need.
9 In cases where environmental issues are under the NRC's jurisdiction - such as those relating 10 to radiation and radioactive materials - the NRC takes action to regulate those issues under the 11 facility's current operating license separately from a license renewal review.
12 The following comments request a Blue Ribbon Commission/task force by the Governor 13 of New York to address Indian Point concerns:
14 137-r-LR 15 Response: This suggestion relates to requested action by New York's Governor and does not 16 directly relate to the NRC's license renewal SEIS.
17 The following comment requests an expedited timeline for the final license review:
18 166-a-LRISR 19 Response: The NRC staff's standard review timeline is 22 months for a review without an 20 adjudicatory hearing, and 30 months for a review with an adjudicatory hearing. In the Indian 21 Point review, however, the NRC staff has extended the schedule on several occasions to 22 address review-related issues. The staffs acceptance letter included a 26 month schedule 23 because Entergy needed to address an issue related to the facility's current licensing basis 24 before NRC staff could continue its review. Since that time, an Atomic Safety and Licensing 25 Board Panel has admitted numerous contentions for hearing, and the staff has extended its 26 review schedule in order to address new information and the large numbers of scoping and draft 27 SEIS comments. The NRC staff will continue to act in a deliberate and timely fashion.
28 A.2.1.1 NEPA 29 The following comments state that the NRC has not taken the "hard look" as required by 30 NEPA:
31 17-a-NE/SF; 17-q-AE/NE; 50-e-NE; 50-p-DE/EP/NE; 68-a-ALlNE; 79-d-LRlNE; 96-b-LRlNE; 32 137-c-NE 33 The following comments state that NEPA requires the reviewing agency to consider the 34 impact on the environment resulting from the total effects of the contemplated action and 35 other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions:
36 17-c-NE; 17-e-NE/PA; 17-n-NE; 17-o-AE/NE; 50-p-DE/EP/NE; 147-b-NE/PA; 152-e-NE; 174-37 e-NE/PA 38 The following are general comments stating that the EIS does not meet the minimum 39 requirements of NEPA:
40 68-c-DE/EF/NE; 102-I-NE/PA; 132-b-NE; 180-g-NE/PA NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-54 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00490
Appendix A 1 Response: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) allows the NRC to issue licenses for 2 commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 years. NRC regulations allow for the renewal 3 of these licenses for up to an additional 20 years beyond the initial licensing period depending 4 on the outcome of an assessment to determine whether the reactor can continue to operate 5 safely during the 20-year period of extended operation. The license renewal process includes 6 reviewing the license renewal application, conducting a thorough assessment of the safety and 7 environmental impacts of the proposed action, and if appropriate, renewing the license. The 8 NRC's review of a license renewal application proceeds along two tracks: one for safety issues 9 and another for environmental issues. The license renewal process is defined by a clear set of 10 regulations that are designed to ensure safe operation and protection of the environment during 11 the period of extended operation.
12 The NRC fully supports the principles of NEPA, which establishes a national policy that:
13
- encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, 14
- promotes efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 15 stimulate the health and welfare of man, and 16
- enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 17 Nation.
18 The NEPA regulations adopted by the CEQ direct Federal agencies on matters related to 19 environmental policy, including the public scoping process, use of lead agencies, and selection 20 of alternatives. The NRC is an independent regulatory agency. As an independent agency, the 21 NRC has established its own regulations to implement NEPA. The Commission's policy is to 22 take account of the CEQ's regulations voluntarily. The NRC's requirements for compliance with 23 NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A; National Environmental Policy Act-24 Regulations Implementing Section 102(2).
25 NEPA does not require that a Federal agency choose the alternative with the least impact.
26 Rather, NEPA requires that it discloses all potential impacts so that the decision the agency 27 makes can be fully informed. NEPA does not require the review or analysis of actions other than 28 the action being considered. For example, the NEPA review for license renewal would not 29 include an environmental review of the existing operating license, a review of an independent 30 spent fuel storage installation, or an analysis of a waste repository, each of which has its own 31 separate NEPA review.
32 An EIS is a written analysis of the reasonably foreseeable effects of an activity on the 33 environment, including the air, water, human health, animal life, vegetation, natural resources, 34 aesthetics, and any resources of historic, archaeological, or architectural significance. The 35 review also evaluates cumulative, socio-economic (including environmental justice), cultural, 36 and other impacts.
37 Cumulative impacts on the environment result when impacts of an action are added to other 38 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 39 individually small impacts that become significant when taken collectively over a geographic 40 area or a period of time. Any agency (Federal or non-Federal) or non-governmental entities can 41 contribute through their actions or approvals to cumulative effects. These combined impacts are 42 defined as "cumulative" and include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 43 place over a geographic area or a period of time.
December 2010 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00491
Appendix A 1 The NRC evaluates cumulative effects during the site visit and scoping process by identifying 2 the impacts that have affected the environment surrounding the facility. For example, the close 3 proximity of another nuclear reactor facility or another industrial facility that also discharges 4 warm water into the same river may have a cumulative impact on aquatic ecology that is greater 5 than the impact of just one facility. The NRC staff would take into consideration the potential for 6 cumulative impacts from such facilities.
7 The NRC recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its domestic licensing and related 8 regulatory functions in a manner which is both receptive to environmental concerns and 9 consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an independent regulatory agency for 10 protecting the public and the environment.
11 No changes have been made to the SEIS based on these comments.
12 A.2.1.2 GElS 13 The following comments are opposed to the use of the GElS due to the age of the 14 document:
15 50-a-LR; 50-g-GE/SF; 96-a-GE/LR; 123-d-GE/SF; 123-f-GE; 128-c-GE/LR; 129-a-LR; 140-a-16 GE/LR; 13-f-AM/GE/OM 17 Response: The GElS has been adopted by the NRC through the rulemaking process and 18 continues to apply to IP2 and IP3 as well as other nuclear power plants undergoing license 19 renewal review. The NRC will continue to evaluate new applications under the existing 20 regulatory framework using the GElS as previously published and codified in NRC's regulations.
21 However, insights and information gained during the GElS update process and from experience 22 with completed license renewal reviews using the GElS will be considered during the review of 23 ongoing and upcoming applications until the update of the GElS and appropriate revisions to 10 24 CFR Part 51 are completed.
25 If a new issue emerges, it is first analyzed to determine whether it is within the scope of the 26 license renewal evaluation. If a new environmental issue is determined to be within the scope of 27 license renewal and it was not addressed in the GElS or codified in the NRC license renewal 28 environmental protection rule, the NRC evaluates the significance of the information by calling 29 upon experts from within the NRC, its contractors or other recognized institutions. If the new 30 issue is relevant only to a particular site, the NRC staff performs a site-specific analysis and 31 includes its conclusion in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 32 statement on license renewal (SEIS). If the new and significant information appears to be 33 relevant to other sites, the NRC staff will consider the issue in future SEISs and include it as a 34 candidate for evaluation in the periodic update of the GElS and possible amendment to the rule.
35 The NRC has anticipated the need to revisit the GElS and its implementing regulations. The 36 Commission declared its intent to revisit the GElS on a 10-year cycle to determine whether the 37 technical bases or conclusions need to be updated. The GElS represents a snapshot in time.
38 Therefore, it is appropriate to periodically determine whether changes have occurred that should 39 be included in an update to the GElS. Science and conditions in the natural environment evolve, 40 and the scientific community's understanding of issues, methods, and assumptions may need to 41 be revisited. Experience gained in using the regulatory framework may identify situations in 42 which new approaches or conclusions are appropriate. Changes in statutes, regulations, 43 policies, and practices may have a cascading impact on the NRC licensing framework.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-56 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00492
Appendix A 1 Currently, the GElS for license renewal, which was originally issued in 1996, is being updated.
2 The NRC is considering the public comments received on the draft GElS and is considering the 3 appropriate changes to the document. The final GElS is scheduled to be issued in the first 4 quarter of 2011.
5 The following comment states that there is a lack of Environmental Justice information 6 within the GElS:
7 113-c-EJ/GE 8 Response: Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis, because guidance for 9 implementing Executive Order 12898 was not available prior to completion of the 1996 GElS.
10 Environmental justice impacts are addressed in plant-specific environmental reviews, and are 11 discussed in Section 4.4.6 of this SEIS.
12 The NRC staff is guided in its consideration of environmental justice in plant-specific 13 environmental reviews by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office Instruction LlC-14 203, Appendix C "Environmental Justice in NRR NEPA Documents." The environmental justice 15 review involves identifying minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the plant that 16 may be affected by license renewal, including their geographic locations, any concerns and 17 potential environmental impacts that may affect these populations, the significance of such 18 concerns and effects, whether they would be disproportionately high and adverse when 19 compared to the general population, and if so, the mitigation measures available to reduce 20 and/or eliminate these impacts. The NRC staff performs the environmental justice review and 21 reports the results of this review in the SEIS. This comment does not present any significant 22 new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
23 The following comment states that the GElS is defective in determining the 24 environmental impacts associated with components that cannot be fully inspected:
25 102-m-GE/OM 26 Response: The NRC staff performs a safety review to determine whether there is reasonable 27 assurance that activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in 28 accordance with the current licensing basis.
29 The intent of the NRC staff's safety review is to determine if the applicant has adequately 30 demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect any systems, structures, or 31 components, as identified in 10 CFR 54.4. When the plant was designed, certain assumptions 32 were made about the length of time the plant would be operated. During the license renewal 33 process, the applicant must also confirm whether these design assumptions will continue to be 34 valid throughout the period of extended operation and whether aging effects will be adequately 35 managed. The applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be managed in such a 36 way that the intended functions of "passive" or "long-lived" structures and components will be 37 maintained during extended operation. For active components, surveillance and maintenance 38 programs will continue throughout the period of extended operation.
39 If additional aging management activities are needed, the applicant may be required to establish 40 new monitoring programs or increase inspections. For instance, applicants should specify 41 activities that need to be performed (such as water chemistry and inspections) to prevent and 42 mitigate age-related degradation. These activities increase the likelihood that the program is December 2010 A-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00493
Appendix A 1 effective in minimizing degradation and that the component is replaced if specified thresholds 2 are exceeded.
3 The regulations in 10 CFR Part 54 provide the basis for the NRC staff's safety review. Detailed 4 guidance on the NRC staff's safety review for license renewal is provided in the Standard 5 Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-6 1800). The purpose of the Standard Review Plan is to ensure quality and uniformity in the staff's 7 review and to present a weI/-defined basis upon which to evaluate the applicant's programs and 8 activities for the period of extended operation. The Standard Review Plan was developed based 9 on information in the Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report (NUREG-1801), which 10 was developed by the NRC with input from interested stake holders. The GALL Report 11 documents the basis that is used for determining if existing programs are adequate or if they 12 should be augmented for license renewal.
13 The focus of the license renewal safety review is on managing the detrimental effects of aging.
14 The review provides reasonable assurance that the effects of aging will be managed for the 15 period of extended operation such that systems, structure, and components (SSCs) will 16 continue to perform their intended functions in accordance with the plant's current licensing 17 basis. Many of the existing programs and regulatory requirements that already provide 18 adequate aging management will continue to be applicable after renewal. The license renewal 19 review focuses on the SSCs for which current activities and requirements may not be sufficient 20 to manage aging in the period of extended operation.
21 These comments are specific to the GElS and do not provide new information that would cause 22 a change to the SEIS.
23 The following comment offers general support for the findings of the GElS:
24 40-wwwww-GE/LR 25 Response: This comment is in support of the findings of the GElS and is general in nature.
26 The comment provides no new information and, therefore will not be evaluated further. No 27 change is the SEIS will be made as a result of this comment.
28 A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal for Indian Point Nuclear 29 Generating Units 2 and 3 30 The following comments provide general support for license renewal:
31 B-a-SR; 36-e-OP/SO; 40-h-SR; 42-e-SR; 46-a-EC/SR; 4B-e-OP/SR; 4B-f-SE; 49-a-SR; 49-d-32 EJ/SR; 49-i-SR; 52-e-SR; 57-d-SL; 57-h-SE/SR; 5B-a-SR; 65-a-SO/SR; 67-a-SR; 67-f-SR; 7B-33 a-SR; 92-d-SO/SR; 92-g-S0/SR; 99-a-SR; 101-a-SR; 101-c-SO/SR; 105-a-SO/SR; 105-c-34 EC/SR; 10B-b-ALIGI/SR; 111-b-SO/SR; 113-a-SR; 113-e-SR; 116-a-SO/SR; 116-c-LRlSR; 35 119-a-SR; 119-f-SR; 120-p-SR; 127-a-SA/SR; 127-c-ALlSR; 137-a-SA/SR; 144-a-EC/SA/SR; 36 14B-b-ALlSO; 14B-c-ALlSO; 150-d-EC/SR; 159-b-ALISA/SR; 159-c-EC/SR; 159-e-37 A LlAQlSR; 163-a-SE/SO/SR; 166-a-LRISR; 166-d-SO/SR; 166-e-SO/SR; 16B-a-OS 38 Response: The comments support license renewal of Indian Point and are general in nature.
39 The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to 40 the SEIS in response to these comments.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-58 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00494
Appendix A 1 The following comments support the license renewal due to the cumulative impacts of 2 denial of the license renewal application:
3 7-d-AQ/EC/SR; 14-a-AQlEJ/SR; 23-i-EC/SO/SR; 31-a-EJ/SR; 40-a-SR; 46-c-ALlEJ/SR; 62-a-4 EJ/SR; 78-c-SO/SR; 92-a-EC/SO/SR; 92-e-SO/SR; 108-a-EC/SO/SR; 109-d-SO/SR; 113-d-5 AQ/GLlSR; 131-c-SE/SR; 158-a-EJ/SR 6 Response: The comments support license renewal of IP2 and IP3 due to the adverse potential 7 effects of the denial of license renewal. Responses to the cited impacts are addressed in their 8 respective comment response category. The comments provide no new and significant 9 information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.
10 The following comments express support for license renewal due to the air quality 11 associated with nuclear power plants versus alternative energy sources:
12 5-a-AQlSR; 5-b-AQ/SR; 5-c-AQ/SR; 14-a-AQ/EJ/SR; 36-a-SR; 62-b-EJ/SR; 112-i-SR; 113-d-13 A LlAQlSR; 113-I-SR; 118-a-AQ/EJ/SR; 119-j-SE/SR; 133-d-ALIAQ/SR; 146-c-AQlSR; 177-d-14 AQ/EJ/SR 15 Response: The comments support license renewal of IP2 and IP3 due to the positive effects 16 on air quality. Responses to the cited impacts are addressed in the Air Quality section. The 17 comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the 18 SEIS in response to these comments.
19 The following comments are supportive of relicensing due to the availability of power 20 from IPEC and the potential costs associated with alternatives:
21 8-b-SO; 19-a-EC/SR; 19-b-EC/SO/SR; 19-c-EC/SO/SR; 26-c-EC/SO/SR; 28-a-EC/SR; 31-c-22 AQ/SR; 49-c-LRlSR; 58-d-SR; 65-b-EC/SR; 65-c-EC/SO/SR; 85-a-EC/SO/SR; 88-b-EC/SR; 23 88-c-EC/SR; 118-b-EC/EJ/SR; 119-g-EC/SO/SR; 131-e-AQ/EC/SR; 133-a-EC/SO/SR; 157-d-24 EC/SR 25 Response: The comments support license renewal of Indian Point due to the adverse potential 26 utility costs of alternative energy. Responses to the cited impacts are addressed in the Energy 27 Costs and/or Socioeconomic section. The comments provide no new and significant 28 information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.
29 The following comments are supportive of license renewal due to the plants' positive 30 impact on the community:
31 1-a-EC/SO/SR; 1-e-SR; 8-d-SE/SR; 23-a-SR; 23-g-SR; 29-a-SO/SR; 42-a-EC/SR; 42-d-32 SE/SR; 53-a-SE/SR; 57-g-SR; 85-c-EC/SO/SR; 130-b-OP/SO/SR; 131-d-SE; 131-e-33 AQ/EC/SR; 136-a-CRISO/SR; 136-b-SO/SR; 148-a-ALlSO; 150-f-SO/SR; 156-a-SE/SR; 181-34 a-SE/SR 35 Response: The comments support license renewal of Indian Point based on the positive 36 impact Entergy has on the community. Responses to the cited impacts are addressed in the 37 socioeconomic section. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no 38 changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.
39 40 December 2010 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00495
Appendix A 1 A.2.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal for Indian Point 2 Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 3 The following comments express opposition to license renewal:
4 6-a-EP/ORlOS; 9-b-OE/ORlSA; 11-a-OR; 11-f-ALlOR; 12-a-OR; 13-a-OR; 13-h-OR; 15-a-OR; 5 18-a-LE/OR; 18-d-OR; 21-a-AE/LI/ORlSF; 21-b-GI/OR; 22-a-HH/ORIOS/PA; 24-a-HH/ORlRI; 6 24-b-HH/OR; 25-a-OR; 27-a-OR; 27-f-OR; 35-d-OR; 35-e-ORlRE; 37-a-AE/OR; 41-a-OR; 44-7 a-OR; 44-d-OR; 50-f-NE/OR; 54-a-LE/ORlRW; 54-d-OR; 61-a-AE/ALlOR; 63-a-OR; 63-g-0R; 8 66-a-GI/OR; 69-a-HH/LE/ORlPA; 70-c-OR; 70-d-OR; 72-a-EP/LE/ORlRW; 75-a-OR; 76-a-9 AE/LE/OR; 76-b-ORlPA; 77-a-AE/OR; 80-a-EP/ORIRW/ST; 80-c-ORlOS; 81-d-OR; 82-a-OR; 10 86-a-OR; 86-e-OR; 91-a-OR; 91-e-ORIRW/ST; 96-p-OR; 98-a-EP/ORlPA; 98-d-ORlRE; 100-11 a-OR; 110-a-OP/OR; 121-a-DE/OR; 121-c-ORlPA; 135-a-LE/OR; 143-a-GI/ORlRW; 141-a-12 OR; 141-d-ALlOR; 142-a-LE/OR; 145-f-DE/OR;147-d-OE/OR; 151-a-OR; 151-e-OR; 155-d-13 OR; 161-d-GI/OR; 161-i-ALlOR; 162-c-OE/OR; 162-f-OE/OR; 165-a-ORlPA; 167-b-14 ORIRW/SF; 170-a-OE/OR; 170-h-HH/OE/OR; 173-b-ALlOR; 174-j-OR; 175-a-OP/ORlPA; 15 182-a-LE/OR; 182-d-ALlEJ/OR; 176-a-OR; 176-f-OR; 179-h-ORISA 16 Response: Portions of these comments that express general opposition to renewing the 17 licenses for IP2 and IP3 provide no new and significant information and have not resulted in any 18 changes to this SEIS. Portions of these comments that address particular technical issues are 19 addressed in the respective technical sections of this appendix.
20 21 The following comments are opposed to nuclear energy:
22 38-a-ON; 70-a-ON; 84-c-ON 23 Response: The comments oppose license renewal of Indian Point and are general in nature.
24 The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to 25 the SEIS in response to these comments.
26 A.2.4 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, 27 Groundwater, and Use Issues 28 The following comments indicate opposition to license renewal because of the 29 continuing leaks of radioactive water into the groundwater and the Hudson River and the 30 residual contamination of Cs-137 and Sr-90 into the Hudson River.
31 3-a-AE/LE/LR; 11-d-LE; 12-d-LE; 35-a-LE/OM; 37 -b-LE/SF/ST; 41-c-AE/LE; 44-c-AE/LE; 47-32 b-LE/EP/SF; 61-b-LE/RW/ST; 63-d-LE; 69-a-HH/LE/OR/PA; 72-a-EP/LE/ORlRW; 74-a-LE; 33 75-b-EP/LE/OP/ST; 76-a-AE/LE/OR; 80-b-LE/RW/SF/ST; 91-d-LE; 106-a-AE/LE/RW/SF; 34 110-b-LEIWA; 121-b-AM/LE; 122-b-LE; 126-c-LE; 126-d-LE/RI 35 Response: The dSEIS, in chapters 2 and 4, addressed the impacts of the radioactive material 36 leaks. The NRC staff concluded that the calculated maximum dose to a member of the public 37 exposed to al/ sources of radioactive material from IPEC was below NRC and EPA radiation 38 dose limits. Additional information on the impacts from the leaks is contained in the Human 39 Health response section.
40 The following comment indicates that radioactive tritium released from IPEC is also 41 found in nature and does not have a significant impact.
42 33-a-AE/GLILE NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-60 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00496
Appendix A 1 Response: It is true that tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen. It is 2 produced in the atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with air molecules. As a result, tritium is 3 found in very small or trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. It is also a byproduct 4 of the production of electricity by nuclear power plants.
5 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 6 the final SEIS.
7 The following comment indicates that leaking radioactive material from IPEC, including 8 Sr-90; are causing cancer and contaminating mother's milk.
9 39-b-LE; 73-b-EJ/LE; 96-d-HH/LE/RI 10 Response: The comments are addressed in the Human Health section.
11 The following comments indicate that the EIS does not adequately discuss the long term 12 health impacts from the radionuclides leaking from the spent fuel pool into the 13 groundwater and the Hudson River, including eating fish from the Hudson River.
14 73-c-EJ/HH/LE; 96-e-HH/LEIWA; 96-f-DC/LEIWA; 97-k-EJ/HH/LE; 98-c-HH/LE/RI 15 Response: The NRC staff performed a site specific evaluation of the leaks of radioactive 16 material at IPEG. The evaluation is contained in Chapters 2 and 4 of the dSEIS. The 17 comments are addressed in the Human Health section.
18 The following comments indicate that plant aging will cause an increase in the number of 19 leaks.
20 71-c-LE/RW; 96-c-AM/LE/OM; 96-n-AM/LE 21 Response: The NRC staff reviewed the issue of radioactive effluent releases from normal 22 routine pathways and of the abnormal leaks from the spent fuel pools. There is a thorough 23 discussion of these issues in Chapters 2 and 4 of the dSEIS that address the impacts to human 24 health from routine and abnormal radioactive releases.
25 As part of its review, the NRC staff reviewed five years of historical radioactive and radiological 26 environmental monitoring data. Based on the data, the Staff concluded that the calculated 27 doses to a member of the public from the normal and abnormal radioactive releases were within 28 NRC's radiation dose standards. The environmental data showed some radionuclides 29 associated with the operation of IPEC; however, residual radioactivity from atmospheric 30 weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the predominant sources of 31 radioactivity in the samples collected. The Staff concluded that IPEC operations did not result in 32 an adverse impact to the public greater than environmental background levels.
33 The NRC staff also evaluated the impacts from the leaking radioactive material into the 34 groundwater and into the Hudson River in Chapter 2. For the evaluation contained in the 35 dSEIS, the NRC staff used information from an Inspection conducted by personnel from NRC's 36 Region I office and NRC's Headquarters office. The NRC thoroughly inspected this issue at 37 IPEC, starting with initial notification of the leaks in September 2005 and followed the issue until 38 the inspection closed in May, 2008. The NRC Inspection Report (ADAMS Accession number 39 ML081340425) made the following summary statement; "Our inspection determined that public 40 health and safety has not been, nor is likely to be, adversely affected, and the dose 41 consequences to the public that can be attributed to current on-site conditions associated with December 2010 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00497
Appendix A 1 groundwater contamination is negligible." In the body of the Inspection Report there are two key 2 conclusions relevant to the potential human health impacts from the leaks. They are presented 3 in Chapter 2 of the SEIS:
4 The NRC has already fully considered and addressed the issue in the SEIS and the comments 5 do not present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant a change to the 6 final SEIS.
7 The comment indicates that Indian Point took corrective action to identify and mitigate 8 the leaks of Sr-90 and tritium, including installation of monitoring wells and continued 9 inspection of the spent fuel pool for indications of leakage.
10 120-0-LE 11 Response: The comment is noted. The comment does not present any significant new and 12 significant information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
13 A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, 14 General Ecology, and Threatened and Endangered Species 15 The following comments indicate that data on impingement and entrainment were 16 collected at IP2 and IP3 between 1981 and 1990 and thus may be too old to be reliable, 17 especially because differences in the fish populations been the 1990s and the present 18 are great. The comments also indicate that no impingement or entrainment monitoring 19 has been conducted since the installation of Ristroph screens.
20 17-q-AE/NE/OE; 21-a-AE/UF/ORlSF; 79-I-AE; 96-k-AE/OE/TS; 96-I-AE/ALlRG; 140-c-AE; 21 140-f-AE; 140-tt-AE; 140-uu-TS 22 Response: The responsibility for requiring monitoring of entrainment, impingement, and 23 thermal effects at IP2 and IP3lies with New York State and not the NRC. In describing the 24 available data and in its analysis, NRC staff described the age of the data from each of these in-25 plant monitoring programs and acknowledged the shortcomings of relying on such old data. The 26 weight of evidence approach employed by the NRC included two primary lines of evidence:
27 assessment of aquatic population trends in the Hudson River and an evaluation of strength of 28 connection (i.e., relationship of the aquatic resources to power plant operations). NRC staff 29 used population trend data available from 1974 or 1975, depending on the sampling program, 30 through 2005 in its assessment. The staff also used impingement and entrainment data 31 available from 1975 through 1990 to determine the strength of connection. Although 32 entrainment and impingement monitoring was not conducted at IP2 and IP3 after 1990, NRC 33 staff believes that sufficient information is available to determine the strength of connection 34 between plant operations and aquatic resources in the Hudson River. These comments do not 35 present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final 36 SEIS.
37 The following comment suggests a change in the description of the fish return system 38 discharge in SEIS Chapter 2.
39 40-k-AE 40 Response: The text has been modified.
41 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-62 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00498
Appendix A 1 The following comments indicate that NRC does not have sufficient data to assess 2 thermal impact on aquatic resources.
3 128-n-AE; 140-g-AE; 140-uu-TS 4 Response: The NRC staff agrees that limited data are not available to address potential 5 thermal impacts to the aquatic resources in the Hudson River. The staff acknowledged the 6 uncertainties related to thermal effects in Section 4.1.4 and recommended that a thermal study 7 be conducted. In the final SEIS, the NRC expressed the uncertainty arising from the lack of 8 both studies and data as a range of impact levels from Small to Large and observed that the 9 level of impact level could be refined when more data become available. The responsibility 10 insuring that thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 meet New York State water quality criteria for 11 protection of aquatic life lies with New York State and not the NRC 12 The following comments indicate that sufficient data are not available to limit thermal 13 impacts to small to moderate.
14 128-k-AE; 140-xx-AE; 140-c-AE 15 Response: NYSDEC has the regulatory authority for thermal discharges, has stated that the 16 applicant has exceeded thermal limits in the past, and has concluded that thermal impacts could 17 be large, The NRC staff has concluded that thermal impacts could range from small to large for 18 selected species and has revised the final SEIS to reflect this conclusion.
19 The following comments indicate that the NRC staff's approach to assessing impact to 20 fish populations differs from the NYSDEC's, which focuses on fish mortality rather than 21 fish populations and finds significant adverse impact.
22 128-f-AE; 128-g-AE; 140-c-AE; 140-d-AE; 140-h-AE; 140-k-AE 23 Response: NRC staff acknowledges that its approach to assessing aquatic impacts differs 24 from DEC's. The difference is associated with the regulatory frameworks followed by each 25 agency. The NRC staff assessed impacts with respect to resource stability. To address 26 resource stability, it is appropriate to assess population trends of representative, important 27 species that occur near the site. The staff assessed population trends using appropriate 28 statistical techniques and explained the methods and results in technical appendices 29 accompanying the draft SEIS and Chapter 4. This methodology used by the staff produces 30 results that are directly applicable to the NRC categories of small, moderate, and large levels of 31 impact.
32 The following comments indicate that trend analyses for aquatic resources assume a 33 normal distribution of abundance, whereas population abundance is often not normally 34 distributed and is often log-normally distributed. The NRC staff model operates about 35 equally for normal and lognormal distributions.
36 140-tt-AE; 40-qqqqq-AE 37 Response: NRC staff acknowledges that fish population data from the Hudson River are not 38 normally distributed and that these data often contain large numbers of zero abundance 39 observations and a few observations of high abundance. To develop a measure of abundance 40 to assess trends through time, the staff chose to analyze the 75th percentile of the weekly 41 catches for each year. The advantage of this approach over the use of a mean of 42 untransformed or log-transformed data is that the 75th percentile allows each observation to December 2010 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00499
Appendix A 1 influence the result equally. In contrast, the use of the mean (average) of untransformed or log-2 transformed data can result in small (or large) catches having unequal or arbitrary influences on 3 the result. The staff explains and discusses its rationale for the choice of the 75th percentile and 4 the advantage of using this approach in a dynamic system influenced by multiple stressors in 5 Appendix I, Section 1.2.1 Assessment of Population Trends. NRC staff added text to clarify the 6 approach and rationale to the final SEIS in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, Combined Effects of 7 Impingement and Entrainment.
8 The following comments indicated that, in assessing population trends, the NRC staff's 9 test that 40 percent of observations lie outside the standardized mean abundance level 10 observed over the first 5 years of the long-term study make it harder to score a large 11 potential impact if unusually great variability occurred within those first 5 years.
12 140-d-AE; 140-tt-AE 13 Response: Appendix I of the SEIS, Section 1.2.1, Assessment of Population Trends, provides a 14 description of the process used to develop standardized data. The NRC staff standardized 15 abundance data by subtracting the first five year mean of the 75th percentiles of the weekly 16 abundance data within each year and dividing this number by the standard deviation based on 17 all years. This standardization allows comparisons of all fish species across years on the same 18 scale. Staff chose the first five years for the mean to represent a short period of time closest to 19 the start of operation of IP2 and IP3.
20 The decision rule in the draft SEIS was intended to incorporate a population-level response with 21 respect to the variance (noise) present in the system. In response to comments received and 22 further investigation, the NRC Staff refined the population trend weight of evidence assessment 23 by altering the decision rules in the final SEIS. The rationale for using increased population 24 fluctuations was based on several sources. For example, Pimm et a/. (1988) found that the risk 25 of extinction for populations on islands correlated with temporal variability of the populations:
26 populations most likely to become extinct had high variability, and Anderson et a/. (2008) 27 reported that fish populations stressed by fishing fluctuate more than unharvested stocks. The 28 increased population fluctuations arise from the unstable population dynamics brought about by 29 changing demographic parameters such as intrinsic growth rates. The presence of extreme 30 population fluctuations is one of several criteria used by IUCN (2000) to assess vulnerability to 31 extinction when considering candidate species for the Red List. For these reasons, the staff 32 selected increased population fluctuations as a measure of ecological instability in the draft 33 SEIS.
34 Some observations, however, suggest that using increased population fluctuations adds little to 35 the use of trend alone. In discussing reddened spectra of biological population fluctuations, 36 Pimm (1992, page 95) observes: "Any process that creates a trend in density will cause the 37 population's variability to increase." Because of this, increasing population fluctuations may 38 indicate a recovering population rather than an unstable one. In the general case where 39 population variance increases as the mean, as the mean of a recovering population increases, 40 the variance will also increase. Increasing variance accompanying an increasing trend could 41 then signal a recovering population, not an unstable population. O'Grady et a/. (2004) 42 compared 16 measures frequently used to predict extinction risk in vertebrate populations and 43 found that population size and trend were the best correlates of extinction risk and that 44 variability in population size contributed little more to prediction. NRC staff interprets extinction 45 risk as an indicator of ecological instability and a large level of impact.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-64 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_OOSOO
Appendix A 1 The observations of Pimm (1992) and O'Grady et a/. (2004) suggest to NRC staff that use of 2 increased population fluctuations in addition to population trend adds little to determining if 3 Hudson River fish populations are unstable and could be removed from the analysis. Removal 4 would satisfy the commenters' objections, result in only a small change in sensitivity, and 5 simplify the analysis. Therefore, NRC staff modified the decision rule in the final SEIS and 6 removed the criterion that 40 percent of observations lie outside the standardized mean 7 abundance level observed over the first 5 years of the long-term study. The revised method 8 appears in the final SEIS in Appendix H, Section H.1.3 Combined Effects of Impingement and 9 Entrainment.
10 Literature Cited in Response 11 Anderson, C.N.K., C.H. Hsieh, S.A. Sandin, R. Hewitt, A. Hollowed, J. Beddington, R.M.
12 May, and G. Sugihara. 2008. Why fishing magnifies fluctuations in fish abundance.
13 Nature 452(17):835-839.
14 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2000. IUCN Red List Categories 15 and Criteria, Version 3.1. Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
16 Available URL 17 http://intraneUucn.org/webfi/es/doc/SSC/RedListiredlistcatsenglish.pdf 18 O'Grady, J.J., D.H. Reed, B. W Brook, and R. Frankham. 2004. What are the best 19 correlates of predicted extinction risk? Biological Conservation 118:513-520.
20 Pimm, S.L. 1992. The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of 21 Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.
22 Pimm, S.L., H. L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. The 23 American Naturalist 132(6):757-785.
24 The following comments observe that NRC assesses river-wide, river segment 4, and 25 coastal trends of abundance in their weight-of-evidence score, while indicating that some 26 species do not complete their life cycle in river segment 4; therefore, the comments 27 indicate that there is no justification for including that geographic region in the analysis.
28 Riverwide abundance trends are more relevant than Region 4 trends and marine species 29 are not susceptible to impacts from IP2 and IP3.
30 140-d-AE; 140-tt-AE 31 Response: The RIS include fish that are resident, migratory within the estuary and migratory 32 along the coast. In the draft SEIS, NRC staff used river segment 4, river-wide, and coastal 33 trends as valid measures of changes in fish populations at different scales and distances from 34 IP2 and IP3 and weighted the three measures as to biological relevancy for assessing impacts 35 of IP2 and IP3. NRC staff believes that impacts to fish species closest to the plant are the most 36 biologically relevant, because as distance from the plant increases, the effects associated with 37 the plant are more difficult to discern. NRC staff also recognizes that coastal trends are 38 fundamentally different than the other two trends, however. River-wide and River Segment 4 39 populations are young-of-the-year (YOY) fish sampled with the same Hudson River fish survey 40 programs. The coastal populations represent both the progenitors of the YOYand, typically, the 41 YOY fish themselves years later as adults. Coastal population trends are based on commercial 42 and recreational landings and subject to a wide variety of influences. NRC staff therefore 43 accepted the comments, removed coastal population trends as an equal measure with river-December 2010 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00501
Appendix A 1 wide and River Segment 4 trends, and used the coastal trends as ancillary information in 2 interpreting impact. The revised method appears in the final SEIS in Appendix H, Section H.1.3 3 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment.
4 The following comments indicate that NRC staff's use of a 3-year moving average prior to 5 analysis in the methodology used to classify aquatic impacts into small, moderate, and 6 large results in the classification process being less able to distinguish moderate from 7 small impact levels when the methodology is tested using one hypothetical population 8 model in a Monte Carlo simulation.
9 40-ccccc-AE; 40-qqqqq-AE 10 Response: Changes to the decision rules associated with population trend line of evidence 11 discussed in earlier comment responses reduce the probability of misclassification. These 12 changes are discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix H of the final SEIS. NRC did not change the 13 three-year moving average in the final SEIS because it does not affect the probability of 14 misclassification using the new decision rules.
15 The following comments indicate that testing the methodology used to by NRC staff to 16 classify aquatic impacts into small, moderate, and large using one hypothetical 17 population model in a Monte Carlo simulation showed that different sets of rules 18 produced different classifications with the same data. No classification scheme should 19 be used without testing its performance on data with known characteristics.
20 40-ccccc-AE; 40-qqqqq-AE 21 Changes to the decision rules associated with population trend line of evidence discussed in an 22 earlier comment response reduce the probability of misclassification.
23 The following comment indicates that the near-field (River Segment 4) and river-wide 24 analyses that NRC staff conducted using densities, catch per unit effort, and abundance 25 indices are not independent because some of the same data are involved in these 26 analyses. All of the data are subject to sampling errors and other sources of variability.
27 Performing different statistical analyses on data sets that are underlain by some of the 28 same data increases the likelihood that at least one index, purely by chance, will suggest 29 a moderate or large impact level.
30 40-aaaaa-AE 31 Response: River-wide indices are weighted by the volume (FSS) or area (aSS) sampled within 32 each river segment. River Segment 4 is one of the smaller weighted segments, and its 33 contribution to the population trends is greatly diluted in the river-wide analysis. So although 34 River Segment 4 data are included in the river-wide analysis, the two analyses are uncorre/ated.
35 This comment does not present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a 36 change in the final SEIS.
37 The following comment indicates that NRC staff used statistical criteria to define 38 instability for classifying impact levels as small, moderate, or large. Defining instability 39 in a different way could change the conclusions.
40 40-bbbbb-AE 41 Response: Changes to the decision rules associated with population trend line of evidence 42 discussed in an earlier comment response.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-66 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00502
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that NRC provided no rationale for truncating all 2 Hudson River data sets used in its analysis to a common length of 27 years.
3 40-ddddd-AE 4 Response: Decisions concerning the truncation of the Hudson River data sets were based on 5 the sampling design. The intent was to create a standardized set of information that could be 6 used to compare across years. No change.
7 The following comment indicates that NRC staff used a visual inspection of pre- and post 8 1985 Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) data and relative agreement between FSS and Beach 9 Seine Survey (BSS) data to determine whether to analyze the FSS data set as a single or 10 separate time periods. The differences in patterns were not apparent.
11 40-eeeee-AE 12 Response: To address this comment, the NRC staff has employed a nonparametric sign test 13 to test for differences in abundance patterns with respect to the gear change that occurred 14 during the FSS. In addition, figure symbols associated with Appendix I, Section 1.2. 1 have been 15 modified to improve clarity.
16 The following comment indicates that, when NRC staff's regression analysis did not 17 converge, NRC sometimes attempted to achieve convergence by eliminating outliers, 18 even though there the staff had no independent reason to suspect that the data point 19 was not a valid observation of abundance. Discarding an outlier point may help the 20 algorithm converge to a solution that appears to be statistically significant even though 21 in reality a significant trend is not present.
22 40-fffff-AE 23 Response: NRC Staff presented the analyses in the draft SEIS with and without the outliers 24 and found no differences in the conclusions. This comment does not present the kind of new 25 and significant information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
26 The following comment indicates that the analytical software NRC staff used to estimate 27 trend lines apparently provides little opportunity to adjust the solution of the algorithm 28 by changing initial values, search methods, step sizes, or convergence criteria. Using 29 software that allows the statistician to fine-tune the algorithm would have been 30 preferable to discarding outlier data points in order to achieve convergence.
31 40-ggggg-AE 32 Response: The software chosen by the NRC Staff (PRISM Version 4) is specifically designed 33 to perform nonlinear estimations. The Staff believes the choice of this software is appropriate 34 for its intended use. NRC Staff has provided a table of initial values in the FSEIS so others can 35 reproduce the information contained therein.
36 The following comment indicates that trend estimates, mean square error (MSE), and 37 statistical probabilities for the segmented regression used by NRC staff are not 38 necessarily unique. The comments attempt to duplicate the analyses that NRC staff used 39 on the abundance index data set and produced the same results as NRC staff achieved 40 for some data sets but not others. The differences suggest that NRC's selection of either 41 the linear or segmented regression based on which method achieved the lowest MSE December 2010 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00503
Appendix A 1 may not always have been correct. It is not clear that this would lead to different impact 2 classifications for any of the data sets, but a potential for different results exists.
3 40-hhhhh-AE 4 Response: NRC staff has provided a table of initial values in the FSEIS so others can 5 reproduce the information contained therein. The NRC staff has evaluated the sensitivity of the 6 initial values to the results and presented the information in the final SEIS, Appendix I, Section 7 1.2.1.
8 The following comments indicate that the effect of using a proportional rank abundance 9 in the strength-of-connection analysis is to reduce the assigned level of impact on 10 abundant, commonly-caught fish.
11 140-c-AE; 140-tt-AE 12 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 13 comments of others on the OSEIS, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to 14 assessing strength-of-connection that does not rely on proportional rank abundance.
15 Information of this alternative analysis is found in the final SEIS, Appendix H, Section H.1.3, 16 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
17 The following comments indicate that another effect of using a proportional rank 18 abundance in the strength-of-connection analysis is that each species in not fairly 19 assessed on its own merits.
20 40-nnn-AE; 128-h-AE/AL; 140-c-AE; 140-d-AE; 140-e-AE; 140-tt-AE 21 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 22 comments of others on the draft SEIS, NRC staff developed an alternative approach to 23 assessing strength-of-connection that does not rely on proportional rank abundance.
24 Information concerning this alternative analysis is found in the final SEIS, Appendix H, Section 25 H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
26 The following comment indicates that the effect of using a proportional rank abundance 27 in the strength-of-connection analysis when tested with a Monte Carlo simulation is to 28 increase the probability that at least one species would erroneously be assigned a large 29 strength of connection level.
30 40-iiiii-AE; 40-rrrrr-AE 31 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 32 comments of others on the draft SEIS, NRC staff developed an alternative approach to 33 assessing strength-of-connection that does not rely on proportional rank abundance.
34 Information concerning this alternative analysis is found in the final SEIS, Appendix H, Section 35 H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
36 The following comments indicate that NRC staff used two comparisons of fish densities 37 in the strength-of-connection analysis: impingement density vs. river density in river 38 region 4 and entrainment density vs. river density in river region 4. Data used to make 39 such comparisons must be consistent, and NRC staff used inconsistent or inappropriate 40 data. An alternative method that resolves the inconsistencies results in all species 41 having a moderate strength of connection (where adequate data allow calculation).
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-68 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00504
Appendix A 1 40-iiiii-AE; 40-sssss-AE 2 Response: NRC Staff addressed these inconsistencies based on new information provided by 3 Entergy in its comments on the OSEIS. The staff revised the final SEIS, Appendix H, Section 4 H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4 to reflect the 5 incorporation of this new information.
6 The following comments indicate that the strength-of-connection analysis relies on an 7 unsubstantiated and unproven assumption that the cooling water system has no impact 8 on invertebrate species that are prey to fish. This assumption affects analyses of 9 impingement, entrainment, and heated discharge water and makes low to moderate 10 levels of impacts for most species almost inevitable.
11 140-e-AE; 140-tt-AE; 140-yy-AE 12 Response: The GElS addresses impacts to invertebrates from nuclear plant operations and 13 concludes that the level of impact is small. No site-specific information was available for Indian 14 Points Units 2 and 3. Based on comments on the OSEIS, the NRC Staff developed an 15 alternative approach to assessing strength-of-connection that does not rely on the indirect 16 effects of the loss of prey on predator species. Appendix H, Section H. 1.3, Combined Effects of 17 Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4 have been revised in the final SEIS to reflect 18 these changes.
19 The following comment indicates that the strength-of-connection line of evidence used 20 by NRC staff includes measures relating to the impingement and entrainment of fish 21 species that are prey of the Representative Important Species. The NRC staff supports 22 the claim using literature citations. The literature supports a conclusion that such 23 indirect effects are possible but not certain. Because of high uncertainty concerning 24 indirect effects of prey entrainment, NRC should assign the measure a lower weight.
25 40-uuuuu-AE 26 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 27 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to 28 assessing strength-of-connection that does not weight the indirect effects of prey entrainment or 29 impingement. Information concerning this alternative analysis is found in the final SEIS, 30 Appendix H, Section H. 1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
31 The following comment indicates that NRC staff asserts that the loss of prey can have a 32 large impact on predator species, while papers cited by NRC do not substantiate this 33 assumption.
34 40-n-AE/ED; 40-mmm-AE; 40-uuu-AE; 40-uuuuu-AE 35 Response: The NRC staff cited papers in the final SEIS Section 4 and Section H.1.3 that show 36 that loss of prey can affect predators.
37 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff calculated entrainment and 38 impingement density metrics as the number of organisms divided by the number of 39 samples instead of by water volume withdrawn. The metrics are confounded by 40 interannual variation in sampling effort independent of the volume withdrawn.
41 40-sssss-AE December 2010 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOSOS
Appendix A 1 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments on the OSEIS, the 2 NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to calculating the density of entrainment or 3 impingement that removes the confounding of interannual variation in the volume of water 4 withdrawn and sampling effort. Information concerning this alternative approach is found in the 5 final SEIS Appendix H, Section H. 1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and 6 Appendix I, Section 1.2.2, Analysis of Strength of Connection.
7 The following comment indicates that the draft SEIS treats impingement and entrainment 8 as equally likely to affect aquatic resources, but available information demonstrates that 9 impingement impacts are relatively insignificant. Conflating the assessments of 10 entrainment and impingement substantially overstates the impacts of impingement on 11 the Hudson River fish community. Impingement and entrainment should be analyzed 12 separately because impingement impacts are Small for all representative and important 13 species post screen installation. Both NYSDEC and USEPA accepted screens as the 14 best technology available in 1993. An agreement was drafted to include verification 15 monitoring, but River Keeper did not sign it, and thus, the owners were under no 16 obligation to perform the verification monitoring.
17 40-ee-AE/OE; 40-wwww-AE 18 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 19 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to 20 assessing strength-of-connection that does not weight the effects of entrainment or 21 impingement. Information concerning this alternative analysis is found in Appendix H, Section 22 H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
23 The following comment indicates that NRC has confused mortality and survival rates of 24 fish impinged on the Ristroph screens.
25 128-h-AE/AL 26 Response: The text of the final SEIS has been corrected.
27 The following comment asks about the origins of bluefish impingement mortality rate 28 data.
29 128-h-AI/AL 30 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 31 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff revised the strength of connection analysis 32 in the final SEIS, and the estimates of CIMR used in revised analysis account for impingement 33 survival. Information of this alternative analysis is found in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, 34 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
35 The following comment indicates that ConEd and NYPA (1992) reported mortality rates 36 for rainbow smelt impinged on Ristroph screens.
37 128-h-AE/AL 38 Response: Impingement survival (96 h) for rainbow smelt was estimated in 1978 from 2 fish 39 collected at IP1 as 0% survival (Texas Instrument Inc. 1979) and again in 1985 from 135 fish 40 collected at IP2 as 85.7% survival (Consolidated Edison Co. 1985). The reference in the 41 comment (NYPA 1992) was not complete and the NRC staff could not locate it. The NRC staff NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-70 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00506
Appendix A 1 revised the strength of connection analysis in the final SEIS, and the estimates of CIMR used in 2 revised analysis account for impingement survival. See the final SEIS, Appendix I, Section 3 1.2.2, Analysis of Strength of Connection for further details.
4 Literature Cited in Response 5 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1985. Biological Evaluation of a 6 Ristroph Screen at Indian Point Unit 2. Prepared by Consolidated Edison Company 7 of New York, Inc., New York, New York.
8 Texas Instruments, Inc. 1979. Collection Efficiency and Survival Estimates of Fish 9 Impinged on a Fine Mesh Continuously Operating Traveling Screen at the Indian 10 Point Generating Station for the Period 8 August to 10 November 1978. Prepared 11 for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York, New York.
12 Prepared by Texas Instruments, Inc., Science Services Division, Dallas, Texas.
13 The following comment indicates that the draft SEIS accurately characterizes the 14 methods used to monitor impingement losses at IP2 and IP3 but does not fairly 15 characterize the efforts made at IP2 and IP3 to develop, demonstrate, and install effective 16 technologies for minimizing impingement losses.
17 40-d-AE; 40-II-AE/ED; 40-wwww-AE 18 Response: The NRC staff's intent is to provide an overview of the efforts made at IP2 and IP3 19 to minimize impingement losses, not to describe in detail the entire process or its history.
20 Because the information provided in this comment is available in the Final SEIS, it will be 21 publicly available and assessable. No changes were made in response to this comment.
22 The following comments indicate that the NRC staff reviewed but did not apply Fletcher's 23 survival estimates for Ristroph screens and fish return system to adjust impingement 24 loss totals based on the rationale that no verification modeling or validation of the 25 installed system had been performed. Application of those survival estimates to 26 estimated impingement losses would reduce the estimated impingement losses.
27 40-cc-AE/ED/OE; 40-yyy-AE; 40-zzz-AE; 40-xxxx-AE 28 Response: The NRC Staff did not use the Fletcher's preliminary estimates in the draft SEIS 29 because they were not validated through full-scale field tests. Based on new information 30 provided by Entergy in its comments and on the comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC 31 staff developed an alternative approach that incorporates Fletcher's preliminary estimates as 32 part of conditional mortality rates in the strength of connection. Information of this alternative 33 analysis is found in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and 34 Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
35 The following comment indicates that, because entrainment sampling was inconsistent 36 over years, only weeks 18-32 should be used.
37 40-vvvvv-AE 38 Response: Some taxa were mainly caught during weeks 1-16 and, to maintain that 39 information, the staff used all entrainment sampling weeks in the final SEIS analysis.
December 2010 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI000136? A_OOSO?
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the Representative and Important Species (RIS) 2 analyzed in the draft SEIS appear to be those whose abundance and distribution were 3 detailed in the 1999 DEIS prepared by the Hudson River utilities (CHGEC et al. 1999).
4 That list is broader than the original "Resident Important Species" [no reference given].
5 Expansion of the analysis to include additional species that are not typically subject to 6 impingement and entrainment at IP2 and IP3 increases the chances of false positive 7 instances of large impact levels.
8 40-p-AE; 40-zzzz-AE 9 Response: These comments are correct that the NRC staff used the list of RIS from the 1999 10 DEIS. NRC staff believes that the RIS should include a broad range of physiologies, trophic 11 relationships, body sizes, migratory behaviors, commercial values, recreational interests, 12 ecological services, and other characteristics in order to best represent the aquatic resources of 13 the Hudson River. No changes have been made as a result of this comment.
14 The following comments indicate that Appendix D of Entergy's Biology Team Report 15 contains an extensive and complicated analysis based on the NRC staff's weight-of-16 evidence analysis with eight major changes to assumptions and methodology.
17 40-q-AE/OE; 40-ff-AE; 40-mmm-AE; 40-ppp-AE/CE; 40-vvvv-AE; 40-jjjjj-AE; 40-kkkkk-AE; 18 40-ttttt-AE 19 Response: The eight major changes suggested in the comment are presented below along 20 with the the NRC staff's response:
21 1. Elimination of inconsistencies in the trends analysis and in analysis of diet preferences for 22 some RIS.
23 The NRC Staff believes this comment refers to the strength of connection analysis, not 24 the trend analysis. Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments (and 25 the comments of others) on the draft SEIS, the NRC Staff developed an alternative 26 approach that uses impingement and entrainment data to provide ancillary information 27 concerning the strength of connection 28 2. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the population trends analysis to account for the 29 fact that river-wide abundance trends are more relevant measures of population status than are 30 abundance trends in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3.
31 This comment refers to providing more weight to the river-wide population trend data 32 and less to the River Segment 4 data. The NRC staff believes that impacts to fish 33 species closest to the plant are the most biologically relevant, because as distance from 34 the plant increases, the effects associated with the plant are more difficult to discern.
35 The staff modified the analysis to remove coastal commercial and recreational trends 36 from the population trend analysis and to use those data as ancillary trend information.
37 See final SEIS Appendix H, Section 1.3 Combined Effects of Impingement and 38 Entrainment and in Chapter 4.
39 3. Adjustment of the population trends WOE scores for marine species to account for the fact 40 that many or most members of these populations never enter the Hudson River and are not 41 susceptible to entrainment or impingement at IP and IP3.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-72 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOSOS
Appendix A 1 Juvenile forms of marine migratory species are part of the Hudson River ecosystem and 2 were the primary focus of the trend analysis. No changes were made to the FSEIS.
3 4. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the strength of connection (SOC) analysis to 4 account for the low impact of impingement relative to entrainment (section 2 of this report) and 5 the high uncertainty associated with predictions concerning the importance of indirect effects.
6 Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments (and the comments of 7 others) on the OSEIS, the NRC staff developed an alternative approach that uses 8 impingement and entrainment data to provide ancillary information concerning the 9 strength of connection. Information concerning this alternative analysis is found in 10 Appendix H, Section H.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment and in 11 Chapter 4.
12 5. Inclusion of the attribute scaling factors developed by Menzie et a/. (1996) to accord more 13 weight to attributes that are closely related to determination of causation.
14 Menzie et a/. (1996) suggested that attributes mayor may not be scaled: 'The 11 15 attributes can either be assigned equal importance or they can be scaled to reflect their 16 relative importance in weighting measurement endpoints." No changes were made to 17 the FSEIS.
18 6. Inclusion of the "availability of objective measures" attribute from Menzie et a/. (1996) to 19 accord more weight to attributes that directly measure quantities of interest for impact 20 assessment.
21 As noted in the technical information provided with the comment, this attribute would be 22 scored equally for each measurement and would not alter the final weights. No changes 23 were made to the FSEIS.
24 7. Modification of the impact category assignment scheme to eliminate a bias inherent in the 25 scheme used in the OSEIS.
26 The NRC staff set up the 1, 2, 4 weighting and decision rules to give more weight to a 27 large impact (if it occurred). No changes were made to the FSEIS.
28 8. Addition of two additional lines of evidence to the SOC analysis, to more directly address 29 direct and indirect impacts of entrainment and impingement on Hudson River fish populations.
30 Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments (and the comments of 31 others) on the OSEIS, the NRC staff developed an alternative approach that uses 32 impingement and entrainment data to provide ancillary information concerning the 33 strength of connection. This approach incorporated elements of conditional entrainment 34 mortality rate (CEMR) and conditional impingement mortality rate (CIMR) in the 35 assessment.
36 The following comments indicate that the approach used by Entergy's consultants in 37 their Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) Report is more scientifically rigorous and 38 defensible and provides a stronger foundation for environmental decision-making than 39 the NRC staff's weight of evidence (WOE) approach.
40 40-z-AE; 40-bb-AE/ED; 40-uu-AE; 40-kkkkk-AE; 40-IIIII-AE December 2010 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00509
Appendix A 1 Response: Entergy's consultants' AEI Report (Barnthouse et a/. 2008) used an approach with 2 multiple lines of evidence and population trend analyses. In their comments on the draft SEIS, 3 Entergy's consultants (Barnthouse et al 2009) compared their AEI approach with the NRC 4 staff's WOE approach showed similarities and differences, and presented an alternative WOE 5 approach to that used by the NRC staff. Based on new information provided by Entergy in its 6 comments and on the comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC revised the Weight of 7 Evidence approach in the final SEIS to include improved data and an improved WOE approach 8 that addresses comments submitted by Entergy's consultants and others. The NRC staff 9 believes that its WOE approach provides an independent, strong, and scientifically rigorous and 10 defensible analysis that fulfills the needs of NEPA and NRC's regulations.
11 Literature Cited in Response 12 Barnthouse, L. W, D.G. Heimbuch, W. V. Winkle, and J. Young. 2008. Entrainment and 13 Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment. Prepared for 14 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 15 3. January 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360704.
16 Barnthouse, L. W, D.G. Heimbuch, M. Mattson, and J.R. Young. 2009. Review of 17 NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3. March 18 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML080390059.
19 The following comment indicates that only 7 of the 11 attributes defined by Menzie (1996) 20 were used in WOE analysis and all had equal weight.
21 40-vvvv-AE 22 Response: The strengths of the WOE analysis proposed by Menzie et a/. (1996) include 23 flexibility and adaptability, and those authors discuss use of alternate attributes and equal 24 weighting. NRC explains its use of attributes, weighting, and rational for weighting in Appendix 25 H.
26 The following comment indicates that an alternative WOE approach including a CMR 27 based determination of causation would be preferable.
28 40-vvvv-AE 29 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 30 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC revised the Weight of Evidence approach in the 31 final SEIS to now include CMR.
32 The following comments indicate that Indian Point must do as little damage as possible 33 to an already stressed system, and thus minimize cumulative impacts.
34 140-z-AE/CI; 140-vv-AE; 140-ww-AE/CI 35 Response: The cumulative impacts analysis in the final SEIS describes the impacts of IP2 and 36 IP3 when added to or interacting with other effects in the Hudson River over the period of 37 license renewal.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-74 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS1 0
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the Pisces (2007) report on entrainment, 2 impingement, and thermal impacts shows that Indian Point's operation caused 3 temperature increases that have had significant effects on aquatic life.
4 140-I-AE 5 Response: The NRC staff's conclusion in the final SEIS includes this possibility in the range of 6 impact levels.
7 The following comment indicates that the applicant failed to demonstrate that it meets 8 New York State's water quality standard for thermal impacts or that it has received a 9 waiver pursuant to Clean Water Act 316(a).
10 128-j-AE 11 Response: Permitting and enforcement of these matters are under the jurisdiction of New York 12 State. This comment does not present the kind of new and significant information that would 13 warrant a change in the final SEIS.
14 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff has no basis to reach different 15 conclusions than the State of New York on thermal impacts from the discharges of Indian 16 Point.
17 128-j-AE; 128-I-AE 18 Response: The NRC staff's analysis and conclusions are presented for the purposes of 19 satisfying NEPA with regard to the NRC decision regarding whether to renew the Indian Point 20 operating licenses. The State of New York holds permitting power for the facility with regard to 21 regulating facility discharges under the Clean Water Act. NRC assessments for NEPA 22 purposes do not supersede judgments by the State of New York. The NRC staff notes that 23 Indian Point continues to operate under a SPoES permit originally issued in 1987, and that New 24 York State has yet to issue a new permit that reflects its expressed concerns regarding impact 25 levels. The NRC staff has re-examined the data used to limit the range of impact levels and 26 expanded the range of possible thermal impact levels to include large, which is the conclusion 27 reached by New York State and 001 in their comments. For details, see final SEIS, Section 28 4.1.4.5, NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts.
29 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff has reported the conclusory 30 misstatements of the applicant in regard to thermal impacts.
31 128-m-AE 32 Response: In the section referred to by this comment, the staff describes the history of thermal 33 effluent compliance, not assessing impact Impacts are assessed elsewhere in the SEIS. This 34 comment does not present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a 35 change in the final SEIS.
36 The following comment indicates that language in the draft SEIS at page 2-35 regarding 37 tidal conditions and thermal plume should be changed.
38 40-rrrr-AE 39 Response: This comment refers to Section 2.2.5.1, the Hudson River Estuary, which is a 40 general description of the estuary. The change would add more detail, but would not December 2010 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00511
Appendix A 1 substantively change the description. This comment does not present the kind of new and 2 significant information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
3 The following comment indicates that language in the draft SEIS or biological 4 assessment concerning shortnose sturgeon and CORM IX modeling of Indian Point's 5 thermal plume should be changed.
6 40-mm-AE; 40-jjj-AE; 40-ssss-AE 7 Response: These comments refer to a review of historical studies in Section 4.1.4.3, Thermal 8 Studies and Conclusions, and suggest a re-analysis of historical study results. The purpose of 9 this section is to present a historical perspective and not to reanalyze the original authors' work.
10 These comments do not present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a 11 change in the final SEIS.
12 The following comment indicates that draft SEIS language at page 4-25 regarding 13 application of CORM IX modeling to the thermal plume should be changed. This would 14 change the conclusion on level of impact for thermal impacts from "small to moderate" 15 to "small."
16 40-e-AE; 40-y-AE; 40-nn-AE; 40-eeee-AE; 40-ffff-AE; 40-tttt-AE; 40-uuuu-AE; 40-bbbbbb-17 AE 18 Response: In its comments on the DSEIS, New York State DEC, the agency that permits 19 thermal effluents in New York, stated that insufficient information is presently available to limit 20 the range of thermal impact levels to small to moderate and concluded that a large level of 21 impact could not be excluded. The NRC staff agrees that large impacts cannot be excluded and 22 has modified its conclusions in Section 4.1.4.3, Thermal Studies and Conclusions to account for 23 a range of small to large impact levels. The staff notes that the inclusion of a reference to New 24 York State's thermal study requirement, which Entergy indicates applies to other power plants 25 as well as Indian Point, was not intended to indicate that the Indian Point facility is not in 26 compliance with the conditions of its SPDES permit.
27 The following comment indicates that, because shortnose sturgeon, which is listed 28 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, has a slow maturation process and 29 females do not spawn every year, any impacts to the population will be noticeable.
30 140-m-TS 31 Response: In general, NRC staff agrees that long time periods are required to detect 32 population-level impacts to long-lived and slowly-maturing species. The staff believes it based 33 its analysis on the best data available at this time.
34 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff should use the best available 35 scientific and commercial data to assess impacts to the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
36 Data to assess impacts are in fact limited. The conclusion of Small to Large for 37 shortnose sturgeon is not adequate. The staff needs to estimate the effects of 38 impingement.
39 140-n-TS; 128-p-TS; 140-q-TS 40 Response: The NRC staff found inconsistencies in the shortnose sturgeon impingement data 41 submitted to it by Entergy prior to publishing the draft SEIS. As a result, NRC staff requested NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-76 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00512
Appendix A 1 that Entergy provide improved data (lacking the errors in earlier Entergy data) to NRC. Those 2 data, which are the best available and more closely match the NMFS data, are included in 3 Section 4, Appendices H and I, and a revised biological assessment.
4 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff had conflicting data from Entergy 5 and NMFS on impingement of the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
6 40-qq-AE/ED; 140-0-TS 7 Response: NRC found inconsistencies in the shortnose sturgeon impingement data sent to it 8 by Entergy. Those data appear in the draft SEIS exactly as NRC received them from Entergy.
9 As a result, NRC requested that Entergy send improved data (lacking the errors in earlier 10 Entergy data) to NRC. Those data, which more closely match the NMFS data, are included in 11 the final SEIS as the best available data.
12 The following comment indicates that NRC simply noted that it had insufficient data to 13 assess the effects of Indian Point operation on the endangered shortnose sturgeon 14 instead of gathering data support a decision.
15 140-q-TS 16 Response: New York State DEC, not NRC, is responsible for impingement and entrainment 17 sampling as part of SPDES permitting. The NYSDEC may require additional entrainment and 18 impingement monitoring, should it deem such sampling necessary. In addition, NMFS, not 19 NRC, can require monitoring of endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered 20 Species Act if it finds such monitoring necessary.
21 The following comment indicates that Indian Point Units 2 and 3 require an incidental 22 take statement to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
23 140-r-TS 24 Response: As summarized by the NRC staff in its biological assessment for shortnose 25 sturgeon, the latest biological opinion for IP2 and IP3, conducted in 1979 by NMFS, did not 26 require an incidental take statement. NMFS retains the authority to impose additional conditions 27 as a result of ongoing consultation should it deem them necessary.
28 The following comment indicates that NRC lacks the data to provide sufficient support 29 for conclusions regarding the Atlantic sturgeon, which is a candidate species for listing 30 under the Endangered Species Act, and other species.
31 128-p-TS; 140-t-TS 32 Response: NRC found inconsistencies in the sturgeon impingement data it received from 33 Entergy prior to the publication of the draft SEIS. After the NRC published the draft SEIS, 34 Entergy submitted updated data to the NRC, and those data, which are the best available and 35 more closely match the NMFS data, are included in Chapter 4, as well as Appendices H and I.
36 The following comments indicate that the SEIS should contain summaries of life cycles 37 of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, as well as detailed explanations 38 of impingement sampling of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at Indian Point from 1975 39 through 1990.
40 40-mmmmm-AE, 40-yyyy-AE December 2010 A-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00513
Appendix A 1 Response: The SEIS and biological assessment contain this information.
2 The following comments indicate that the correct number of sturgeon impinged from 3 1981 through 1990 equals the number counted in sampling each year as presented in the 4 1999 DEIS.
5 40-gg-AE; 40-nnnnn-TS, 40-00000-TS, 40-yyyy-AE 6 Response: The NRC staff in the draft SEIS presented sturgeon impingement data exactly as 7 Entergy provided them in response to the staff's requests. After NRC published the draft SEIS, 8 Entergy supplied NRC revised data, which NRC presents in the final SEIS.
9 The following comments express concern with the data on shortnose sturgeon 10 impingement and indicate that it appears odd that nearly all impingement of shortnose 11 sturgeon occurred in two years. There are several years that have no reported data at all.
12 The data are self-conflicting and do not present a complete, accurate, and current 13 illustration of the status of impinged sturgeon.
14 40-nnnnnn-TS; 15 140-n-TS; 140-0-TS; 140-p-TS; 140-q-TS 16 Response: The NRC staff found inconsistencies in the shortnose sturgeon impingement data 17 that was submitted by Entergy. After NRC published the draft SEIS, NRC staff requested 18 improved data from Entergy. Those data, which are the best available and more closely match 19 the NMFS data, are included in the final SEIS Chapter 4, Appendices H and I, and the revised 20 biological assessment.
21 The following comments indicate that the biological assessment for the endangered 22 shortnose sturgeon is incomplete and therefore the draft SEIS is incomplete.
23 128-0-TS, 128-p-TS 24 Response: The biological assessment submitted to NMFS with the draft SEIS reflected the 25 best available data at that time. A revised biological assessment is being sent to NMFS along 26 with the NRC's final SEIS. Consultation under the Endangered Species Act may continue.
27 The following comment indicates that the essential fish habitat assessment is incomplete 28 and therefore the DSEIS is incomplete.
29 128-q-AE 30 Response: The essential fish habitat assessment has been completed and sent to NMFS.
31 The following comments indicate that the NRC staff ignored New York State's findings on 32 aquatic impacts, that the NRC should defer to the responsible permitting authority, and 33 that the NRC's assessment is a direct contradiction to the State's assessment.
34 128-e-AE; 128-f-AE; 132-f-AE; 140-h-AE; 140-i-AE; 140-j-AE 35 Response: The NRC staff assesses environmental impact levels in relation to NEPA and the 36 NRC's regulations, which may have different purposes and requirements than New York State's 37 regulations. The assessments and conclusions made by NRC staff in fulfilling the requirements 38 of NRC and NEPA regulations do not supersede any regulatory decisions made by the State of 39 New York.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-78 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00514
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff's assessment of a large impact on 2 Hudson river bluefish is contrary to observations that very few adult bluefish are 3 impinged, few if any bluefish eggs and larvae have ever been entrained, and survival of 4 adult bluefish of the intake screens in likely very high.
5 40-c-AE; 40-hh-AE; 128-h-AE/AL 6 Response: Based on comments on the draft SEIS and new and revised information provided 7 by Entergy, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to assessing strength-of-8 connection. Information of this alternative analysis is found in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, 9 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and in Chapter 4. The NRC staff revised 10 the levels of impact for bluefish and other Hudson River species in the final SEIS based on the 11 revised methodology.
12 The following comment indicates that NYSDEC believes that the impact level from 13 continued operation of Indian Point's cooling water system should be large for striped 14 bass, white perch, and Atlantic tom cod based on population trends, likelihood of 15 impinging young-of-the-year, likelihood of reducing a food resource, and historical 16 impingement and entrainment data collected at IP2 and IP3.
17 128-h-AE/AL 18 Response: NRC staff assesses environmental impact levels in relation to NRC's regulations, 19 which may have different requirements than New York State's regulations. The aquatic 20 resources impact assessment in the final SEIS uses the best available data and a weight of 21 evidence approach that encompasses two lines of evidence, each made up of several 22 measures. The NRC staff's assessment and conclusions do not supersede the State of New 23 York's authority to implement and enforce standards under the Clean Water Act.
24 The following comment indicates that impacts to fish populations should cause the NRC 25 staff to propose closed cycle cooling at Indian Point.
26 128-h-AE/AL 27 Response: New York State DEC is responsible for insuring that intake and discharge 28 structures comply with requirements of the Clean Water Act. New York State has indicated that 29 closed-cycle cooling would be preferable, but has not required that Indian Point convert to 30 closed-cycle cooling.
31 The following comment indicates that New York State has been collecting and analyzing 32 data for decades, and the NRC staff's recent analysis of aquatic impacts cannot supplant 33 NYSDEC's analysis.
34 128-g-AE 35 Response: The NRC staff assesses environmental impacts in relation to NEPA and NRC's 36 regulations, which may have different purposes and requirements than New York State's 37 regulations. The NRC staff's analysis does not supplant NYSDEC's analysis.
38 The following comments assert that the SEIS does not assess the effects of 39 radionuclides released from IP2 and IP3 in groundwater and food web accumulation on 40 aquatic biota, including the shortnose sturgeon:
41 December 2010 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00515
Appendix A 1 140-s-TS; 140-z-AE/CI 2 Response: As part of NRC's operating reactor oversight program, the NRC staff performed 3 independent sampling and analysis of environmental media related to the leaks of radioactive 4 water from the spent fuel pools 2008. The NRC conducted an independent analysis of 5 groundwater, Hudson River water, and fish during its inspection of IPEC's actions in response to 6 the leaks. The following two key findings related to human health are also presented in the 7 Chapter 2 of the SEIS. The first specifically addresses radiation levels identified in fish 8 sampling, and the second addresses human exposures through fish consumption.
9 1) "Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 10 contaminated groundwater conditions at Indian Point Energy Center. Potable water sources in 11 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson River, a 12 fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal exposure pathway to 13 humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., fish or invertebrates) taken 14 from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point, that has the potential to be affected by 15 radiological effluent releases. Notwithstanding, no radioactivity distinguishable from background 16 was detected during the most recent sampling and analysis of fish and crabs taken from the 17 affected portion of the Hudson River and designated control locations. "
18 2) 'The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based on 19 application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine 20 Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 21 Appendix I," relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is currently, and 22 expected to remain, less than 0.1% of the NRC's ')\s Low As is Reasonably Achievable 23 (ALARA)" guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr total body and 10 mrem/yr maximum 24 organ), which is considered to be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the 25 environment. "
26 The complete discussion of NRC actions and its inspection are contained in the NRC inspection 27 report dated May 13, 2008. The full report is available to the public through the ADAMS 28 electronic reading room on the NRC's website (www.NRC.gov). The ADAMS accession 29 number for the inspection report is ML081340425.
30 In addition to the 2008 inspection report, IP2 and IP3 conduct a radiological environmental 31 monitoring program (REMP) in which radiological impacts to the environment and the public are 32 monitored, documented, and compared to NRC standards. Entergy summarizes the results of 33 its REMP in an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, and NRC reviews these 34 reports. The reports are publicly available on the NRC's public website. The IP2 and IP3 35 REMP enables the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area 36 and to measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to operations at the 37 IP2 and IP3 site.
38 The REMP samples environmental media in the environs around the site to analyze and 39 measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. Within the REMP, the waterborne 40 pathway consists of measurements of Hudson River surface water, fish and invertebrates, 41 aquatic vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline soil.
42 While neither the 2008 inspection report process nor the REMP specifically sampled the 43 shortnose sturgeon - an endangered and thus protected species - the inspection report I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-80 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00516
Appendix A 1 examined - and the REMP continues to examine - radionuclide levels in other fish and aquatic 2 species.
3 The comment does not present any significant new information and no change has been made 4 to the final SEIS.
5 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff did not include data or assess 6 impacts associated with operation of Indian Point Unit 1.
7 140-q-TS 8 Response: Indian Point Unit 1 (IP1) no longer operates and is in a condition known as 9 SAFSTOR. The subject of this SEIS is Entergy's application to renew the operating licenses of 10 IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years of operation beyond the term of the original licenses. IP1 11 operated from September 1962 through October 1974, and so affected the Hudson River 12 aquatic resources before the start of the long-term ecological sampling programs used to 13 assess environmental impacts in this SEIS.
14 The following comment indicates that some aspects of the methodology used by the 15 NRC staff for assessing impact to aquatic resources were unclear in the draft SEIS and 16 were clarified only during a conference call with NRC staff and consultants.
17 40-ppppp-AE 18 Response: In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff presented methods, sources of data, assumptions, 19 and conclusions in Appendices H and I, and summarized them in Chapter 4. Based on new 20 information provided by Entergy in its comments and the comments of others on the OSEIS, the 21 NRC Staff modified its approach for assessing the aquatic population trends and strength-of-22 connection lines of evidence. The revised methods are shown in Chapter 4 and Appendices H 23 and I of this final SEIS.
24 The following comments indicate that two types of errors could occur in the 25 methodology used by NRC to classify aquatic impacts into small, moderate, and large:
26 identifying a potential impact when none actually exists and failure to identify a potential 27 impact when in fact it does exist. The DSEIS provides no discussion of these types of 28 errors or the relative degree of protection the classification process provides against 29 each type.
30 40-qqqqq-AE; 40-ccccc-AE 31 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 32 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC revised the Weight of Evidence approach in the 33 final SEIS and taken the decision rule process used in the draft out of the probabilistic-testing 34 scenario, which makes this question less relevant.
35 The following comment indicates that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to 36 concur with the determination that continued operation of IP2 and IP3 are not likely to 37 adversely affect Indiana bats as NRC staff has not provided information on how the 38 project may indirectly affect Indiana bats and their forage area.
39 139-a-TS December 2010 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS17
Appendix A 1 Response: The NRC staff has added information to Section 4.6.2, Terrestrial Threatened or 2 Endangered Species.
3 The following comments indicate that studies should be done to confirm whether 4 endangered Indian bats or threatened bog turtles live on the site and what impacts 5 continued operation of IP2 and IP3 would have on these protected species.
6 97-b-TS; 97-j-OE/TS; 149-e-TS 7 Response: The applicant has stated that no expansion of existing facilities or disturbance of 8 forest or other land on the site would occur during the renewal period. The NRC staff believes 9 that the lack of planned changes suggests that no new impacts would occur. In addition, site 10 area does not have suitable habitat for the bog turtle, and bog turtles have not been reported in 11 the region of Westchester County near the IP2 and IP3 site. The NRC staff concluded that bog 12 turtles were not likely to occur on the site. These conclusions are stated in Section 4.2.2 of the 13 draft SEIS, and so NRC staff made no change to that text in the final SEIS.
14 The following comments indicate disagreement with the criteria used by NRC to assess 15 impacts to aquatic resources. The levels of impact "small," "moderate," and "large" are 16 subjectively defined and lack metrics. Because these criteria are subjectively defined, it 17 is difficult to objectively evaluate cumulative impacts for any alternative, and it is difficult 18 to objectively evaluate dissimilar impact categories (e.g., air quality, terrestrial ecology) 19 in order to compare alternatives.
20 40-mmm-AE; 139-c-AE; 139-f-ALIAR 21 Response: These impact levels are currently part of the NRC's environmental regulations, 22 promulgated through a public rulemaking process. In the rulemaking process, NRC staff 23 solicited public and agency comments. The impact levels cannot be changed by NRC staff 24 within this proceeding.
25 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff's weight-of-evidence approach is 26 insufficiently protective of fishery resources and underestimates the potential effect of 27 Indian Point on these fish. Although population level impacts are an appropriate 28 measure of ecological effects, populations are difficult to sample and population trends 29 may be difficult to measure 30 139-d-AE 31 Response: The NRC staff believes that fishery resources are adequately addressed because 32 the RIS it examined include a broad range of physiologies, trophic links, body sizes, migratory 33 behaviors, commercial values, recreational interests, ecological services, and other 34 characteristics in order to best represent the aquatic resources of the Hudson River. In its draft 35 and final SEIS, NRC staff conducted a thorough weight-of-evidence analysis of impact levels on 36 the RIS in relation to definitions of impact in NRC regulations. The NRC regulations define 37 impact in terms of resource stability, not just numbers affected. Based on new information 38 provided by Entergy in its comments and on the comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC 39 Staff modified both the population trend and strength-of-connection lines of evidence.
40 Information concerning this alternative analysis can be found in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, 41 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS.
42 The following comment indicates that NRC staff used no pre-Indian Point data, which 43 clouds data interpretation.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-82 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00518
Appendix A 1 139-d-AE 2 Response: NRC staff recognizes that comparing attributes of aquatic resources before and 3 after operation of IP2 and IP3 could provide additional information, if such data were available.
4 Intensive sampling of the Hudson River began only after operation of IP2 and IP3 began, 5 however, no data for the period before the operation of IP2 and IP3 are available.
6 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff concluded that adverse heat related 7 impacts to aquatic species may be small to moderate because it did not find evidence 8 that adverse effects were "clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important 9 attributes of an aquatic resource." 001 disagrees with this conclusion because it is 10 based on an absence of data and is not supported by scientific evidence such as on-site 11 studies to objectively assess plant-related thermal stress on aquatic organisms.
12 139-e-AE 13 Response: New York State, under the Clean Water Act, sets and enforces limits for thermal 14 discharge from IP2 and IP3. The facility currently holds a SPoES permit issued by the State of 15 New York, and that permit is the subject of ongoing adjudicatory proceedings before the 16 NYSoEC. The NRC staff lacks authority to require Entergy to sample for compliance with the 17 State's SPoES permit requirements. The State sets SPoES permit requirements based in part 18 on potential impacts to aquatic life. The NRC staff has expanded the range of possible thermal 19 impact levels to include large, the conclusion reached by New York State and 001 in their 20 comments. See final SEIS, Section 4.1.4.5, NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts.
21 The following comment indicates that certain cold water fish species may be particularly 22 vulnerable to temperature changes caused by thermal discharges from electrical plants 23 like Indian Point. Atlantic tom cod and rainbow smelt are such species.
24 139-e-AE 25 Response: This observation has been added to Section 4.1.4.5 NRC Staff Assessment of 26 Thermal Impacts.
27 The following comments object to the numbers of Hudson River fish of all life stages 28 killed by entrainment and impingement due to operation of the once-through cooling 29 water systems at IP2 and IP3.
30 3-a-AE/LE/LR; 11-b-AE; 12-b-AE; 13-b-AE; 18-c-AE; 20-c-AE/OE; 27-b-AE; 37-a-31 AE/OR; 40-ccc-ALlTE; 54-c-AE; 61-a-AE/ALlOR; 63-c-AE; 73-g-AE; 87 -d-AE/AL; 91-32 b-AE; 96-I-AE/ALlRG; 97-i-AE/OL; 106-a-AE/LE/RW/SF; 122-c-AE, 123-b-AE, 126-b-33 AE, 132-c-AE, 141-c-AE/LE/RI, 145-e-AE/AL, 149-a-AE, 161-e-AE, 166-a-AE, 1667-a-34 AE; 176-b-AE; 182-b-AE/HH/RW/SF; 183-a-AE/RW/SF 35 Response: The responsibility for regulating the location, design, construction and capacity of 36 cooling water intake structures to minimize adverse environment impact at IP2 and IP3 lies with 37 New York State and not the NRC. The NRC staff has assessed and disclosed the impacts of 38 extending the operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years beyond their present license 39 terms in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC's regulations.
40 These comments do not present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a 41 change in the final SEIS.
December 2010 A-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00519
Appendix A 1 The following comment contends that the majority of fish killed by entrainment and 2 impingement are in the egg stage, so that looking just at numbers killed is misleading.
3 120-e-AE 4 Response: In its draft and final SEIS, NRC staff conducted a thorough weight-of-evidence 5 analysis of impact levels in relation to definitions of impact in NRC regulations. NRC regulations 6 define impact in terms of resource stability, not just numbers affected. This comment does not 7 present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final 8 SEIS.
9 The following comments object to environmental effects of thermal discharges into the 10 Hudson River due to operation of the once-through cooling water systems at IP2 and IP3.
11 13-b-AE; 87-d-AE; 96-I-AE/ALlRG; 96-m-AE; 97-d-AE; 97-h-AE/AL; 182-b-AE/HH/RW/SF 12 Response: The responsibility insuring that thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 meet New York 13 State water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life lies with New York State and not the 14 NRC. The NRC staff has assessed and disclosed the impacts of extending the operation of IP2 15 and IP3 for an additional 20 years beyond their present license terms in accordance with the 16 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC's regulations. These comments do not 17 present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final 18 SEIS.
19 The following comment contends that NRC addressed ecological impacts inadequately.
20 9-e-AE/AL 21 Response: In its draft and final SEIS, the NRC staff conducted a thorough weight-of-evidence 22 analysis of impact levels in relation to definitions of impact in NRC regulations. NRC regulations 23 define impact in terms of resource stability. The NRC staff modified its analysis in response to 24 comments on the draft SEIS. This comment does not present the kind of new and significant 25 information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
26 The following comments state that the data do not support a finding other than large for 27 ecological impacts to aquatic resources in the Hudson River.
28 20-c-AE; 21-a-AE/ORlSF; 40-qqq-AE; 123-a-AE 29 Response: Because NYSOEC has the regulatory authority for thermal discharges, has stated 30 that the applicant has exceeded thermal limits in the past, and has concluded that thermal 31 impacts could be large, the NRC staff concludes that thermal impacts could range from small to 32 large for selected species and has revised the final SEIS to reflect this conclusion. The 33 responsibility for requiring monitoring of entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3 lies with 34 New York State and not the NRC. In describing the available data and in its analysis, NRC staff 35 described the age of the data from each of these in-plant monitoring programs and 36 acknowledged the shortcomings of relying on such old data. The weight of evidence approach 37 employed by the NRC staff included two primary lines of evidence: assessment of aquatic 38 population trends in the Hudson River and an evaluation of strength of connection (i.e.,
39 relationship of the aquatic resources to power plant operations). NRC staff used population 40 trend data available from 1974 or 1975, depending on the sampling program, through 2005 in its 41 assessment. It also used impingement and entrainment data available from 1975 through 1990 42 to determine the strength of connection. Although entrainment and impingement monitoring NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-84 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS20
Appendix A 1 was not conducted at IP2 and IP3 after 1990, NRC staff believes that sufficient information is 2 available to determine the strength of connection between plant operations and aquatic 3 resources in the Hudson River These comments do not present the kind of new and significant 4 information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
5 The following comments indicate that other environmental impacts on Hudson River 6 aquatic resources are more detrimental than impacts due to Indian Point or that positive 7 impacts from Indian Point outweigh negative ones, so that negative aquatic impacts from 8 Indian Point are comparatively insignificant.
9 33-a-AE/GLlLE; 113-b-AE/ALlEJ; 166-g-AE/SO 10 Response: In accordance with NEPA, the NRC staff assessed the environmental impacts of 11 license renewal for IP2 and IP3. The effects of other environmental impacts on Hudson River 12 aquatic resources are discussed under Cumulative Impacts in the final SEIS.
13 The following comments concern effects of global climate change on impacts to aquatic 14 resources or the effects of Indian Point on climate change:
15 97 -d-AE; 102-a-ALlOE; 102-b-AE/GLlOE; 113-h-AE/GL; 180-d-AE/ALlGL; 16 Response: The NRC Staff addressed the effects of climate change on impacts to aquatic 17 resources as part of cumulative impact assessment in Section 4.8. 1.
18 The following comments indicate concern about eutrophication or lack of monitoring for 19 it.
20 40-w-AE/ED; 93-d-AE/MP/RG; 97-c-AEIWA 21 Response: Eutrophication is commonly associated with lakes and ponds, although it may 22 occur in rivers, particularly slow-moving rivers such as the Hudson River. Elevated 23 temperatures from thermal discharges can exacerbate eutrophication. The responsibility for 24 insuring that thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 meet New York State water quality criteria for 25 protection of aquatic life lies with New York State and not the NRC. The NRC staff has 26 assessed and disclosed the impacts of extending the operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 27 20 years beyond their present license terms in accordance with the National Environmental 28 Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC's implementing regulations. These comments do not present the 29 kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
30 The following comment concerns the sufficiency of thermal studies conducted in the 31 vicinity of Indian Point to provide the data necessary to assess aquatic impact levels.
32 93-e-AE/RG 33 Response: The responsibility insuring that thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 meet New York 34 State water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life lies with New York State and not the 35 NRC. The NRC staff has assessed and disclosed the impacts of extending the operation of IP2 36 and IP3 for an additional 20 years beyond their present license terms in accordance with the 37 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC's implementing regulations This comment 38 does not present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the 39 final SEIS.
December 2010 A-8S NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS21
Appendix A 1 The following comments concern the impacts of Indian Point's cooling water system on 2 or propagating through aquatic food webs or habitats.
3 93-f-AE; 97 -c-AEIWA; 97 -d-AE; 173-a-AE/EP/ST; 180-c-AE/OE 4 Response: The NRC staff recognizes the importance of considering indirect effects through 5 food webs and habitat change. The staff chose RIS that include a broad range of physiologies, 6 trophic links, body sizes, migratory behaviors, commercial values, recreational interests, 7 ecological services, and other characteristics in order to best represent the aquatic resources of 8 the Hudson River. Some of these species have trophic interactions with other RIS. In addition, 9 the analysis of cumulative impacts considers trophic interactions. These comments do not 10 present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final 11 SEIS.
12 The following comment contends that increased predation by the increasing striped bass 13 population in the Hudson River caused the decreases in other fish populations.
14 120-f-AE 15 Response: The effects of environmental stressors other than operation of IP2 and IP3, 16 including the increased striped bass population, on Hudson River aquatic resources are 17 discussed under Cumulative Impacts in Chapter 4.
18 The following comment indicates that New York State and Entergy do not have 19 unresolved, competing views of Indian Point's impacts on aquatic resources as 20 summarized by the NRC staff in the draft SEIS.
21 40-ttt-AE 22 Response: Comments received by NRC staff from New York State agencies and Entergy on 23 the draft SEIS indicate that the State and Entergy appear to have different views of Indian 24 Point's impacts on aquatic resources.
25 The following comments indicate that Entergy's analysis of aquatic impacts is based on 26 more recent and complete data than New York State's FEIS and that NRC should afford 27 Entergy's analysis more weight in its analysis.
28 40-ttt-AE; 40-uuu-AE; 40-vvv-AE 29 Response: The NRC staff conducted an independent impact analysis of aquatic impacts as 30 required by NEPA. The NRC staff's analysis is based on the most recent data as supplied by 31 Entergy to the NRC. These comments do not present the kind of new and significant 32 information that would warrant a change in the final SEIS.
33 The following comment indicates that the NRC should have classified the impact on blue 34 crab as small rather than unknown due to lack of data.
35 40-qqqq-AE 36 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and the comments 37 of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff modified the approach to assessing population trends 38 and strength-of-connection lines of evidence. In the final SEIS, the level of impact for blue 39 crabs is small. Information regarding this alternative analysis is found in the final SEIS, 40 Appendix H, Section H. 1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Chapter 4.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-86 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS22
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that NRC analysis should include a listing of 2 assumptions and analytical decisions that contribute to uncertainty and the implications 3 of alternative assumptions.
4 40-qqqq-AE 5 Response: The final SEIS includes a discussion of the various sources of uncertainty in the 6 analysis.
7 The following comment indicates that the data set collected by the Hudson River utilities 8 is one of the largest ever collected on estuarine biology. The NRC staff's conclusions 9 are not fully reflective of the available and relative information and are therefore in error.
10 40-aaaaaa-AE 11 Response: The NRC staff recognizes that the data set collected by the Hudson River utilities is 12 one of the largest collected on estuarine biology-particularly fish species. For this reason NRC 13 staff elected to use an ecological risk assessment weight-of-evidence approach that examined 14 multiple lines of evidence for a large number of representative and important species potentially 15 affected by operation of IP2 and IP3. NRC staff also examined direct and indirect effects and 16 cumulative effects of license renewal. NRC staff believes that the resulting analysis is 17 sufficiently thorough and far reaching to assess impacts based on these data.
18 These comments express concern about the classification of impact on bluefish as large.
19 40-b-AE; 40-c-AE; 40-aaaaaa-AE 20 Response: As a result of updated and additional data submitted to NRC by Entergy after 21 publication of the draft SEIS and modifications to methodology in response to technical 22 comments on the draft SEIS, the impact of operation of IP2 and IP3 on bluefish has been 23 revised in the final SEIS.
24 The following comments indicate concern about killing shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 25 by entrainment and impingement due to operation of the once-through cooling water 26 systems or concern about the lack of monitoring to determine the actual numbers of 27 sturgeon entrained or impinged.
28 11-b-AE; 11-c-AE; 12-b-AE; 12-c-AE; 13-b-AE; 20-c-AE/OR; 27 -c-AE; 37 -a-AE/OR; 41-c-29 AE/LE; 44-c-AE/LE; 61-a-AE/ALlOR; 63-c-AE; 86-d-AE/ALlGL; 87-d-AE; 91-c-AE; 93-d-30 AE/MP/RG; 93-e-AE/RG; 93-f-AE; 97-d-AE; 97-i-AE/OL; 106-a-AE/LE/RW/SF; 126-b-AE; 31 141-c-AE/LE/RI; 161-e-AE; 167-a-AE; 176-c-AE; 182-b-AE/HH/RW/SF 32 Response: New York State DEC, not NRC, is responsible for impingement and entrainment 33 sampling as part of SPDES permitting. In addition, NMFS, not NRC, can require monitoring of 34 endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In the draft SEIS, the 35 NRC staff presented sturgeon impingement data exactly as Entergy provided them. After the 36 draft SEIS was published, Entergy submitted revised data, which the staff presents in the final 37 SEIS and in a revised biological assessment prepared under the Endangered Species Act.
38 The following comments indicate concern about assigning a small to large impact to 39 shortnose sturgeon when the population appears to be increasing.
40 94-b-AE/OE; 40-ii-AE/ALlOEIITS December 2010 A-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00523
Appendix A 1 Response: In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff presented sturgeon impingement data 2 exactly as Entergy provided them. After the draft SEIS was published, Entergy 3 submitted revised data, which the staff presents in the final SEIS, Chapter 4 and 4 Appendices H and I and in a revised biological assessment prepared under the 5 Endangered Species Act. Based on the revised data and methods, the NRC staff 6 determined that the level of impact for shortnose sturgeon is small.
7 The following comments indicate concern with one of several issues related to the 8 shortnose sturgeon: (1) the problems of assessing impact or threats to 9 endangered species when monitoring programs had been discontinued or never 10 initiated and data sets are therefore incomplete, (2) the NRC staff's lack of definite 11 conclusions on impacts from incomplete data, or (3) how the NRC staff expressed 12 the uncertainties associated with impact levels for which underlying data were 13 incomplete.
14 20-c-AE; 40-nnn-AE; 96-k-AE/TS; 97-d-AE; 97-i-AE; 140-a-AE 15 Response: New York State DEC, not NRC, is responsible for impingement and entrainment 16 sampling as part of SPDES permitting. NMFS, not NRC, can require monitoring of endangered 17 species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff 18 presented sturgeon impingement data exactly as Entergy had provided them. After the draft 19 SEIS was published, Entergy submitted revised data, which the staff presents in the final SEIS 20 and in a revised biological assessment prepared under the Endangered Species Act.
21 The following comments indicate that NMFS, in 1979, concluded that the effect of 22 entrainment and impingement of shortnose sturgeon by Indian Point would have a 23 negligible effect on the population. Subsequently, IP installed devices to reduce 24 impingement mortality. The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon 25 appears to be growing. The observations indicate that impingement and 26 entrainment are not adversely affecting the Hudson River population of shortnose 27 sturgeon.
28 40-jj-AE; 40-bbbb-TS; 40-cccc-TS; 40-qqqq-AE 29 Response: The NRC staff discusses the historical mitigation efforts at IP2 and IP3 and uses 30 the best available data in its assessment. In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff presented sturgeon 31 impingement data exactly as Entergy had provided them. After the draft SEIS was published, 32 Entergy submitted revised data, which the staff presents in the final SEIS, Chapter 4 and 33 Appendices H and I and in a revised biological assessment prepared under the Endangered 34 Species Act. Based on the revised data and comments it received, the staff has revised the 35 level of impact for shortnose sturgeon to small.
36 The following comment indicates that NRC included among protected species the 37 Atlantic sturgeon, which is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species 38 Act, and bald eagle, which was recently delisted.
39 40-aaaa-TS 40 Response: The NRC staff has changed the pertinent section headings to 4.6.1, Aquatic 41 Special Status Species, and 4.6.2, Terrestrial Special Status Species.
42 The following comments are general statements that the NRC staff has not provided a 43 thorough and accurate analysis of all relevant potential impacts.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-88 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS24
Appendix A 1 17-r-EP/GI/RI; 40-zzzzzz-AE; 132-a-ALlOE; 132-e-GI/LR; 132-g-GI/LR; 164-i-GL; 174-f-2 GI/OM; 180-C-AE/OE; 180-h-GI/OM 3 Response: The Generic Environmental Impact statement for license renewal (GElS) evaluated 4 92 environmental issues and, of these, 69 were found to be generic (Category 1) while 23 5 issues were found to require a site-specific review and analysis. Twenty-one of the site specific 6 issues are considered to be Category 2 issues. The remaining two issues, environmental justice 7 and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized and are addressed by site-8 specific analysis.
9 Category 1 issues are termed "generic" issues because the conclusions related to their 10 environmental impacts were found to be common to all plants. For Category 1 issues, a single 11 level of significance was common to all plants, mitigation was considered, and the NRC 12 determined that it was not likely to be beneficial. Issues that were resolved generically are not 13 reevaluated in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on 14 license renewal (SEIS) because the conclusions reached would be the same as in the GElS, 15 unless new and significant information was identified that would lead the NRC staff to 16 reevaluate the GElS's conclusions.
17 Site-specific issues (Category 2 issues) were analyzed by the applicant as part of its 18 environmental report. The NRC staff evaluated site-specific data provided by the applicant, 19 other Federal agencies, state agencies, Tribal and local governments, as well as information 20 from the open literature and members of the public. From this information, the staff made a site-21 specific assessment of the particular issues. Its analyses and conclusions are included in the 22 SEIS.
23 The following comment states that the NRC level of impact to American shad from 24 operation of IP2 and IP3 should be small and that the NRC staff's analysis should include 25 qualitative estimates of conditional entrainment and impingement mortality rates (CEMR 26 and CIMR) from CHGEC (1999).
27 40-q-AE/OE 28 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy and others in their comments on 29 the OSEIS, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach that uses impingement and 30 entrainment data to provide ancillary information concerning the strength of connection. This 31 assessment approach incorporates elements of CEMR and CIMR.
32 The following comment states because the draft SEIS does not describe the basis of the 33 health advisory for eating flesh of white catfish from the Hudson River, the final SEIS 34 should say that "there is no relation between the health advisory and Indian Point."
35 40-r-AE/OE 36 Response: The NRC staff reported the health advisory and did not state or imply any relation 37 between the health advisory and the operation of IP2 and IP3. No change has been made to 38 the SEIS.
39 The following comment states that the FSEIS should cite Bath and O'Connor's (1985, 40 New York Fish and Game Journal) paper on food selection of Hudson River white perch 41 and say that "no evidence has been found that white perch consume other fish."
December 2010 A-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00525
Appendix A 1
2 40-s-AE/OE 3 Response: The US. Fish and Wildlife Services (Stanley and Danie 1983) finds that after white 4 perch are 22 cm (9 inches) long, they eat fish almost exclusively. No change.
5 Literature Cited in Response 6 Stanley, J.G., and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental 7 requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic -- white perch). US.
8 Fish and Wild 1ife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWSIOBS-82111. 7. US.
9 Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 12 pp.
10 The following comment indicates the commenter's view that the NRC staff did not 11 consider the magnitude of population effects in its analyses.
12 40-gg-AE 13 Response: The NRC staff did consider the magnitude of population effects in its analyses.
14 Further, based on new information provided by Entergy and others in their comments on the 15 draft SEIS, the NRC staff revised the analysis of combined effects of entrainment and 16 impingement to look more quantitatively at population effects.
17 The following comments assert that the impact of IP2 and IP3 on the entire coastal stock 18 of Atlantic menhaden from Florida to Maine should be small. Likewise, where the NRC 19 staff found available site-specific data inadequate to draw firm conclusions on levels of 20 impact, the NRC staff could use other (unspecified) sources of data or reasoning.
21 40-jj-AE, 40-kk-AE/ED 22 Response: The NRC staff defined the two areas of interest for assessing impacts of IP2 and 23 IP3: The lower Hudson River and the Hudson River Segment 4 near Indian Point. Based on 24 new information provided by Entergy and others in their comments on the draft SEIS, the NRC 25 staff revised its analysis of combined effects of entrainment and impingement and found an 26 overall impact level of moderate for aquatic resources.
27 The following comments express the opinion that Entergy has had a long-standing 28 commitment to assess the health of the Hudson River and that the Hudson River is 29 healthy with IP2 and IP3 operating.
30 40-yyyyy-AE, 120-k-AE 31 Response: The NRC staff has independently assessed levels of impact to the Hudson River 32 due to operation of IP2 and IP3 as part of the license renewal application process according to 33 its own regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. The staff presents its conclusions in the final SEIS in 34 terms of NRC-defined levels of impact (small, moderate, or large) rather than terms of "health of 35 the Hudson River."
36 The following comment indicates that the NRC's impact levels on aquatic life do not 37 provide a meaningful indication of the actual impacts to aquatic life.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-gO December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00526
Appendix A 1 123-c-AE/OE 2 Response: The NRC staff conducted a detailed, independent assessment of impacts of the 3 operation of IP2 and IP3 on aquatic resources of the Hudson River. For a few species, the draft 4 SEIS found that the available data were insufficient to support a firm conclusion in terms of the 5 NRC's definitions of levels of impact and expressed the uncertainty due to insufficient data by 6 providing a range of impact levels. In Section 4.1.3.5 of the draft SEIS, the NRC staff used the 7 maximum and minimum over all species examined to represent the overall impingement and 8 entrainment impact level, which was a range from small to large. Based on new information 9 provided by Entergy and others in their comments on the draft SEIS, the NRC Staff modified the 10 analysis in the final SEIS and represented impact levels more precisely. In Section 4.1.3.5 of the 11 final SEIS, the staff expressed the weight-of-evidence scores numerically and used an average 12 score over all species examined to represent the overall impingement and entrainment impact 13 level, which the staff found to be "moderate."
14 The following comment indicates that both the range of zebra mussels in the Hudson 15 River and the NRC staff's trend analyses used in the DSEIS to assess potential effects of 16 zebra mussels were limited to freshwater (River Segment 12), and so the conclusions 17 should apply only to River Section 12 and not to the Indian Point segment of the River.
18 40-tt-AE; 40-000-AD/ED/OE 19 Response: In assessing the impact of entrainment and impingement from IP2 and IP3, 20 Entergy's consultants (Barnthouse et a/. 2008, page 23), examined "... expected effects of CWIS 21 [Cooling Water Intake Structure] and four other stressors that are widely regarded as potentially 22 having affected Hudson River fish populations: fishing, invasion of the Hudson River by zebra 23 mussels (Dresseina polymorpha), temperature (Atlantic tomcod only), and predation by striped 24 bass." Previously, Strayer et a/. (2004) had indicated that the invasion of zebra mussels may 25 have affected fish populations, including number of adult American shad and striped bass as 26 well as other species, by acting through the food web. The NRC staff therefore included zebra 27 mussels when it independently assessed cumulative impacts to Hudson River aquatic resources 28 due to operation of IP2 and IP3 and other stressors.
29 Literature Cited in Response 30 Barnthouse, L. W, D.G. Heimbuch, W van Winkle, and J. Young. 2008. Entrainment and 31 Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment. Prepared for Entergy 32 Nuclear Operations, Inc. January 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML080390059.
33 Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hatta/a, and A. W Kahnle. 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve 34 (Dreissena polymorpha) on fish in the Hudson River estuary. Canadian Journal of 35 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:924-941 36 This comment indicates that although NRC staff could not develop an index of 37 abundance for shortnose sturgeon, Woodland and Secor (2005) developed "a reliable 38 index of abundance based on the Fall Juvenile Fish Survey."
39 40-nnn-AE.
40 Response: NRC staff selected young-of-the-year fish from the Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) for 41 developing its index of shortnose sturgeon abundance so that each index value is a measure of December 2010 A-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS27
Appendix A 1 the single year class of young-of-the-year fish. Because each index of abundance represented 2 a distinct year class, NRC staff could assess trends in abundance of YO Y fish not only for 3 shortnose sturgeon, but for all Hudson River RIS. Woodland and Secor (2005) used the largest 4 size class in the FSS, which the utilities' data sets designate as LC4 and which would include 5 fish from previous year classes, in their index of abundance. For the purposes assessing 6 population trends in its analysis of RIS, NRC staff's index of abundance of yay fish is the 7 appropriate approach. Because the density of shortnose sturgeon is low, however, in some 8 years the FSS captured no yay and the index value is zero.
9 The following comments request revisions to the text on page 2-50 to indicate that no 10 additional mortality studies were performed following installation of Ristroph screens at 11 IP2 and IP3 because NYSDEC did not require additional studies:
12 40-0-ED/RG 13 Response: Text has been changed to reflect the comment.
14 15 The following comments assert that the NYSDEC SPDES permits contain reasonable 16 measures to quantify and minimize impacts to the Hudson River:
17 55-b-AE/RG; 93-d-AE/MP/RG; 66-c-RG;113-k-AUAQ/RG; 112-h-AURG; 96-I-AE/AURG; 93-e-18 AE/RG 19 20 Response: Under the authority created by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972, granted 21 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and then delegated to the New York State 22 Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the State of New York is responsible for 23 matters related to compliance with Clean Water Act provisions and under them, the provisions 24 of the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits that are currently subject 25 to adjudication before NYSDEC. NRC staff has no jurisdiction over SPDES standards, 26 requirements, or challenges.
27 28 One commenter in this section indicated that NRC staff ought should collect additional data 29 related to impingement, entrainment, and thermal shock. In conducting its analysis for this 30 SEIS, the NRC staff has relied on the best available information on impacts from IP2 and IP3.
31 A.2.6 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues 32 The following comments primarily concern the human health impacts related to the 33 operation of the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC). The comments assert that the use of 34 inadequate dose calculation methodology, the inappropriate use of "reference man" with 35 its outdated physical assumptions, underestimates the risks to women and children, and 36 in particular, that the dSEIS does not contain adequate evidence that the radioactive 37 emissions from IPEC are within Federal limits. The comments also assert that the 38 radioactive emissions from IPEC are responsible for increased cancer rates in the region.
39 To support their position, the commenter's cite a report authored by Mr. Mangano 40 (included in the transcript) which claims that the increased incidence of leukemia rates in 41 the area around the plant site are the result of the radioactive emissions from IPEC.
42 Finally, the commenters recommend that the NRC's public dose limit should be reduced 43 from an annual dose of 100 mrem (1 mSv) to 25 mrem (0.25 mSv):
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-92 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00528
Appendix A 1 2-b-HH/RI; 2-c-HH; 22-a-HH/ORIOS/PA; 50-d-EP/HH; 50-0-HH/LE/PA; 73-a-HH; 73-e-EJ/HH; 2 79-a-HH; 79-s-EJ/HH; 87-b-HH/PA/RW/ST; 87-c-AM/HH/OM; 96-d-HH/LE/RI; 107-a HH/RA; 3 124-b-EJ/EP/HH/PA; 153-a-LE; 154-a-HH/LE/MP; 170-b-HH 4 Response: The NRC's mission is to protect the public health and safety and the environment 5 from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. The NRC's 6 regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the 7 harmful health effects of radiation on humans. The limits are based on the recommendations of 8 standards-setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by 9 national and international organizations. The NRC actively participates and monitors the work 10 of these organizations to keep current on the latest information concerning radiation protection.
11 If the NRC determines that there is a need to revise its radiation protection regulations, it will 12 initiate a rulemaking. The models recognized by the NRC for use by nuclear power reactors to 13 calculate dose incorporate conservative assumptions and account for differences in gender and 14 age to ensure that workers and members of the public are adequately protected from radiation.
15 Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses, currently there are no reputable 16 scientifically conclusive data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following 17 exposure to low doses and dose rates, below about 10 rem (0.1 Sv). However, radiation 18 protection experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 19 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 20 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 21 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. Simply stated, 22 any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk.
23 This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for estimating health risks from 24 radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably over-estimates those risks. Based on 25 this theory, the NRC conservatively establishes limits for radioactive effluents and radiation 26 exposures for workers and members of the public. While the public dose limit in 10 CFR Part 27 20 is 100 mrem (1 mSv) for all facilities licensed by the NRC, the NRC has imposed additional 28 constraints on nuclear power reactors. Each nuclear power reactor, including IPEC, has 29 enforceable license conditions that limit the total annual whole body dose to a member of the 30 public outside the facility to 25 mrem (0.25 mSv). In addition, there are license conditions to 31 limit the dose to a member of the public from radioactive material in gaseous effluents to an 32 annual dose of 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) to any organ and for radioactive liquid effluents, a dose of 3 33 mrem (0.03 mSv) to the whole body and 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) to any organ. The NRC staff 34 reviewed five years of radiation dose data from IP2 and IP3 and found the annual doses to 35 members of the public to be well within the requirements discussed above.
36 The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is monitored, and 37 known to be very small. The doses of radiation that are received by members of the public as a 38 result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are low (i.e., less than a few millirem) that resulting 39 cancers attributed to the radiation have not been observed and would not be expected. To put 40 this in perspective, each person in this country receives an average total annual dose of about 41 300 millirems (3 mSv) from natural sources of radiation (i.e., radon, 200 mrem; cosmic rays, 27 42 mrem; terrestrial [ soil and rocks], 28 mrem; radiation within our body, 39 mrem) and about 63 43 mrem (0.63 mSv) from man-made sources (i.e., medical x-rays, 39 mrem; nuclear medicine, 14 44 mrem; consumer products, 10 mrem; occupational, 0.9 mrem; nuclear fuel cycle, < 1 mrem; and 45 fallout, < 1 mrem).
46 Radiation from natural and man-made sources is not different in its properties or effect.
47 Although a number of studies of cancer incidence in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities have December 2010 A-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00529
Appendix A 1 been conducted, there are no studies to date that are accepted by the scientific community that 2 show a correlation between radiation dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer incidence in 3 the general public. The information submitted by Mr. Mangano concerning the increase in child 4 leukemia summarizes data published by the New York State Cancer Registry. While the data is 5 a compilation of the cases and types of cancer recorded in New York State, it does not provide 6 a basis for linking the cancer cases to the operation of IP2 and IP3. The Mangano report 7 asserts that the cancers are the result of radiation released from IPEG. The NRC staff 8 reviewed the report cited by Mr. Mangano and found that it did not determine the cause for the 9 cancer.
10 To ensure that U. S. nuclear power plants are operated safely, the NRC licenses the plants, 11 licenses the plant operators, and establishes license conditions for the safe operation of each 12 plant. The NRC provides continuous oversight of the plants through its Reactor Oversight 13 Process (ROP) to verify that they are being operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The 14 NRC has authority to take action to protect public health and safety and the environment, and 15 may require immediate licensee actions, up to and including a plant shutdown.
16 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comments do not present 17 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
18 The following comments assert that Indian Point provides clean electric power in a 19 manner that is good for our air and water, lowers the rates of childhood asthma and 20 other ailments, and fights global warming by reducing greenhouse gases:
21 8-c-AQlHH/SO; 31-b-EC/EJ/HH; 42-c-HH; 85-b-AQ/HH; 99-b-AQ/HH 22 Response: The comments are acknowledged. The comments do not present any significant 23 new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
24 The following comments assert that the EIS does not adequately discuss the long term 25 impacts from routine radioactive releases and radionuclides leaking from the spent fuel 26 pool into the groundwater and drinking water, including the potential Rockland County 27 desalination plant's use of Hudson River water, and the impacts from eating fish from the 28 Hudson River:
29 20-b-HH; 27-d-LE; 51-a-HH/PA/UF; 69-a-HH/LE/ORlPA; 73-c-EJ/HH/LE; 79-e-HH/SO; 79-s-30 EJ/HH; 96-d-HH/LE/RI; 96-e-HH/LEIWA; 96-g-EJ/HH/LE; 97-a-EJ/HH; 97-k-EJ/HH/LE; 98-c-31 HH/LE/RI; 102-h-HH/RI; 135-b-LE; 137-j-RI; 140-v-GW/HH/RI; 140-w-GW/HH/RI; 140-x-HH; 32 140-y-AE/CI; 140-aa-SM; 145-c-HH/LE; 149-c-HH/LE; 153-a-LE; 153-b-LE; 164-c-LE; 164-g-33 LE/MP; 170-e-LEIWA; 172-a-HH/RI; 174-a-HH/RI; 176-d-LE; 178-a-LE/ORlRW; 179-e-34 LEIWA; 180-a-HH/LE/RI 35 Response: The NRC staff does not agree with this comment. There is a thorough discussion 36 in Chapters 2 and 4 that addresses impacts to human health from routine and abnormal 37 radioactive releases. The NRC staff reviewed five years of historical radioactive and 38 radiological environmental monitoring data. Based on the data, the Staff concluded that the 39 calculated doses to a member of the public from the radioactive releases were within NRC's 40 radiation dose standards. The environmental data showed some radionuclides associated with 41 the operation of IP2 and IP3; however, residual radioactivity from atmospheric weapons tests 42 and naturally occurring radioactivity were the predominant sources of radioactivity in the 43 samples collected. The Staff concluded that IPEC operations did not result in an adverse 44 impact to the public greater than environmental background levels.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-94 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00530
Appendix A 1 The NRC staff also evaluated the impacts from the leaking radioactive material into the 2 groundwater and into the Hudson River in Chapters 2 and 4. The dSEIS used information from 3 an Inspection conducted by personnel from NRC's Region I office and NRC's Headquarters 4 office. The NRC thoroughly inspected this issue at IPEC, starting with initial notification of the 5 leaks in September 2005 until the inspection closed in May 200B. The NRC Inspection Report 6 (ADAMS Accession number MLOB1340425) reached the following conclusion: "Our inspection 7 determined that public health and safety has not been, nor is likely to be, adversely affected, 8 and the dose consequences to the public that can be attributed to current on-site conditions 9 associated with groundwater contamination is negligible." In the text of the Inspection Report 10 there are two key conclusions relevant to the potential human health impacts from the leaks.
11 They are presented here and in Chapter 2 of the dSEIS:
12 1) "Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 13 contaminated groundwater conditions at Indian Point Energy Center. Potable water sources in 14 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson River, a 15 fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal exposure pathway to 16 humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., fish or invertebrates) taken 17 from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point, that has the potential to be affected by 18 radiological effluent releases. Notwithstanding, no radioactivity distinguishable from background 19 was detected during the most recent sampling and analysis of fish and crabs taken from the 20 affected portion of the Hudson River and designated control locations. "
21 2) 'The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based on 22 application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine 23 Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 24 Appendix I," relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is currently, and 25 expected to remain, less than 0.1% of the NRC's ')\s Low As is Reasonably Achievable 26 (ALARA)" guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr total body and 10 mrem/yr maximum 27 organ), which is considered to be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the 28 environment. "
29 To ensure that the nuclear power plants are operated safely and maintain radioactive emissions 30 within regulatory limits, the NRC licenses the plants, licenses the plant operators, and 31 establishes license conditions for the safe operation of each plant. The NRC provides 32 continuous oversight of plants through its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to verify that they 33 are being operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The NRC has authority to take 34 actions as necessary to protect public health and safety, and may require immediate licensee 35 actions, up to and including a plant shutdown.
36 Regarding the potential operation of a Rockland County desalination plant, the NRC staff 37 addressed potential future cumulative radiological impacts in Chapter 4, section 4. B.3, 38 "Cumulative Radiological Impacts. " The NRC staff discussed the applicable radiation protection 39 limits set by the NRC and the EPA to protect members of the public from the cumulative impacts 40 of radiation. The NRC staff noted that the NRC and the State of New York would regulate any 41 future actions in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 that could contribute to cumulative radiological 42 impacts. Therefore, if plans for the proposed Rockland County desalination plant advance to 43 the licensing phase, the facility would be required to have the means to monitor the source 44 water and, if necessary, have a treatment system to meet applicable drinking water standards 45 for radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants.
December 2010 A-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00531
Appendix A 1 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comments do not present 2 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
3 The following comments indicate that Indian Point's radiological environmental 4 monitoring program (REMP) does not collect milk samples. The Mother's Milk Project 5 asserts that goat's milk was collected and was analyzed and found to contain Sr-89 and 6 Sr-90, which it asserts is from radioactive emissions from IPEC. In addition, the 7 comments cite a concern that the NRC, New York State, and Connecticut do not 8 independently collect and analyze milk samples:
9 24-a-HH/ORlRI; 24-b-HH/ORlRI; 79-f-HH; 149-c-HH/LE; 153-a-LE; 154-a-HH/LE/MP; 172-a-10 HH/RI 11 Response: It is correct that the IPEC's REMP does not collect and analyze milk samples. This 12 is because the last nearby dairy farm closed in 1992. The closure of the dairy farm was also 13 reported by the State of New York in its 1994 report (the last publicly available state report) on 14 the results of their independent REMP conducted in the environs around IPEG.
15 The NRC's guidance on environmental monitoring allows for the substitution of an alternate 16 environmental medium if a particular environmental medium is unavailable. In this case, IPEC 17 collects samples of broadleaf vegetation because there is no local dairy farm where it can 18 obtain milk samples. The dSEIS, in Chapter 2, discussed IPEC's 2006 REMP data for Sr-90 as 19 being attributable to past atmospheric weapons testing. The levels detected were consistent 20 with the historical levels of radionuclides resulting from weapons testing as measured over the 21 years. Additionally, the calculated maximum organ dose in 2006 to an offsite member of the 22 public from gaseous iodine, tritium, and particulate effluents from IP1 and IP2 was 1.19 x10- 2 23 mrem (1. 19x10-4 mSv) to the child thyroid. For IP3, the calculated maximum organ dose in 24 2006 to an offsite member of the public from gaseous iodine, tritium, and particulate effluents for 25 the maximally exposed organ (child liver) was 1.07x10-3 mrem (1.07x10- 5 mSv). These doses 26 are well within the NRC's dose design objective of 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) in Appendix I to 10 CFR 27 Part 50. Thus, the NRC staff concluded in Chapter 4 of the dSEIS that the impacts to members 28 of the public and the environment were bounded by the evaluations in the GElS, which 29 assessed the impacts as SMALL.
30 The NRC does not conduct an independent REMP around nuclear power plants. The NRC 31 licenses the nuclear plants, licenses the plant operators, and establishes regulations and 32 license conditions for the safe operation of each plant. The NRC provides continuous oversight 33 of plants through its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to verify that the plants perform all 34 required monitoring and are being operated in accordance with NRC rules and regulations. The 35 NRC has authority to take action as necessary to protect public health and safety and may 36 demand immediate licensee actions, up to and including a plant shutdown. At IPEC, the NRC 37 staff performed independent sampling and analysis of environmental media related to the leaks 38 of radioactive water from the spent fuel pools. The NRC conducted an independent analysis of 39 groundwater, Hudson River water, and fish during its inspection of IPEC's actions in response to 40 the leaks. In the text of the Inspection Report there are two key conclusions relevant to the 41 potential human health impacts from the leaks. They are presented here and in the dSEIS:
42 1) "Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 43 contaminated groundwater conditions at Indian Point Energy Center. Potable water sources in 44 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson River, a 45 fact confirmed by the New York State Oepartment of Health. The principal exposure pathway to 46 humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., fish or invertebrates) taken NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-96 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00532
Appendix A 1 from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point, that has the potential to be affected by 2 radiological effluent releases. Notwithstanding, no radioactivity distinguishable from background 3 was detected during the most recent sampling and analysis of fish and crabs taken from the 4 affected portion of the Hudson River and designated control locations. "
5 2) 'The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based on 6 application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine 7 Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 8 Appendix I," relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is currently, and 9 expected to remain, less than 0.1% of the NRC's ')\s Low As is Reasonably Achievable 10 (ALARA)" guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr total body and 10 mrem/yr maximum 11 organ), which is considered to be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the 12 environment."
13 The complete discussion of NRC actions and its inspection are contained in the NRC 14 inspection report dated May 13, 2008. The full report is available to the public through the 15 ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC's website (www.NRC.gov). The ADAMS 16 accession number for the inspection report is ML081340425.
17 The NRC has no authority to require the States of New York or Connecticut to perform 18 independent collection and analysis of environmental media around IPEC.
19 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comments do not present 20 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
21 The following comments assert that the SEIS does not adequately discuss the 22 information on samples of mother's milk (human and animal) that was tested and found 23 to have detectable levels of radioactive Sr-89 and Sr-90:
24 24-a-HH/OR/RI; 50-0-HH/LE/PA 25 Response: The NRC does not require the sampling and analysis of human mothers milk, nor 26 does it have the authority to require such sampling. The issue of the sampling and analysis of 27 animal milk and the radiation doses to members of the public and impact to the environment 28 was discussed in the preceding comment response. Regarding the purported detection of 29 radionuclides attributed to the operation of IPEC in milk samples collected and analyzed by the 30 Mother's Milk Project, the NRC staff found that the report contained very limited radiological 31 information, and lacked documentation on the authenticity, precision and accuracy of the data 32 from a competent analytical laboratory.
33 The NRC staff considered and addressed this issue in the draft SEIS. The comments do not 34 present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
35 The following comment asserts that the SEIS does not adequately address the air quality 36 deterioration and negative human health effects that would result from the shutdown of 37 Indian Point:
38 90-c-ALlAQlHH 39 Response: This comment was responded to in the Air Quality comment resolution section.
December 2010 A-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00533
Appendix A 1 The following comment asserts that the human health consequences of an accident 2 need to be more thoroughly discussed in the SAMA section of the SEIS:
3 50-I-HH/PA; 17-p-EP/PA/RI 4 Response: The severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) review provides an evaluation 5 of potential alternatives to mitigate the effects of severe accidents. Severe nuclear accidents 6 are more severe than design basis accidents, and could result in substantial damage to the 7 reactor core, regardless of offsite consequences. In the GElS, the NRC assessed the impacts 8 of severe accidents using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to 9 conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the 10 renewal period. Based on information in the GElS, the Commission found the following:
11 'The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of 12 water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are 13 small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for 14 all plants that have not considered such alternatives."
15 Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2 issue 16 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Chapter 5 in the dSEIS contains the 17 NRC staff's evaluation of IPEC's mitigation of severe accidents.
18 The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated SAMAs for IPEC to ensure that the range of changes 19 (i.e., hardware modifications, changes to plant procedures, and changes to the training 20 program) that could improve severe accident safety performance were identified and evaluated.
21 While the SAMA evaluation contains population radiation dose information in Table 5-4 in 22 chapter 5, the values are used to show the relative percent of the dose resulting from the 23 various containment failure modes that were evaluated. The purpose of the SAMA is not to 24 evaluate the human health impacts, but rather to evaluate a range of mitigation actions that may 25 reduce the risk of a severe accident and are cost-effective.
26 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS and the comment does not 27 present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
28 The following comment asserts that the SEIS should evaluate the health consequences 29 of a spent fuel fire:
30 89-a-HH/PA/SF 31 Response: The environmental and health impacts of design basis accidents (OBAs) are 32 evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the ability of the plant to withstand these 33 accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before issuance of an operating license. The 34 results of these evaluations are contained in licensing documentation such as the applicant's 35 final safety analysis report, the NRC staffs safety evaluation report, the final environmental 36 statement (FES) and Section 5.1 of the draft SEIS.
37 In the GElS, the Commission determined that the environmental impacts of OBAs are of 38 SMALL significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand 39 these accidents. As part of the license renewal process, the NRC staff has not identified any 40 new and significant information during its independent review of the IP2 and IP3 environmental 41 report, the site visit, the scoping process, or evaluation of other available information.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-98 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00534
Appendix A 1 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no impacts related to DBAs beyond those 2 discussed in the GElS.
3 In addition, the issue of a spent fuel fire was specifically addressed by the NRC in two Petitions 4 for Rulemaking (PRM) (PRM 51-10 and PRM 51-12) submitted by the Attorney General of the 5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Attorney General of the State of California. The 6 details of the petitions and the NRC's evaluation are available to the public through the ADAMS 7 electronic reading room on the NRC website (www.NRC.gov) and in the Federal e-Rulemaking 8 Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket 10 [NRC-9 2006-0022J (PRM-51-10), and [NRC-2007-0019J (PRM-51-12).
10 The Massachusetts and California Petitioners requested that the NRC initiate a rule making 11 concerning the environmental impacts of the high density storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent 12 fuel pools (SFPs). The Petitioners asserted that "new and significant information" shows that 13 the NRC incorrectly characterized the environmental impacts of high-density spent fuel storage 14 as "insignificant" in its GElS for the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses. Specifically, the 15 Petitioners asserted that spent fuel stored in high-density SFPs is more vulnerable to a 16 zirconium fire than the NRC concluded in its NEPA analysis.
17 The Commission denied the petition for rulemaking, concluding as follows:
18 "Based upon its review of the petitions, the NRC has determined that the studies upon which the 19 Petitioners rely do not constitute new and significant information. The NRC has further 20 determined that its findings related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools, as set forth in 21 NUREG-1437 and in Table B-1, of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, remain valid.
22 Thus, the NRC has met and continues to meet its obligations under NEPA. For the reasons 23 discussed previously, the Commission denies PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12."
24 The NRC has considered and addressed the issue raised in this comment in the SEIS. The 25 comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the 26 final SEIS.
27 The following comment asserts that the average level of Sr-90 in baby teeth in the Indian 28 Point area is among the highest in the U.S and rose sharply after the 1980s:
29 107-a-HH/RI 30 Response: The NRC staff does not agree with this comment. In 2000, a report entitled 31 "Strontium-gO in Deciduous Teeth as a Factor in Early Childhood Cancer" was published by the 32 Radiation and Public Health Project. The report alleges that there has been an increase in 33 cancer incidence due to strontium-gO released from nuclear power facilities. Elevated levels of 34 strontium-gO in deciduous (baby) teeth were claimed in the report as the evidence for the 35 increase in childhood cancer.
36 There are three sources of strontium-gO in the environment: fallout from nuclear weapons 37 testing, releases from the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine, and releases from nuclear power 38 reactors. The largest source of strontium-gO is from weapons testing fallout as a result of above-39 ground explosions of nuclear weapons (approximately 16.9 million curies of strontium-gO). The 40 Chernobyl accident released 216,000 curies of strontium-gO. The total annual release of 41 strontium-gO into the atmosphere from all US. nuclear power plants is typically 111,000th of 1 42 curie, which is so low that the only chance of detecting strontium-gO is sampling the nuclear 43 power plant effluents themselves. The NRC regulatory limits on radioactive effluent releases December 2010 A-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00535
Appendix A 1 and doses to the public are based on the radiation protection recommendations of international 2 and national organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection 3 (ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Gaseous 4 effluent releases are monitored at IPEC, and the results of the monitoring are reported annually 5 to the NRC and are publicly available on the NRC's website. The radiological effluent release 6 program and the radiological environmental monitoring program at IPEC were reviewed by the 7 NRC staff as part of the license renewal process and found to be acceptable.
8 Additionally, in a report published in 2001, the American Cancer Society concluded that 9 although reports about cancer case clusters in communities surrounding nuclear power plants 10 have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear 11 plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population. The NCRP has observed no 12 statistically significant data which supports that there is an increased incidence of biological 13 effects due to strontium-90 exposures at levels typical of worldwide fallout, which is the greatest 14 source of strontium-90 in the environment. Likewise, there is no new evidence that links 15 strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, prostate cancer, or childhood cancer rates. The 16 American Cancer Society recognizes that public concern about environmental cancer risks often 17 focuses on risks for which no carcinogenicity has been proven or on situations where known 18 exposures to carcinogens are at such low levels that risks are negligible. The report states that 19 "ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear facilities are closely controlled and involve negligible 20 levels of exposure for communities near such plants."
21 Radioactive releases of gaseous and liquid effluents, including releases from the IP2 spent fuel 22 pool into the groundwater, are discussed in Chapter 2 of the SEIS and found to be within NRC 23 dose limits.
24 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 25 the final SEIS.
26 The following comment asserts that the radioactive emissions from Indian Point are 27 among the highest in the U.S:
28 107-a-H H/RI; 172-a-H H/RI 29 Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release some 30 radioactive material to both the air and water during normal operation. NRC regulations require 31 that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants meet radiation dose-32 based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, the "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) 33 dose criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Part 190.
34 Regulatory limits are placed on the radiation dose that members of the public might receive from 35 radioactive material released by nuclear plants. The NRC regulations are dose based, such 36 that the dose resulting from the radioactive effluent is the value used by the NRC to determine 37 compliance with regulatory limits. Nuclear power plants are required to report their radioactive 38 gaseous, liquid, and solid effluent releases as well as the results of their radiological 39 environmental monitoring program annually to the NRC. The annual effluent release and 40 radiological environmental monitoring reports submitted to the NRC are available to the public 41 through the ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC website (www.NRC.gov).
42 As part of the license renewal process, the NRC staff reviewed the radiological effluent release 43 program and the radiological environmental monitoring program at IPEC and found them to be 44 acceptable. The Staff's radiological evaluation of IPEC is in Chapter 2 and 4 of the dSEIS.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-100 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00536
Appendix A 1 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comments do not present 2 any significant new information or arguments that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
3 The following comments assert that a 2004 study by Columbia University on 54,000 4 nuclear power plant workers showed that they have fewer cancers and live longer than 5 their counterparts in the general population.
6 120-b-HH; 120-h-OP/HH 7 Response: The NRC staff is aware of the study. The comment does not does not present any 8 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
9 The following comment asserts that the EIS must include an evaluation of the impacts 10 to poor people who rely on fishing for their diet who are being indirectly exposed to 11 radiation from eating contaminated fish:
12 124-b-EJ/EP/HH/PA 13 Response: The NRC staff performed a thorough evaluation of this issue in chapter 4 of the 14 dSEIS. As indicated, the staff reviewed the results of IPEC's radiological environmental 15 monitoring program (REMP), which show that concentrations of radioactive contaminants in 16 native leafy vegetation, soils and sediments, Hudson River surface water and fish from the 17 vicinity of IPEC are very low (at or near the threshold of the survey instrument's detection 18 capability) and seldom above background levels. Based on these data, the NRC staff 19 concluded that no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would be 20 expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence 21 consumption of fish and wildlife 22 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comment does not present 23 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
24 A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues 25 The following comments express concern about the reliability and cost of energy and 26 electric power. Several comments stated that the continued operation of Indian Point is 27 a key component to the region's economic stability because of its ability to provide jobs 28 and reliable electricity at a low cost. Those comments stressed that, if Indian Point was 29 to cease operation, the area would experience a rise in electricity costs and interrupted 30 service (including blackouts) over the next twenty years. Several comments expressed 31 concerns about potential air quality impacts from alternative energy fossil-fueled power 32 plants if Indian Point were to be shut down. The comments also wanted to make known 33 the benefits of Indian Point as an emissions-free electricity provider.
34 1-a-EC/SO/SR; 1-c-EC/SO; 8-b-SO; 8-c-AQ/HH/SO; 19-b-EC/SO/SR; 19-c-EC/SO/SR; 26-c-35 EC/SO/SR; 28-b-EC/SO; 42-b-EC/SO; 42-f-EC/SO; 48-b-EC/SO; 48-d-AQ/SO; 57-e-36 EC/OP/SO; 58-c-AQlEC/SO; 78-c-SO/SR; 85-a-EC/SO/SR; 92-a-EC/SO/SR; 101-c-SO/SR; 37 108-a-EC/SO/SR; 115-b-SO; 119-b-EC/SO; 119-c-AQlEC/SO; 119-e-EC/GI/SO; 119-g-38 EC/SO/SR; 133-a-EC/SO/SR; 146-d-EC/SO; 150-e-AQIOP/SO; 157-b-ALIEC/SO; 157-f-39 ALIEC/SO; 166-b-ALIEC/SO; 177-a-AQlEC/SO 40 Response: Nuclear power plants, like various other electrical generating plants, generate a 41 significant amount of employment and income in the local economies. The local communities 42 provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the power plant. Power plant December 2010 A-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00537
Appendix A 1 operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people, and payments for goods and 2 services.
3 Any impact on electricity costs and service impacts from the loss of IP2 and IP3 electrical 4 generating capacity is speculative. Due to the deregulation of the energy market in the State of 5 New York, competition for the sale of electricity may keep electricity costs and services under 6 control.
7 These comments are generally supportive of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 and nuclear 8 power. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear power 9 plants to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Air quality 10 impacts from alternative energy power generation including environmental justice concerns are 11 discussed in Chapter 8 in the SEIS. These comments do not present any significant new 12 information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
13 The following comments pertain to contributions to the local economy in the form of 14 high-paying jobs and tax revenue:
15 7-c-SO; 23-b-SO; 23-f-EC/SO; 23-i-EC/SO/SR; 29-a-SO/SR; 36-d-OP/SO; 57-b-AQ/EC/SO; 16 65-a-SO/SR; 65-c-EC/SO/SR; 67-b-EC/SO; 90-f-EC/SO; 92-b-EC-SO; 92-d-SO/SR; 92-e-17 SO/SR; 92-g-S0/SR; 105-a-SO/SR; 109-a-SO; 115-a-SA/SE/SO; 116-a-SO/SR; 116-b-18 EC/SO; 119-i-SO; 130-a-AQ/SO; 130-b-OP/SO/SR; 137-0-S0; 144-b-EC/SO; 150-b-SA/SO; 19 155-a-EC/SO; 166-d-SO/SR; 166-e-SO/SR; 166-g-AE/SO; 169-a-ALIEC/SO 20 Response: Nuclear power plants, like various other electrical generating plants, generate a 21 significant amount of employment and income in the local economies. The local communities 22 provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the power plant. Power plant 23 operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people, and payments for goods and 24 services.
25 Terminating nuclear plant operations and reducing plant staff would have an impact on regional 26 employment and income, and may affect the quality and availability of community services.
27 Income from plant wages and salaries as well as expenditures for goods and services would 28 decrease. Indirect employment and income created as a result of nuclear power plant 29 operations would also disappear or be reduced. Demand for services and housing would 30 substantially decline as plant workers and their families leave the area in search of jobs 31 elsewhere, creating a decline in demand for housing, depressing housing prices and values.
32 Conversely, housing markets in the vicinity of metropolitan areas generally experience more 33 rapid, housing turnover, higher prices, and lower vacancy rates. While the loss of plant 34 employment in urban regions may mean some out-migration of workers, many plant employees 35 would be able to find other opportunities for employment. In addition, the socioeconomic impact 36 on small businesses could be offset by economic growth in other parts of the regional economy.
37 These comments are generally supportive of license renewal for IP2 and IP3. These comments 38 do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
39 The following comments pertain to Entergy's involvement in the local community:
40 43-a-SE/SO; 48-a-SE/SO; 57-c-SA/SE/SO; 67-e-SE/SO; 85-c-EC/SO/SR; 109-c-SE/SO; 111-41 a-SO; 111-b-SO/SR; 111-c-EC/SO; 111-d-SO; 136-a-CRISO/SR; 136-b-SO/SR; 150-f-SO/SR; 42 163-a-SE/SO/SR I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-102 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00538
Appendix A 1 Response: These comments are generally supportive of Entergy's involvement in the local 2 community and for the license renewal of IP2 and IP3. These comments do not present any 3 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
4 The following comments indicate that the DSEIS inadequately addresses socioeconomic 5 impacts:
6 4-d-CI/LRlSO; 79-g-S0 7 Response: The environmental review considers the potential socioeconomic impacts of license 8 renewal on the communities and people living in the region surrounding IP2 and IP3. The 9 discussion of impacts in this SEIS focuses on environmental issues of license renewal in 10 proportion to their significance.
11 As discussed in Section 2.2.8 of the SEIS, the nuclear plant and the people and communities 12 that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The local communities 13 provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the nuclear power plant. Power 14 plant operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people, and payments for goods and 15 services. The measure of a communities' ability to support IP2 and IP3 operations depends on 16 the ability of the community to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and 17 demographic conditions.
18 The socioeconomics region of influence (RO/) is defined by the area where IP2 and IP3 19 employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby 20 affecting the economic conditions of the region. The IP2 and IP3 ROI consists of Dutchess, 21 Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties, where approximately 84 percent of IP2 and IP3 22 employees reside. Riverfront communities in these counties were included in the assessment 23 of socioeconomic impacts. Since Entergy has no plans to add non-outage employees during 24 the license renewal period, employment levels at IP2 and IP3 would not change. Based on this 25 information, there would be no socioeconomic impacts in the ROI during the license renewal 26 term beyond those already being experienced. Cumulative socioeconomic impacts of license 27 renewal are discussed in SEIS Section 4.8.4.
28 In addition, the safe operation of nuclear power plants is not limited to license renewal but is and 29 will be dealt with on a daily basis as a part of the current and renewed operating license. Safety 30 issues and concerns are addressed by the NRC on an ongoing basis at every nuclear power 31 plant. Safety inspections are and will be conducted throughout the operating life of the plant, 32 whether during the original or renewed operating license. If safety issues are discovered at a 33 nuclear power plant, they are addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are 34 incorporated under the current operating license. As such, the regulatory safety oversight of IP2 35 and IP 3 are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. This comment does 36 not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
37 The following comments express concern that the Draft SEIS does not adequately 38 consider the socioeconomic effects under the no action alternative, Section 8.2, and 39 does not accurately address the negative impacts that denying the request for license 40 renewal would have on local communities.
41 9-g-ALlSO; 90-d-ALIEC/SO 42 Response: The socioeconomic consequences of terminating operations and the shutdown of 43 IP2 and IP3 on the communities and people living in the region around the power plants under December 2010 A-103 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00539
Appendix A 1 the no action alternative is addressed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS. Any impact on electricity costs 2 from the loss of IP2 and IP3 electrical generating capacity is speculative. Due to the 3 deregulation of the energy market in the State of New York, competition may keep electricity 4 costs under control.
5 Terminating nuclear plant operations was considered under the no action alternative, including 6 the effects that reducing plant staff would have on regional employment and income and the 7 quality and availability of community services. Nuclear power plants generate a significant 8 amount of employment and income in the local economies, which would be reduced with the 9 cessation of plant operations. Income from plant wages and salaries as well as expenditures for 10 goods and services would decrease. Demand for services and housing would substantially 11 decline. Indirect employment and income created as a result of nuclear power plant operations 12 would also be reduced.
13 The termination of plant operations would also have an impact on population and housing. Loss 14 of plant employment in rural communities would likely mean plant workers and their families 15 would leave the area in search of jobs elsewhere, creating a decline in demand for housing, 16 depressing housing prices and values. Conversely, housing markets in the vicinity of 17 metropolitan areas generally experience more rapid, housing turnover, higher prices, and lower 18 vacancy rates. While the loss of plant employment in urban regions may mean some out-19 migration of workers, many plant employees would be able to find other opportunities for 20 employment. In addition, the socioeconomic impact on local communities from the termination 21 of power plant operations could be offset by economic growth in other parts of the regional 22 economy. These comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a 23 change to the final SEIS.
24 The following comments express concern that the strongest opposition to the renewal of 25 the Indian Point operating license is coming from outside of the affected region:
26 56-b-SO; 109-d-SO/SR 27 Response: These comments are generally supportive of Entergy and the license renewal of 28 IP2 and IP3. These comments do not present any significant new information that would 29 warrant a change to the final SEIS.
30 The following comments assert that the socioeconomic effects from the shutdown of IP2 31 and IP3 would not be as severe as expected:
32 50-s-S0; 171-a-SO 33 Response: Terminating nuclear plant operations and reducing plant staff would have an impact 34 on regional employment and income and the quality and availability of community services.
35 Nuclear power plants generate a significant amount of employment and income in the local 36 economies, which would no longer occur with the cessation of plant operations. Income from 37 plant wages and salaries as well as expenditures for goods and services would decrease.
38 Demand for services and housing would be reduced. Indirect employment and income created 39 as a result of nuclear power plant operations would also be reduced.
40 The termination of plant operations would also have an impact on population and housing. Loss 41 of plant employment in smaller communities would likely mean plant workers and their families 42 would leave the area in search of jobs elsewhere, creating a decline in demand for housing, 43 depressing housing prices and values. Conversely, housing markets in the vicinity of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-104 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS40
Appendix A 1 metropolitan areas generally experience more rapid, housing turnover, higher prices, and lower 2 vacancy rates. While the loss of plant employment in urban regions may mean some out-3 migration of workers, many plant employees would be able to find other opportunities for 4 employment. In addition, any socioeconomic impact could be offset by economic growth in 5 other parts of the regional economy.
6 Should the licenses not be renewed, the owner of the Indian Point property would continue to 7 make property tax payments to the Town of Cortlandt, the Vii/age of Buchanan, and the 8 Hendrick Hudson Central School District. Depending on the commencement of 9 decommissioning activities, some workers would continue to be employed at Indian Point for an 10 extended period of time after the termination of power plant operations. The majority of the 11 impacts associated with plant operations would cease with reactor shutdown; however, some 12 impacts would remain unchanged, while others would continue at reduced or altered levels.
13 Terminating nuclear power plant operations would not immediately lead to the dismantlement 14 (decommissioning) of the reactor and infrastructure. Some socioeconomic impacts resulting 15 from terminating nuclear plant operations could be mitigated through new uses of the land.
16 Impacts from the decommissioning of IP2 and IP3 in the future would be similar to what would 17 occur now if the licenses were not renewed. Other economic values (e.g., property values and 18 eco-tourism) could have been diminished by the presence of Indian Point. These values might 19 flourish after plant shutdown, decommissioning, and removal and could make up for some 20 economic loss; however this issue along with Indian Point workers ability to change jobs is 21 speculative.
22 These comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 23 the final SEIS.
24 The following comment describes the economic connection between Indian Point and 25 Rockland County and expresses concern that the loss of jobs and local tax revenue from 26 the closure of Indian Point would have a financial impact on Rockland County. The 27 comment also expressed concern about the potential negative effects that a shutdown of 28 Indian Point would have on local and small businesses in the area.
29 148-a-ALlSO; 148-b-ALlSO; 148-c-ALISO 30 Response: Nuclear power plants, like various other electrical generating plants, generate a 31 significant amount of employment and income in the economies of local counties. The local 32 communities provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the power plant.
33 Power plant operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people, and payments for goods 34 and services.
35 Terminating nuclear plant operations and reducing plant staff would have an impact on regional 36 employment and income and may affect the quality and availability of community services.
37 Income from plant wages and salaries as well as expenditures would decrease. Demand for 38 services and housing would substantially decline. Indirect employment and income created as 39 a result of nuclear power plant operations would also be reduced.
40 The termination of plant operations would also have an impact on population and housing. Loss 41 of plant employment in smaller communities would likely mean plant workers and their families 42 would leave the area in search of jobs elsewhere, creating a decline in demand for housing, 43 depressing housing prices and values. Conversely, housing markets in the vicinity of 44 metropolitan areas generally experience more rapid, housing turnover, higher prices, and lower 45 vacancy rates. While the loss of plant employment in urban regions may mean some out-December 2010 A-10S NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS41
Appendix A 1 migration of workers, many plant employees would be able to find other opportunities for 2 employment. In addition, any socioeconomic impact on small businesses in Rockland County 3 could be offset by economic growth in other parts of the regional economy.
4 These comments are generally supportive of the license renewal of IP2 and IP3. These 5 comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the 6 final SEIS.
7 A.2.7.1 Demographics 8 The following comments express concern that Indian Point is located in one of the most 9 densely populated regions of the United States, and it should not have been sited there.
10 Comments indicate that it is irresponsible to have a nuclear power plant located so close 11 to a major city, and that Indian Point could not get siting approval today because of the 12 population density around the plant.
13 17-d-DE; 97-f-DE/PA; 121-a-DE/OR; 145-f-DE/OR; 153-e-AM/DE; 179-d-DE 14 Response: As discussed in Section 2.2.8.5 in the SEIS, IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-15 population area. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear 16 power plants to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. The safe 17 operation of nuclear power plants is not limited to license renewal but is dealt with on an 18 ongoing basis as a part of the current operating licenses. Safety issues and concerns are 19 addressed by the NRC on an ongoing basis at every nuclear power plant. Safety inspections 20 are and will be conducted throughout the operating life of the plant, whether during the original 21 or renewed operating license term. If safety issues are discovered at a nuclear power plant, 22 they are addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are incorporated into the current 23 operating license. As such, the regulatory safety oversight of IP2 and IP 3 is ongoing and 24 outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. These comments do not present any 25 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
26 The following comments indicate concern that the Indian Point evacuation plan is 27 unlikely to be effective, including evacuating children from schools, and that evacuation 28 plans have not kept up with changing demographics or potential traffic issues.
29 13-g-DE/EP; 50-p-DE/EP/NE; 87-a-DE/EP; 125-a-DE/EP; 172-b-DE/EP 30 Response: Before a plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have "reasonable assurance 31 that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 32 emergency." The NRC's decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying 33 with NRC regulations and guidance. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover 34 preparations for evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants in the 35 event of a serious incident. Nuclear power plant owners, government agencies, and State and 36 local officials work together to create a system for emergency preparedness and response that 37 will serve the public in the unlikely event of an emergency. Federal oversight of emergency 38 preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is shared by the NRC and Federal Emergency 39 Management Agency (FEMA).
40 As part of the reactor oversight process, the NRC reviews licensees' emergency planning 41 procedures and training. These reviews include regular drills and exercises that assist 42 licensees in identifying areas for improvement, such as in the interface of security operations 43 and emergency preparedness. These reviews are used by the NRC to make radiological health NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-106 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS42
Appendix A 1 and safety decisions before issuing new licenses and in the continuing oversight of operating 2 reactors. The NRC also has the authority to take action, including shutting down any reactor 3 deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and safety.
4 The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 5 of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public 6 notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 7 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all 8 nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee 9 regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency 10 planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These 11 requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed 12 licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews existing 13 emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing age, 14 race, and ethnographic demographics and other site-related factors.
15 The Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of emergency 16 planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal. Therefore, 17 decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at nuclear plants are 18 ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. These comments do not present 19 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
20 The following comments indicate concern that spent fuel at Indian Point is vulnerable to 21 terrorist attack or an accident in the spent fuel pools. The comments indicate that an 22 attack on spent fuel stored at the Indian Point site would be disastrous given the size of 23 the surrounding population.
24 18-b-DE/ST; 54-b-DE/ST; 117-c-DE/ST; 122-a-DE/PA/ST; 126-a-DE/RW/SF/ST; 161-h-DE/ST 25 Response: As discussed in Section 2.2.8.5 in the SEIS, IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-26 population area. The NRC requires that nuclear power plants be both safe and secure. Safety 27 refers to operating the plant in a manner that protects the public and the environment. Security 28 refers to protecting the plant (i.e., using people, equipment, and fortifications) from intruders 29 who wish to damage or destroy it in order to harm people and the environment.
30 Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to a license renewal action but are 31 considered to be issues that need to be dealt with as a part of the current (and renewed) 32 operating license. Security issues are reviewed and updated at every operating plant. These 33 reviews continue throughout the period of an operating license, whether during the original or 34 renewed license term. If issues related to security are discovered at a nuclear plant, they are 35 addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are reviewed and incorporated under the 36 operating license. As such, decisions and recommendations concerning safeguards and 37 security at nuclear power plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license 38 renewal.
39 After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC issued security related orders and 40 guidance to all nuclear power plants. These orders and guidance include interim measures for 41 emergency planning. Nuclear industry groups and Federal, State, and local government 42 agencies assisted in the prompt implementation of these measures and participated in drills and 43 exercises to test these new planning elements. The NRC has reviewed licensees' commitments 44 to address these requirements and verified the implementation through inspections to ensure 45 public health and safety.
December 2010 A-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00543
Appendix A 1 The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented initiatives to 2 evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of aircraft against 3 commercial nuclear power facilities and independent spent fuel storage installations. These 4 acts remain speculative and beyond the regulatory scope of a license renewal review.
5 However, the NRC assesses threats and other information provided by other Federal agencies 6 and sources on an ongoing basis. The NRC also works to ensure that licensees meet security 7 requirements through the ongoing regulatory process (routine inspections) as this issue affects 8 all nuclear power plants. The issue of security and risk from terrorist acts against nuclear power 9 plants is not unique to facilities that have requested a renewal to their operating licenses.
10 These comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 11 the final SEIS.
12 The following comments express concern about safety issues stemming from the 13 possibility of corrosion in plant components, continued storage of spent fuel in aging 14 spent fuel pools, and reliance on dry cask storage, in light of the high and growing 15 population near the Indian Point site. Some commenters suggest that the population has 16 a different set of characteristics with sensitive receptor issues that differ from those 17 encountered at other reactor sites.
18 44-b-AM/DE/SF, 50-b-DE/PA, 50-h-DE/PA, 141-b-AMIDE/PA/RW, 170-c-DE/PA 19 Response: As discussed in Section 2.2.8.5 in the SEIS, IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-20 population area. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear 21 power plants to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Before a 22 plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have "reasonable assurance that adequate 23 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." The 24 NRC's decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying with NRC regulations 25 and guidance. Safety refers to operating the plant in a manner that protects the public and the 26 environment.
27 The safe operation of nuclear power plants is not limited to license renewal but is dealt with on 28 an ongoing basis as a part of the current operating licenses. Safety issues and concerns are 29 addressed by the NRC on an ongoing basis at every nuclear power plant. Safety inspections 30 are and will be conducted throughout the operating life of the plant, whether during the original 31 or renewed operating license. If safety issues are discovered at a nuclear power plant, they are 32 addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are incorporated into the current operating 33 license. As such, the regulatory safety oversight of IP2 and IP3 are ongoing and outside the 34 regulatory scope of license renewal. Through its standards and required exercises, the 35 Commission reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, 36 keeping up with changing age, race, and ethnographic demographics and other site-related 37 factors.
38 The focus of the environmental review of IP2 and IP3 is on environmental impacts of license 39 renewal and is distinct and separate from the safety review. Safety issues become important to 40 the environmental review when they could result in environmental impacts, which are why the 41 environmental effects of postulated accidents associated with IP2 and IP3 are considered in the 42 IP SEIS. These comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a 43 change to the final SEIS.
44 A.2.7.2 Aesthetics I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-108 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS44
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the SEIS does not consider the aesthetic impacts 2 of the Indian Point facility and the construction of a cooling tower on communities along 3 the Hudson River Valley.
4 30-a-ALlAQ/AS/EJ/GE 5 Response: Aesthetic impacts were evaluated in the 1996 GElS for license renewal of nuclear 6 plants and are considered Category 1 issues. The NRC believes that the analysis conducted 7 for the GElS (which included a case study on Indian Point) bounds the impacts of continued 8 operation and refurbishment on aesthetic resources, and that renewing the operating license 9 would not alter the existing visual intrusiveness of any nuclear power plant. It is understood that 10 some people (including minority and low-income populations) perceive nuclear plant structures 11 (including cooling towers) and vapor plumes negatively. Most of these negative perceptions are 12 based on aesthetic considerations (i.e., that the plant is out of character or scale with the 13 environment), as well as environmental and safety concerns or on an anti-nuclear orientation.
14 Whatever the consideration, the NRC believes that for these people the enjoyment of the 15 environment has been diminished by the presence of a nuclear power plant. However, because 16 license renewal would not alter the visual intrusiveness of the nuclear power plant, negative 17 perceptions would remain unchanged, and the impacts of license renewal on aesthetic 18 resources would therefore not change. Nevertheless, since these are Category 1 issues, the 19 aesthetic impact of IP2 and IP3 was evaluated for new and significant information for the IP 20 OSEIS.
21 As discussed in Section 4.4 of the IP OSEIS, the NRC reviewed and evaluated the IP2 and IP3 22 Environmental Report, scoping comments, other available information, and visited the Indian 23 Point Energy Center in search of new and significant information on aesthetic impacts that could 24 change the conclusions presented in the GElS. However, no new and significant information 25 was identified during this review and evaluation. Therefore, it is expected that there would be 26 no additional impact related to these Category 1 issues during refurbishment and the renewal 27 term beyond those evaluated in the GElS.
28 The aesthetic impacts of constructing and operating cooling towers at the Indian Point Energy 29 Center is not part of the proposed action nor is it within the regulatory scope of license renewal.
30 The aesthetic impacts of constructing and operating cooling towers is, however, discussed in 31 Chapter 8 of the SEIS. The comment does not present any significant new information that 32 would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
33 A.2.7.3 Socio-Psychological Effects 34 The following comments indicate that the SEIS does not analyze psychological and 35 social stress impacts of nuclear power, accidents, safety, security, acts of terrorism, and 36 emergency preparedness; and suggests that an independent third party prepare the 37 SEIS:
38 16-a-PS; 16-b-PS/ST; 16-c-EP/PA/PS; 50-r-EP/PS 39 Response: Psychological and social stresses do not constitute environmental impacts that are 40 subject to evaluation under NEPA. Pursuant to NEPA and the NRC's environmental regulations 41 at 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement for 42 license renewal actions. The SEIS cannot be prepared by an independent third party as one of 43 the commenters suggests. The comment does not present any significant new information that 44 would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
December 2010 A-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00545
Appendix A 1 A.2.7.4 Environmental Justice 2 The following comments expressed support for nuclear power and the renewal of IP2 and 3 IP3 operating licenses, because Indian Point provides clean, safe, and affordable 4 electricity, and keeping Indian Point open means that families in the working-class and 5 the low-income neighborhoods will not be held hostage to rapidly increasing electricity 6 bills. They also expressed concerns about serious health issues and poor air quality in 7 minority and low-income communities caused by air emissions from fossil-fueled power 8 plants in their neighborhoods that would be used to generate electrical power if Indian 9 Point were to be shut down. Of special concern is the issue of disproportionate health 10 effects, especially asthma rates, experienced by low-income and minority communities, 11 including African Americans and Hispanics.
12 14-a-AQ/EJ/SR; 14-d-AUEJ/GL; 31-a-EJ/SR; 31-b-EC/EJ/HH; 45-a- AQ/EJ; 45-b-ALIEC/EJ; 13 46-b-AQ/EJ; 49-b-AQlEJ; 49-d-AQlEJ/SR; 49-f-AQ/EJ; 49-g-ALlAQ/EJ; 58-b-ALlAQlEJ; 62-14 a-EJ/SR; 62-b-/EJ/SR; 118-a-AQlEJ/SR; 118-b-EC/EJ/SR; 134-b-ALlAQlEJ; 158-a-EJ/SR; 15 177-d-AQ/EJ/SR 16 Response: These comments are generally supportive of nuclear power and the license 17 renewal of IP2 and IP3. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of 18 nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment.
19 Air quality impacts from alternative energy power generation including environmental justice 20 concerns are discussed in Chapter 8 in the SEIS. These comments do not present any 21 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
22 The following comments pertain to the NRC staff's finding of a "small" impact level of the 23 construction and operation of a closed-cycle cooling system at Indian Point, and asks 24 why the 1996 GElS does not address environmental justice as a generic issue.
25 14-b-ALlEJ; 46-c-ALlEJ/SR; 49-e-ALlEJ 26 Response: The NRC has no role in energy planning decisions. State regulatory agencies, 27 system operators, power plant owners, and, in some cases other Federal agencies, ultimately 28 decide whether the power plant should continue to operate. The NRC has no authority or 29 regulatory control over this decision. While the NRC considers a range of replacement power 30 alternatives to license renewal, the only alternative within NRC's decision-making authority is 31 whether or not to renew a plant's operating license. The NRC considers the decision to not 32 renew the plant's operating license in the No-Action Alternative.
33 The NRC also has no role in a decision regarding changes to nuclear power plant cooling 34 systems (other than those involving safety-related issues) to mitigate adverse impacts; that 35 decision is under the jurisdiction of State or other Federal agencies. The environmental impacts 36 of closed cycle cooling systems (cooling towers) are discussed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.
37 Nevertheless, the discussion of potential impacts from the construction and operation of a 38 closed-cycle cooling system has been revised in the final SEIS.
39 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis in the 1996 GElS, because 40 guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 was not available prior to the completion of 41 the 1996 GElS. The analysis of environmental justice impacts are addressed in plant-specific 42 reviews.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-110 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00546
Appendix A 1 The following comments pertain to an inadequate discussion of evacuation plans and 2 emergency planning in the DSEIS:
3 50-i-EJ/LE; 50-j-EJ/PA; 1S4-f-EJ/EP 4 Response: All human health and environmental risks are considered during plant specific 5 license renewal environmental reviews. In addition, all minority and low-income people are 6 considered in NRC's assessment of environmental justice impacts. The environmental impacts 7 of postulated accidents including severe accidents are discussed in Chapter 5. The 8 Commission has generically determined that impacts associated with such accidents are 9 SMALL because nuclear plants are designed to successfully withstand design basis accidents, 10 and the probability weighted consequences (risk) of severe accidents are also SMALL.
11 Providing projected growth rates of environmental justice communities would not present 12 information needed to support or complete the environmental justice impact analysis since the 13 location of existing minority and low-income populations have been identified and potential 14 human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income communities have been 15 discussed. Minority and low-income populations would most likely remain where they are and 16 grow in their current locations. In addition, no reason appears to suggest that these populations 17 would materially change during the license renewal period, and projecting the growth of minority 18 and low-income population would not necessarily increase the significance of any environmental 19 justice impacts, should they exist.
20 The NRC staff performed a site specific evaluation which evaluated the impacts of the leaks of 21 radioactive material at IPEC from a general human health perspective as well as from the 22 environmental justice perspective using subsistence living factors. The evaluations are 23 contained in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Draft SEIS. Additional information related to the human 24 health aspects of these comments is addressed in the Human Health section of this appendix.
25 The safe operation of nuclear power plants is not limited to license renewal but is dealt with on a 26 daily basis as a part of the operating license. Safety issues and concerns are addressed by the 27 NRC on an ongoing basis at every nuclear power plant. Safety inspections are and will be 28 conducted throughout the operating life of the power plant, whether during the original or 29 renewed operating license term. If safety issues are discovered at a nuclear plant, they are 30 addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are incorporated into the operating license.
31 As such, the regulatory safety oversight of IP2 and IP 3 are ongoing and outside the regulatory 32 scope of license renewal. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission 33 reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up 34 with changing age, race, and ethnographic demographics and other site-related factors.
35 The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 36 of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public 37 notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 38 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all 39 nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee 40 regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency 41 planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These 42 requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed 43 licenses.
44 The Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of emergency 45 planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal. Therefore, December 2010 A-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS47
Appendix A 1 decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at nuclear plants are 2 ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. These comments do not present 3 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
4 The following comments are in opposition to concerns about an increase in air pollution 5 in minority and low-income communities:
6 50-t-EJ/AL; 182-d-ALlEJ/OR 7 Response: All human health and environmental risks are considered during plant specific 8 license renewal environmental reviews. In addition, all minority and low-income people are 9 considered in NRC's assessment of environmental justice impacts for alternatives presented in 10 Chapter 8 of the SEIS. These comments do not present any significant new information that 11 would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
12 The following comments expressed concern that the Draft EIS does not adequately 13 assess environmental justice and fails to consider immobile people with disabilities and 14 institutionalized individuals in special facilities. One Commenter goes on to suggests 15 that there may be a disparate impact on minority communities and subsistence 16 fishermen for cancer related to radiation releases from Indian Point. Concern was also 17 expressed about a large minority, low-income and disabled population in special 18 facilities within 50 miles who will be severely impacted if there is an evacuation from the 19 area from Indian Point. The Draft SEIS fails to take into account the high percentage of 20 minority and low-income populations in the lower Hudson Valley region who engage in 21 subsistence fishing. Another commenter indicates that the Draft EIS does not assess the 22 impact of uranium mining on Native Americans and the disposal of the radioactive waste 23 on environmental justice communities, and that the NRC Staff relies on incomplete 24 demographic analyses and/or inconsistent data in making assessments. Another 25 commenter suggests that the Draft EIS discusses the population within 20 miles of 26 Indian Point based on 2000 census data without mention of the minority composition 27 within 20 miles of Indian Point. The commenter also identifies the use of projected 28 population growth rates for the total population during the license renewal period while 29 not including projected growth rates for environmental justice communities over that 30 same time period as an inconsistency.
31 One commenter also expresses concern that the NRC Staff relies on incomplete 32 demographic analyses and/or inconsistent data in making assessments. For example, 33 the Draft EIS discusses the population within 20 miles of Indian Point based on 2000 34 census data; however there is no mention of the minority composition within 20 miles of 35 Indian Point. Another inconsistency found in the Draft EIS is the use of projected 36 population growth rates for the total population during the license renewal period while 37 not including projected growth rates for environmental justice communities over that 38 same time period. The DSEIS does not evaluate the impacts of relicensing on the 39 environmental justice communities in Peekskill, Haverstraw and West Haverstraw.
40 Without complete and consistent data the Draft SEIS does not meet the minimum 41 requirements of NEPA. The use of Census block groups in the analysis obscures smaller 42 neighborhood concentrations of minority populations. Probable real-life impacts on 43 environmental justice communities are neither presented nor analyzed. There is a 44 particular need to consider the full range of health, accident risk, and terrorist risk 45 impacts on minority populations residing immediately adjacent to Indian Point.
46 68-c-DE/EJ/NE; 79-h-EJ; 79-n-EJ; 79-0-EJ; 79-p-EJ; 79-q-EJ; 79-t-EJ; 96-i-EJ/UF NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-112 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00548
Appendix A 1 Response: All minority and low-income people are considered in NRC's assessment of 2 environmental justice impacts regardless of whether they are immobilized with disabilities and/or 3 institutionalized (in federal or state prisons; local jails; federal detention centers; juvenile 4 institutions; nursing or convalescent homes for the aged or dependent; or homes, schools, 5 hospitals, or wards for the physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or mentally ill; or in 6 drug/alcohol recovery facilities). The location of minority and low-income populations identified 7 in a SEIS environmental justice assessment are determined on the basis of where they are 8 living at the time of the census. All people living in the U. S. (including institutionalized persons) 9 on April 1, 2000 were counted based on where they were living at the time.
10 Before a plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have "reasonable assurance that adequate 11 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." The 12 NRC's decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying with NRC regulations 13 and guidance. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover preparations for 14 evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants (including 15 institutionalized persons) in the event of a serious incident. Nuclear power plant owners, 16 government agencies, and State and local officials work together to create a system for 17 emergency preparedness and response that will serve the public in the unlikely event of an 18 emergency. Federal oversight of emergency preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is 19 shared by the NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
20 As part of the reactor oversight process, the NRC reviews licensees' emergency planning 21 procedures and training. These reviews include regular drills and exercises that assist 22 licensees in identifying areas for improvement, such as in the interface of security operations 23 and emergency preparedness. These reviews are used by the NRC to make radiological health 24 and safety decisions before issuing new licenses and in the continuing oversight of operating 25 reactors. The NRC also has the authority to take action, including shutting down any reactor 26 deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and safety.
27 The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 28 of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public 29 notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 30 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all 31 nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee 32 regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency 33 planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These 34 requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed 35 licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews existing 36 emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing age, 37 race, and ethnographic demographics and other site-related factors.
38 The Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of emergency 39 planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal. Therefore, 40 decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at nuclear plants are 41 ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal.
42 The NRC does not question the existence of subsistence fishing in close proximity to IP2 and 43 IP3. The NRC staff reviewed the results of IPEC's radiological environmental monitoring 44 program (REMP). The REMP monitoring results show that concentrations of radioactive 45 contaminants in native leafy vegetation, soils and sediments, Hudson River surface water and 46 fish from the vicinity of IPEC are very low (at or near the threshold of the survey instrument's December 2010 A-113 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00549
Appendix A 1 detection capability) and seldom above background levels. Based on the data, the NRC staff 2 concluded that no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would be 3 expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence 4 consumption of fish and wildlife.
5 The NRC is also committed to ensuring that all nuclear materials including uranium fuel, spent 6 fuel, and radioactive wastes are managed to prevent detrimental health impacts to the public.
7 The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle were 8 evaluated for all nuclear power plants on a generic basis in the 1996 GElS. The review 9 included a discussion of the values presented in Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 10 Environmental Data, presented in 10 CFR Part 51.
11 On the basis of the evaluation presented in the GElS, the Commission concluded that, other 12 than for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, impacts on individuals from radioactive 13 gaseous and liquid releases will remain at or below the Commission's regulatory limits. The 14 aggregate nonradiological impact of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an 15 operating license for any plant would be small.
16 The environmental impacts of individual operating uranium fuel cycle facilities (including 17 uranium mining) are addressed in separate EISs prepared by the NRC. These documents 18 include analyses that address human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-19 income populations. Electronic copies of these EISs are available through the NRC's public 20 Web site in the Publications Prepared by NRC Staff document collection of the NRC's Electronic 21 Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rmldoc-collectionsl; and the NRC's Agency wide 22 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-23 rmladams.html.
24 The impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal have also been addressed on a generic 25 basis. The human health impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel are addressed in an 26 addendum to the 1996 GElS in which the NRC evaluated the applicability of Table S-4 to future 27 license renewal proceedings given that the spent fuel was planned to be shipped to a single 28 repository. Further, as part of the site characterization and recommendation process for the 29 proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, DOE is required by the Nuclear 30 Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prepare an EIS. By law, the NRC is required to adopt DOE's EIS, 31 to "the extent practicable, " as part of any possible NRC construction authorization decision. As 32 a result, DOE prepared and submitted to NRC the Supplemental Environmental Impact 33 Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 34 Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) DOEIEIS-35 0250F-S1. This document includes analyses that address human health and environmental 36 impacts to minority and low-income communities including Native Americans.
37 As noted in DOE's Repository SEIS, shipments of spent nuclear fuel (as well as fresh fuel) 38 would use the nation's existing railroads and highways. DOE estimates that transportation-39 related impacts to land use; air quality; hydrology; biological resources and soils; cultural 40 resources; socioeconomics; noise and vibration; aesthetics; utilities, energy, and materials; and 41 waste management would be small. The small effect on the population as a whole would be 42 likely for any segment of the population, including minority and low-income populations, as well 43 as members of American Indian tribes.
44 DOE did not identify any potentially high and adverse impacts to members of the public from the 45 transport of spent nuclear fuel. DOE determined that subsections of the population, including NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-114 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_OOSSO
Appendix A 1 minority or low-income populations, would not receive disproportionate impacts, and no unique 2 exposure pathways, sensitivities, or cultural practices that would expose minority or low-income 3 populations to disproportionately high and adverse impacts were identified. DOE concluded 4 that no disproportionately high and adverse impacts would result from the national 5 transportation of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. On September 8, 2008, NRC staff 6 recommended that the Commission adopt, with supplementation, DOE's Repository EIS and 7 supplements (73 FR 53284). While DOE subsequently requested the withdrawal of its Yucca 8 Mountain repository application (which remains pending before the NRC), it has not identified 9 any alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, and the impact of 10 any alternative disposal are speculative and cannot be evaluated at this time.
11 Complete and consistent demographic data has been presented in the Draft SEIS. Section 12 2.2.8.5 in the SEIS provides demographic (including minority composition) information on 13 populations residing in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester counties in 2000 and 14 2006. These counties stretch out more than 20 miles from IP2 and IP3. As stated in the text 15 and according to the U. S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey, minority 16 populations in the four-county region were estimated to have increased by nearly 90,000 17 persons and made up 32.7 percent of the total four-county population in 2006 (see SEIS Table 18 2-13). This represents an increase of 19 percent relative to the total population from 2000 to 19 2006. The largest increases in minority populations were estimated to occur in Hispanic or 20 Latino and Asian populations, an estimated increase of 29.2 percent since 2000, and a 2.9 21 percent increase as a percent of the total population. The Black or African-American population 22 increased by approximately 5 percent from 2000 to 2006 but remained unchanged as a 23 percentage of the total four-county population. Asian populations grew by approximately 37 24 percent since 2000, but this resulted in only a one percent increase as a percent of the total 25 population.
26 Providing projected growth rates of environmental justice communities would not present 27 information needed to support or complete the environmental justice impact analysis since the 28 location of existing minority and low-income populations have been identified and potential 29 human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income communities have been 30 discussed. Concentrations of minority and low-income populations would most likely remain 31 where they are and grow in their current locations. In addition, no reason appears to suggest 32 that these populations would materially change during the license renewal period, and 33 projecting the growth of minority and low-income population would not necessarily increase the 34 significance of any environmental justice impacts, should they exist.
35 The discussion and figures in Section 4.4.6 in the SEIS indentify concentrated locations of 36 minority and low-income block group populations residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius 37 of IP2 and IP3. Even though minority and low-income Census block groups were identified in 38 these communities in the Draft SEIS, the SEIS has been revised to specifically note that 39 Peekskill, Haverstraw and West Haverstraw have been identified as potential environmental 40 justice areas.
41 While Census block data is preferred for identifying minority communities, Census block group 42 data was chosen because poverty and income information is not available from Census at the 43 block level. The NRC acknowledges that Census block data on race and ethnicity would further 44 define the location of minority communities, and does not question the existence of these 45 populations and communities in close proximity to IP2 and IP3. The NRC addresses 46 environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) identifying the location of minority 47 and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed license renewal, and (2)
December 2010 A-115 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00551
Appendix A 1 examining any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to 2 determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse.
3 As discussed in Section 2.2.8.5 in the IP SEIS, IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-population 4 area. The NRC requires that nuclear power plants be both safe and secure. Safety refers to 5 operating the plant in a manner that protects the public and the environment. Security refers to 6 protecting the plant (i.e., using people, equipment, and fortifications) from intruders who wish to 7 damage or destroy it in order to harm people and the environment.
8 Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to a license renewal action but are 9 considered to be issues that need to be dealt with constantly as a part of the current (and 10 renewed) operating license. Security issues are reviewed and updated at every operating plant.
11 These reviews continue throughout the period of an operating license, whether the original or 12 renewed license. If issues related to security are discovered at a nuclear plant, they are 13 addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are reviewed and incorporated under the 14 operating license. As such, decisions and recommendations concerning safeguards and 15 security at nuclear power plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license 16 renewal.
17 After the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the NRC issued security related orders and 18 guidance to nuclear power plants. These orders and guidance include interim measures for 19 emergency planning. Nuclear industry groups and Federal, State, and local government 20 agencies assisted in the prompt implementation of these measures and participated in drills and 21 exercises to test these new planning elements. The NRC has reviewed licensees' commitments 22 to address these requirements and verified the implementation through inspections to ensure 23 public health and safety.
24 The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented initiatives to 25 evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of aircraft against 26 commercial nuclear power facilities and independent spent fuel storage installations. These 27 acts remain speculative and beyond the regulatory scope of a license renewal review.
28 However, the NRC assesses threats and other information provided by other Federal agencies 29 and sources on an ongoing basis. The NRC also works to ensure that licensees meet security 30 requirements through the ongoing regulatory process (routine inspections) as this issue affects 31 all nuclear power plants. The issue of security and risk from terrorist acts against nuclear power 32 plants is not unique to facilities that have requested a renewal to their operating licenses.
33 Nevertheless, the SEIS has been revised to more fully describe the overall potential human 34 health and environmental effects that could affect minority and low-income populations. These 35 comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the 36 final SEIS.
37 The following comments express concern with the effects of Strontium-90 on 38 subsistence fishermen and persons who eat fish from the Hudson River:
39 73-b-EJ/HH/LE; 73-c-EJ/HH/LE; 73-e-EJ/HH; 79-b-EJ/HH; 93-g-EJ/HH; 96-g-EJ/HH/LE; 97-40 a-EJ/HH; 97-k-EJ/HH/LE; 124-b-EJ/EP/HH/PA; 138-a-EJ/HH/LE; 149-b-EJ/HH 41 Response: The NRC's primary mission is to protect the public health and safety and the 42 environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities.
43 The NRC's regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public 44 from the harmful health effects of radiation on humans. The limits are based on the 45 recommendations of standards-setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-116 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00552
Appendix A 1 scientific study by national and international organizations. The NRC actively participates and 2 monitors the work of these organizations to keep current on the latest information concerning 3 radiation protection.
4 The NRC reviewed the results of IPEC's radiological environmental monitoring program 5 (REMP). The REMP monitoring results show that concentrations of radioactive contaminants in 6 native leafy vegetation, soils and sediments, Hudson River surface water and fish from the 7 vicinity of IPEC are very low (at or near the threshold of the survey instrument's detection 8 capability) and seldom above background levels. Based on the data, the NRC concluded that 9 no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would be expected in special 10 pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of fish and 11 wildlife.
12 The NRC has already fully considered and addressed these issues in Chapters 2 and 4 of the 13 SEIS and these comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a 14 change to the final SEIS.
15 16 The following comment expresses concern about the lack of an environmental justice 17 discussion in the generic GElS, and suggests that there's no framework or guidance for 18 addressing environmental justice in the Draft SEIS. The lack of guidance at the generic 19 level may lead to an inadequacy at the specific EIS components.
20 113-c-EJ/GE 21 Response: Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis in the GElS, because 22 guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 was not available prior to its completion in 23 1996. The analysis of environmental justice impacts are addressed in plant-specific 24 environmental reviews.
25 NRC staff is guided in its consideration of environmental justice in plant-specific environmental 26 reviews by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office Instruction LlC-203, Appendix C 27 "Environmental Justice in NRR NEPA Documents." The environmental justice review involves 28 identifying minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the plant that may be affected 29 by license renewal, any concerns and potential environmental impacts that may affect these 30 populations, including their geographic locations, the significance of such concerns and effects 31 and whether they would be disproportionately high and adverse when compared to the general 32 population, and if so, the mitigation measures available to reduce and/or eliminate these 33 impacts. The NRC performs the environmental justice review to determine whether there would 34 be disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 35 low-income populations and report the results of this review in the SEIS. This comment does 36 not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
37 38 The following comments express concern that the Draft SEIS failed to address, or 39 inadequately addressed:
40 1. Impact of cancer on minority and low-income populations that are more 41 susceptible to cancer from Indian Point radionuclide emissions than other 42 populations; December 2010 A-117 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00553
Appendix A 1 2. impact to subsistence fishing in the Hudson River; 2 3. fact that low-income populations will be more severely and negatively impacted 3 by an evacuation resulting from a radiological event at Indian Point; ( see also 79-4 u-EJ/SM) 5 4. the fact that disabled and institutionalized residents of special facilities will be 6 more severely and negatively impacted by an evacuation or radiological event at 7 Indian Point, including disabled patients in the dozens of hospitals and long term 8 care facilities, and inmates in the many prisons in the area; and (see also 79-v-9 EJ/EP/SM) 10 5. environmental justice concerns relating to production and long term storage of 11 Indian Point's fuel, especially upon Native American populations. (see also 79-y-12 EJ/UF) 13 79-r-EJ 14 Response:
15 1. Aspects of this comment related to cancer incidence due to radionuclide emissions from 16 Indian Point are addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS and the Human Health portion of 17 this Appendix.
18 2. Impacts to subsistence fishing are addressed in the "Subsistence Consumption of Fish 19 and Wildlife" discussion in Section 4.4.6 Environmental Justice in the SEIS.
20 3. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover preparations for evacuation, 21 sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants in the event of a serious 22 incident. Nuclear power plant owners, government agencies, and State and local 23 officials work together to create a system for emergency preparedness and response 24 that will serve the public in the unlikely event of an emergency. Federal oversight of 25 emergency preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is shared by the NRC and 26 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
27 The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the 28 context of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which 29 included public notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for 30 rulemaking (56 FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power 31 facilities apply to all nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of 32 protection from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license date.
33 Requirements related to emergency planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and 34 Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These requirements apply to all operating licenses and 35 will continue to apply to facilities with renewed licenses. Through its standards and 36 required exercises, the Commission reviews existing emergency preparedness plans 37 throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing age, race, and ethnographic 38 demographics and other site-related factors.
39 The Commission subsequently determined that there is no need for a special review of 40 emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license 41 renewal. Therefore, decisions and recommendations concerning emergency I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-118 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_00554
Appendix A 1 preparedness at nuclear plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license 2 renewal.
3 4. All minority and low-income people are considered in NRC's assessment of 4 environmental justice impacts regardless of whether they are immobilized with 5 disabilities and/or institutionalized (in federal or state prisons; local jails; federal 6 detention centers; juvenile institutions; nursing or convalescent homes for the aged or 7 dependent; or homes, schools, hospitals, or wards for the physically handicapped, 8 mentally retarded, or mentally ill; or in drug/alcohol recovery facilities). The location of 9 minority and low-income populations identified in a SEIS environmental justice 10 assessment are determined on the basis of where they are living at the time of the 11 census. All people living in the US. (including people living in prisons) on April 1, 2000 12 were counted based on where they were living at the time. Same response as 3.
13 5. The NRC is committed to ensuring that all nuclear materials including uranium fuel, 14 spent fuel, and radioactive wastes are managed to prevent detrimental health impacts to 15 the public. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium 16 fuel cycle are evaluated in the 1996 GElS. The review included a discussion of the 17 values presented in Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, 18 presented in 10 CFR Part 51.51.
19 On the basis of the evaluation presented in the GElS, the Commission concluded that, 20 other than for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, impacts on individuals 21 from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases will remain at or below the Commission's 22 regulatory limits.
23 As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for the proposed 24 geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the DOE is required by the Nuclear 25 Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prepare an EIS. By law, the NRC is required to adopt 26 DOE's EIS, to "the extent practicable," as part of any possible NRC construction 27 authorization decision. As a result, DOE prepared and submitted to NRC the 28 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 29 Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, 30 Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) DOE/EIS-0250F-S1. This document includes 31 analyses that address human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-32 income communities including Native Americans.
33 The following comments express concern that low-income populations, residents of 34 special facilities, including disabled patients and inmates in prisons will be more 35 severely and negatively impacted by an evacuation resulting from a radiological event at 36 Indian Point. Potential impacts upon disabled and institutionalized individuals was 37 completely ignored, and the relicensing of Indian Point places these individuals, 38 including children, seniors, and veterans at risk.
39 79-u-EJ/SM; 79-v-EJ/EP/SM; 79-w-EJ 40 Response: All minority and low-income people are considered in NRC's assessment of 41 environmental justice impacts regardless of whether they are immobilized with disabilities and/or 42 institutionalized (in federal or state prisons; local jails; federal detention centers; juvenile 43 institutions; nursing or convalescent homes for the aged or dependent; or homes, schools, 44 hospitals, or wards for the physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or mentally ill; or in 45 drug/alcohol recovery facilities). The location of minority and low-income populations identified December 2010 A-119 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00555
Appendix A 1 in a SEIS environmental justice assessment are determined on the basis of where they are 2 living at the time of the census. All people living in the U. S. (including people living in prisons) 3 on April 1, 2000 were counted based on where they were living at the time.
4 The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear power plants to 5 ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. The safe operation of 6 nuclear power plants is not limited to license renewal but is dealt with constantly on a daily basis 7 as a part of the operating license. Safety issues and concerns are addressed by the NRC on an 8 ongoing basis at every nuclear power plant. Safety inspections are and will be conducted 9 throughout the operating life of the power plant, whether during the original or renewed 10 operating license term. If safety issues are discovered at a nuclear plant, they are addressed 11 immediately, and any necessary changes are incorporated into the operating license. As such, 12 the regulatory safety oversight of IP2 and IP 3 are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of 13 license renewal.
14 Before a plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have "reasonable assurance that adequate 15 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." The 16 NRC's decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying with NRC regulations 17 and guidance. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover preparations for 18 evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants in the event of a 19 serious incident. Nuclear power plant owners, government agencies, and State and local 20 officials work together to create a system for emergency preparedness and response that will 21 serve the public in the unlikely event of an emergency. Federal oversight of emergency 22 preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is shared by the NRC and Federal Emergency 23 Management Agency (FEMA).
24 As part of the reactor oversight process, the NRC reviews licensees' emergency planning 25 procedures and training. These reviews include regular drills and exercises that assist 26 licensees in identifying areas for improvement, such as in the interface of security operations 27 and emergency preparedness. These reviews are used by the NRC to make radiological health 28 and safety decisions before issuing new licenses and in the continuing oversight of operating 29 reactors. The NRC also has the authority to take action, including shutting down any reactor 30 deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and safety.
31 The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context 32 of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public 33 notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 34 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all 35 nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee 36 regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency 37 planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These 38 requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed 39 licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews existing 40 emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing age, 41 race, and ethnographic demographics and other site-related factors.
42 The Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of emergency 43 planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal. Therefore, 44 decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at nuclear plants are 45 ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. These comments do not present 46 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-120 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00556
Appendix A 1 The commenter wants the Final SEIS to address the impact on employment for 2 environmental justice communities and low-income populations.
3 79-x-ALlEJ 4 Response: The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) 5 identifying the location of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the 6 proposed license renewal, and (2) examining any potential human health or environmental 7 effects on these populations to determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and 8 adverse. The SEIS provides a discussion of potential impacts to minority and low-income 9 populations from license renewal, refurbishment (vessel head replacement), and replacement 10 power alternatives, including potential employment impacts.
11 Socioeconomic conditions in minority and low-income communities would not change as a 12 result of renewing the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses. Employment levels would remain 13 relatively unchanged, so direct and indirect employment opportunities caused by IPEC would 14 remain unchanged. Therefore, there would be no additional socioeconomic impact to minority 15 and low-income populations during the license renewal term beyond what is currently being 16 experienced. The SEIS has been revised to more fully describe the overall potential human 17 health and environmental effects of license renewal that could affect minority and low-income 18 populations.
19 The following comment expresses environmental justice concerns relating to production 20 and long term storage of Indian point's fuel, especially upon Native American 21 populations 22 79-y-EJ/UF 23 Response: The NRC is committed to ensuring that all nuclear materials including uranium fuel, 24 spent fuel, and radioactive wastes are managed to prevent detrimental health impacts to the 25 public. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 26 are evaluated in the 1996 GElS. The review included a discussion of the values presented in 27 Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, presented in 10 CFR Part 51.51.
28 On the basis of the evaluation presented in the GElS, the Commission concluded that, other 29 than for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, impacts on individuals from radioactive 30 gaseous and liquid releases will remain at or below the Commission's regulatory limits.
31 As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for the proposed geologic 32 repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the DOE is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 33 1982 to prepare an EIS. By law, the NRC is required to adopt DOE's EIS, to "the extent 34 practicable," as part of any possible NRC construction authorization decision. As a result, DOE 35 prepared and submitted to NRC the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 36 Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 37 at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) DOEIEIS-0250F-S1. This 38 document includes analyses that address human health and environmental impacts to minority 39 and low-income communities including Native Americans. This comment does not present any 40 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
41 42 A.2.8 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues December 2010 A-121 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI000136? A_OOSS?
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the SEIS does not analyze offsite land use impacts 2 of continued operations and the additional storage of spent fuel on real estate values in 3 the surrounding areas.
4 129-d-ALILU 5 Response: The impacts evaluated for the 1996 GElS (NUREG-1437) identified 92 6 environmental issues that were considered for the license renewal of nuclear power plants.
7 Members of the public, citizen groups, industry representatives, and other Federal, state, and 8 local governmental agencies commented on and helped identify these 92 issues during the 9 preparation of the GElS. Offsite land use impacts were determined to be Category 2 issues to 10 be addressed in plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs). The 11 impact of nuclear plant operations on real estate values was not identified as an issue to be 12 addressed by license renewal.
13 The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power and the No 14 Action Alternative) falls largely within the jurisdiction of the states and to some extent within the 15 jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule for license 16 renewal had included a cost-benefit analysis and consideration of licensee economics as part of 17 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. However, during the comment period, 18 state, Federal, and licensee representatives expressed concern about the use of economic 19 costs and cost-benefit balancing in the proposed rule and the GElS. They noted that 20 President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations interpret NEPA to require only 21 an assessment of the cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-22 made environment and that the determination of the need for generating capacity has always 23 been the states' responsibility. For this reason, the purpose and need for the proposed action 24 (i.e., license renewal) is defined in the 1996 GElS as follows:
25 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) 26 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 27 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 28 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, licensee, and, 29 where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision-makers.
30 The SEIS for license renewal is not required to address the economic costs and economic 31 benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action. In addition, the SEIS 32 need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action 33 and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of 34 the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with § 51.23(b) (see 10 CFR 51.95 35 (c)(2)). The draft SEIS must contain an analysis of issues identified as Category 2 in appendix 36 8 to subpart A of this part that are open for the proposed action. Table 8-1 summarizes the 37 Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of renewing the 38 operating license for a nuclear power plant as required by section 102(2) of the National 39 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
40 Offsite land use impacts of spent fuel storage in an ISFSI are not part of the proposed action 41 and are not within the regulatory scope of license renewal and therefore are not addressed in 42 the IP OSEIS. These impacts have been addressed as part of a separate NEPA review 43 conducted by the NRC.
44 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 45 the final SEIS.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-122 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOSS8
Appendix A 1 A.2.9 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents 2 The following comments assert that studies by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory show 3 that the Indian Point plant may be more vulnerable to earthquakes than previously 4 thought because it sits less than a mile south of a newly-identified seismic zone 5 (Ramapo Fault) running from Stamford, Connecticut, to Peekskill, New York. It appears 6 that this information was not included in the draft SEIS. We recommend that NRC 7 include and analyze any new geologic and seismic data in the final SEIS, particularly 8 concerning recent seismic activity occurring in the northern New Jersey-New York 9 metropolitan region.
10 9-c-LE/OE/PA/RW, 10-d-OE/PA, 13-c-PA/SF/ST, 32-a-AM/OP/PA, 51-a-HH/PA/UF, 55-e-PA, 11 55-f-AE/PA/RW, 71-b-OE/PA, 76-b-ORlPA, 79-j-HH, 87-b-HH/PA/RW/ST, 97-g-EP/OE/PA, 12 102-j-OE/PA, 124-b-EJ/EP/HH/PA, 129-e-SM; 140-ii-SM; 162-d-GW/LE/PA, 164-a-OE/PA/ST, 13 174-d-PA, 179-c-PA, 180-e-OE/PA, and 183-c-EP/HH/PA 14 The following comments assert that, given the proximity of the Indian Point site to the 15 Ramapo Fault, the NRC should provide a site-specific analysis of whether the dry casks 16 and the spent fuel pools would be able to withstand a significant earthquake.
17 10-a-OE/PA; 20-a-PA/SF/ST; 96-j-LRIPA/RW; 129-e-SM; 140-ii-SM 18 Response: Insofar as these comments raise a safety issue, these comments are not unique to 19 the license renewal action; rather, they pertain to the current operating license and are being 20 addressed as a part of the current operating license reactor oversight process. The NRC staff is 21 aware that recent updates to seismic data and models indicate that estimates of the earthquake 22 hazard at some nuclear plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) may be 23 larger than previous estimates. Based on a preliminary review of the updated seismic data and 24 models, the NRC staff concluded that the seismic hazards remain small in an absolute sense 25 and that the currently operating plants in the CEUS remain safe. Nevertheless, the NRC staff 26 determined that the recent data and models warrant further study and analysis. Those activities 27 have been initiated and are being pursued under the Generic Issue Program (GIP) as Generic 28 Issue 199, "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and 29 United States on Existing Plants." This issue is now in the Safety/Risk Assessment stage of the 30 GIP, in which the NRC staff is collecting and analyzing hazard information from the US 31 Geological Survey and other sources, and developing an up-to-date understanding of the 32 seismic spectra at each site. Should the NRC staff evaluations determine the seismic risk 33 increase exceeds established safety values, GI-199 will proceed to the Regulatory Assessment 34 stage of the GIP, where appropriate regulatory actions would be identified.
35 Insofar as the comments suggest that a seismic event during the period of license renewal 36 could result in environmental impacts, such impacts were considered as part of the SEIS 37 discussion of severe accidents initiated by external phenomena and by the GElS in its "Review 38 of Existing Impacts." As discussed in section 5.1.2 of the draft SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated 39 the risk of beyond-design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants, and determined 40 that the risk from such events is SMALL; further, the NRC determined that the risks from other 41 external events are adequately addressed by the generic consideration of internally-generated 42 severe accidents in the GElS, and that this issue should be considered on a site-specific basis 43 in a plant's SAMA analysis. Entergy's SAMA analysis included a search for mitigation 44 measures for accident scenarios initiated by fire and seismic external events (see section G.2.2 45 of the draft SEIS). In addition, Entergy increased the benefit derived from the internal event 46 PRA by a multiplication factor to account for the combined contribution from internal and 47 external events. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information with December 2010 A-123 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00559
Appendix A 1 regard to the environmental consequences of a severe accident at IP2 and IP3, including 2 externally-initiated accidents. The comment provides no new and significant information; 3 therefore no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
4 5 The following comments assert that the Indian Point plant and spent fuel are potential 6 targets of a terrorist attack based upon their proximity to the New York City metropolitan 7 area; they also assert that the draft SEIS ignores the possibility - as well as the possible 8 effects on the environment and public health - of another terrorist attack.
9 13-c-PA/SF/ST, 38-b-PA/RW/ST, 39-c-PA/ST, 50-m-PA/ST, 87-b-HH/PA/RW/ST, 102-d-10 OW/PA/ST, 128-r-SM/UF; 129-0-SM 11 12 Response: The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented 13 initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of 14 aircraft against commercial nuclear power facilities and independent spent fuel storage 15 installations. While these are legitimate matters of concern, they will continue to be addressed 16 through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all 17 nuclear facilities and many of the activities conducted at nuclear facilities. The issue of security 18 and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power facilities is not unique to facilities that have 19 requested a renewal of their licenses. In the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding, the 20 Commission affirmed that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) imposes no legal duty 21 to consider malevolent acts in conjunction with license renewal (CLI-10-14). In any event, the 22 NRC performed a discretionary analysis of terrorism in developing the GElS. The NRC 23 concluded that core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse than 24 the damage and release from internally initiated events. The comment is outside the scope of a 25 plant-specific license renewal review; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response 26 to this comment.
27 28 The following comments assert that the draft SEIS fails to address the effects of a spent 29 fuel pool fire at Indian Point, in particular, the release of cesium-137 from the spent fuel 30 pools.
31 13-d-PA/SF, 89-a-HH/PA/SF; 140-hh-SM 32 33 Response: As noted by the ASLB in LBP-08-13, "spent fuel pool fires are Category 1 34 environmental issues and are addressed generically in the GElS for license renewal. The 35 Commission reaffirmed this designation in Vermont Yankee/Pilgrim" (CLI-07-3). The 36 Commission has subsequently reviewed two related petitions for rulemaking seeking to overturn 37 this classification, and has denied these petitions on the basis that the risk of a fire is very low.
38 As such, a plant-specific analysis of the effects of a spent fuel pool fire is not required. Spent 39 fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls and 40 possess a stainless steel liner. They contain enormous quantities of water, and as a result for 41 most events, plant operators would have significant amounts of time to correct any problems. In 42 addition, nuclear plants possess many other sources of cooling water that are readily available 43 for cooling spent fuel. Recently, the Commission reiterated that a mSAMA that addresses [spent 44 fuel pool] accidents would not be expected to have a significant risk for the site' because the 45 spent fuel pool accident 'risk level is less than that for a reactor accident." (CLI-10-14). The I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-124 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00560
Appendix A 1 comment is outside the scope of a plant-specific license renewal review; therefore, no changes 2 were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
3 4 The following comment asserts that the DSEIS (in Section 5.1.2) acknowledges that 5 "[s]evere nuclear accidents .. , such as ... floods, earthquakes, fires, and sabotage, 6 traditionally have not been discussed in quantitative terms in [past environmental 7 documents] and were not specifically considered for IP2 and IP3 in the GElS." This 8 section continues, however, to note that NRC did evaluate impact assessments at 44 9 other nuclear plants and concluded that the risk from these types of events at those 10 plants is small.
11 17-e-NE/PA 12 13 Response: In the GElS (Section 5.3.3.1), the Commission concluded that the risk from 14 sabotage and beyond-design-basis events at existing nuclear power plants is small, and 15 additionally, that the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic 16 consideration of internally-initiated severe accident. These conclusions were based on the 17 results of detailed external event probabilistic risk assessments for a limited number of plants, 18 together with additional rationale that supports the extrapolation of the findings to the entire 19 population of plants. Based on the information in the GElS, the Commission found that the 20 probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, 21 releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small 22 for all plants, and codified this result in 10 CFR Part 51. Thus, the Commission addressed 23 these impacts in the GElS.
24 It should be noted that the statement in the OSEIS that "severe accidents initiated by external 25 phenomena ... were not specifically considered for IP2 and IP3 in the GElS" is not completely 26 correct. As indicated on page 5-17 of the GElS, the NRC staff reviewed or performed detailed 27 probabilistic assessments of external events for a number of plants, including IP2 and IP3. This 28 statement will be corrected in the FSEIS.
29 30 The following comments assert that the population density around Indian Point is much 31 higher than that around any other nuclear power station in the country. An accident at 32 Indian Point would have a potentially much greater impact on human health and safety 33 than a similar event at a nuclear power station in a less urbanized part of the country.
34 The Draft SEIS does not adequately consider the millions of lives that would be 35 destroyed in the event of a disaster, or the population growth at Indian Point. Because 36 the magnitude of these impacts does not parallel the situation at other reactors, the SEIS 37 must address questions of risk that are ruled out in the GElS.
38 17-f-PA, 17-n-EP/PA/ST, 50-b-DE/PA, 50-c-PA, 50-h-DE/PA, 97-f-DE/OE/PA, 122-a-39 DE/PA/ST, 170-c-DE/PA, 170-f-HH/PA/UF 40 41 The following comments assert that the environmental impact statement needs to 42 consider operation of an aging nuclear facility within a highly populated area and include 43 modeling to determine the possible outcome of accidents.
44 22-a-HH/OR/OS/PA, 145-a-AM/PA, 171-b-PA/ST 45 December 2010 A-125 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00561
Appendix A 1 Response: The methodology used in the GElS to predict the environmental impacts of 2 postulated accidents accounts for the site-specific population within 50-miles of each nuclear 3 power plant including Indian Point, and the projected growth of this population through the 4 license renewal period (year 2030 for Indian Point). See GElS Chapter 5. Based on this 5 methodology, it was recognized that plant sites with larger populations, such as Indian Point, 6 have a larger number of persons at risk for a given severe accident release, and that an 7 accident would have higher impacts on human health and safety than a similar event at a 8 nuclear power station in a less urbanized part of the country. Thus, the issue of large population 9 size was considered in the GElS. Moreover, the population in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 was 10 fullly considered in Entergy's SAMA analysis, which utilizes the projected population to 11 determine the potential costs associated with severe accidents. The comments provide no new 12 or significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these 13 comments. These comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, no 14 changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.
15 16 The following comment asserts that the probability of an accident, no matter how remote, 17 does not diminish the severity of an accident should it occur. Therefore, weighting the 18 severity as a function of probability is meaningless. Unless it can be shown that the 19 probability is really zero, then the consequences pertain, and they need to be fully 20 described, analyzed, and mitigated.
21 50-j-EJ/PA 22 23 Response: The GElS provides an evaluation of the environmental impacts of two classes of 24 postulated accidents - design basis accidents and severe accidents. Design basis accidents 25 are those that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant meets 26 acceptable design and performance criteria. The results of these accidents are not 27 probabilistically-weighted since they are considered to be within the scope of the licensing 28 basis, and can be expected to occur within the lifetime of the population of operating plants.
29 Severe accidents are events beyond the design basis of the plant. Although the environmental 30 consequences of severe accidents can be substantially greater than for design basis accidents, 31 the likelihood of severe accidents is extremely small. Thus, the GElS presents the 32 environmental impacts of severe accidents in a risk context, wherein risk is expressed as the 33 product of the frequency of the event and the consequences of the event. This same approach 34 was used to address the environmental impacts of severe accidents in plant-specific final 35 environmental statement (FES) reports published since 1980 (see GElS Section 5.3.3.1). This 36 approach does not diminish the severity of an accident, but presents this information from a risk 37 perspective so that severe accident risks can be compared with that for other risks. The 38 comment is outside the scope of a plant-specific license renewal review; therefore no changes 39 were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
40 41 The following comments assert that the fact that the draft SEIS examines mitigation for 42 accidents but not the consequences of accidents is inappropriate, and the brief 43 treatment of different scenarios in Tables 5.3 - 5.4 falls short of meeting the need for 44 analysis of accidents. This section must be expanded in the final SEIS to present a 45 thorough analysis of what it would mean for the affected populations should any of the 46 potential event scenarios unfold.
47 50-k-PA, 50-I-HH/PA, 50-m-PA/ST, 155-b-PA NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-126 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00562
Appendix A 1
2 Response: A detailed discussion of accident consequences is presented in Section 5.2 of the 3 GElS. This includes consideration of multiple exposure pathways (i.e., atmospheric releases, 4 fallout onto open bodies of water, and groundwater releases), and additional risk metrics (e.g.,
5 early and latent fatalities, economic impacts, and land contamination). The GElS concluded 6 that the probabilistically-weighted consequences due to severe accidents are of small 7 significance for all plants. Thus, these consequences need not be addressed in the SEIS.
8 The ER and SEIS do include additional, plant-specific information regarding the frequency and 9 consequences of severe accidents as part of the severe accident mitigation alternatives 10 analysis. See, e.g., SEIS Chapter 5. However, the scope of the consequence information 11 presented therein is limited to that which is necessary to assess the risk reduction associated 12 with candidate design alternatives in accordance with established NRC regulatory analysis 13 guidelines. The comment is outside the scope of a plant-specific license renewal review; 14 therefore no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
15 16 A.2.10Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 17 The following comments assert that the draft SEIS notes that some SAMAs were 18 potentially cost beneficial, but need not be implemented as part of license renewal 19 pursuant to 10 CFR 54 because they do not relate to adequately managing the effects of 20 aging during the re-licensing period. An EIS must rigorously explore and objectively 21 evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and not defer their further analysis to some 22 undetermined point in the future. We urge Entergy to continue to refine and implement 23 these alternatives as they appear to be cost beneficial and would mitigate the impact of a 24 severe accident should one occur.
25 26 55-d-SM, 137-b-GW/PA/RW/SF, 137-f-ALILE/PA/RF/SF, 137-i-PA, 170-d-PA/SM 27 28 Response: The SAMA analysis constitutes a systematic and comprehensive process for 29 identifying potential plant improvements, evaluating the implementation costs and risk reduction 30 for each SAMA, and determining which SAMAs may be cost beneficial to implement. . The 31 analysis is technically rigorous and consistent with the NEPA expectation that federal agencies 32 take a "hard-look" at the environmental impacts of their proposed actions, including 33 consideration of viable alternatives. If a SAMA is determined to be potentially cost beneficial but 34 is not related to adequately managing the effects of aging during the re-licensing period, it is not 35 required to be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Further 36 refinement beyond determining whether a SAMA is potentially cost beneficial is not necessary 37 for an objective evaluation. Nevertheless, potentially cost-beneficial alternatives are identified 38 and considered as part of the license renewal process, and licensees often commit to further 39 evaluate the most promising cost-beneficial SAMAs among those that have been identified, for 40 possible future implementation in order to further reduce plant risk, as Entergy has done for 41 Indian Point. Such a commitment to perform a further evaluation is not a condition of granting a 42 renewed license. Accordingly, a license renewal applicant's decision to defer this further 43 evaluation of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs which it has identified, to some point in the 44 future (i.e., outside the license renewal SAMA review), is acceptable. The comments provide no 45 new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made in the SEIS in response to 46 this comment.
47 48 December 2010 A-127 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00563
Appendix A 1 The following comment assert that the SAMA analysis in the DSEIS is defective because 2 it incorporated an outdated air dispersion model (Le., the A TMOS air dispersion module 3 in the MACCS2 computer code) that will not accurately predict the dispersion of 4 radionuclides traversing a complex terrain over long distances. An accurate SAMA 5 analysis depends on the accuracy of the estimates of human exposure to radiation from 6 a severe accident, which in turn depends on the validity of air dispersion models used to 7 predict the manner in which radiation will be geographically dispersed through the 8 atmosphere. A TMOS's simplistic assumptions directly affect its ability to accurately 9 model the dispersion of radioactivity from the Indian Point plant.
10 11 97-e-PA,129-m-SM 12 Response: The MACCS2 code was developed under NRC sponsorship for use in evaluating 13 the potential impacts of severe accidents at nuclear power plants on the surrounding public.
14 The MACCS2 code considers, among other things, phenomena related to atmospheric transport 15 and deposition under time variant meteorology, short- and long-term mitigative actions, potential 16 exposure pathways, deterministic and stochastic health effects, and economic costs. The NRC 17 is aware of no model other than the MACCS2 code that fully addresses each factor completely.
18 The issue of concern in a SAMA analysis is not the results of a single meteorological data trial 19 but the results of numerous meteorological trials that provide the mean dispersion over the 20 entire 50-mile radius. In this regard, the atmospheric transport model used in MACCS2 has 21 been found to generally perform as well as several more modern atmospheric transport models 22 (Ref NUREG/CR-6853), and within the level of accuracy of other portions of the analysis. As 23 such, the MACCS2 model has proven its acceptability for the purpose of conducting a SAMA 24 analysis. The adequacy of the atmospheric transport model used in the MACCS2 code was 25 raised in a contention filed by the State of New York in the license renewal adjudicatory 26 proceeding. The contention includes the criticisms mentioned above and has been admitted for 27 litigation by the ASLB. Additional discussion of the atmospheric transport model and its impact 28 on the SAMA analysis has been provided in Section G.2.3 of Appendix G of the FSEIS.
29 30 The following comment asserts that the projections of the 2035 population likely to be 31 living within 50 miles of Indian Point, on which the SAMA analysis is based, appear to 32 underestimate the potential exposed population. It was projected that in 2035 the 33 population of New York County (Manhattan) will be 1,570,657, whereas data from the U.S.
34 Census estimates that in 2007 Manhattan's population was 1,620,867 - over 50,000 more 35 than Entergy asserts would be at risk 29 years later.
36 37 129-m-SM 38 39 Response: A concern regarding the adequacy of the population projections used in the SAMA 40 analysis was raised in a contention filed by the State of New York in the license renewal 41 adjudicatory proceeding. The contention includes the criticisms mentioned above and has been 42 admitted for litigation by the ASLB. Additional discussion of the population projections and their 43 impact on the SAMA analysis has been provided in Section G.2.3 of Appendix G to the FSEIS.
44 45 46 The following comment asserts that the cost formula contained in the MACCS2 computer 47 program underestimates the decontamination costs likely to be incurred as a result of a 48 dispersion of radiation. The NRC Staff should use the analytical framework contained in 49 the 1996 Sandia National Laboratories report concerning site restoration costs (D.
50 Chanin and W. Murfin, "Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs from 51 Plutonium-Dispersal Accidents," SAND96-0957). The NRC Staff should revise the Sandia NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-128 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00564
Appendix A 1 results for the densely populated and developed New York City area, incorporate the 2 region's property values, and ensure that the resulting financial costs are expressed in 3 present value and future value.
4 5 129-n-SM 6
7 Response: A concern regarding the adequacy of the decontamination cost estimates used in 8 the SAMA analysis was raised in a contention filed by the State of New York in the license 9 renewal adjudicatory proceeding. The contention includes the criticisms mentioned above and 10 has been admitted for litigation by the ASLB. Additional discussion of the decontamination cost 11 estimates and their impact on the SAMA analysis has been provided in Section G.2.3 of 12 Appendix G to the FSEIS.
13 14 The following comments assert that the SAMA assessment is flawed because it fails to 15 consider the risks and the contribution to severe accident costs from intentional attacks 16 on Indian Point. Conventional PRA techniques can be adapted for this analysis by 17 postulating an initiating event (malicious act) and then examining the outcomes of that 18 event. The SAMA assessment should address National Infrastructure Protection Plan 19 principles for increasing the inherent robustness of infrastructure facilities against 20 attack, and should consider the mitigation measures recommended by the 2006 NAS 21 Study to reduce the risk of impacts from intentional attacks, including: additional 22 surveillance to detect and/or thwart attacks, creating earthen berms to protect casks 23 from aircraft strikes, placing visual barriers around storage pads to prevent targeting of 24 individual casks, re-spacing the casks to reduce likelihood of cask-to-cask interactions 25 in the event of aircraft attack, and implementing design changes to newly manufactured 26 casks to improve cask resistance to attack.
27 28 128-r-SM/UF, 140-bb-SM, 140-jj-SM 29 30 Response: The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented 31 initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the 32 malevolent use of aircraft against commercial nuclear power facilities and independent spent 33 fuel storage installations. The NRC has required, and nuclear power plants have implemented, 34 various security and mitigation measures that, along with the robust nature of nuclear power 35 plants and spent fuel pools, make the probability of a successful terrorist attack (i.e., one that 36 causes the release of a large amount of radioactive material into the environment) very low. In 37 the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding, the Commission affirmed that NEPA imposes no legal 38 duty to consider malevolent acts in conjunction with license renewal (CLI-1 0-14). In any event, 39 the NRC performed a discretionary analysis of terrorism in developing the GElS. The NRC 40 concluded that core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse than 41 the damages and release from internally initiated events. Thus, on this basis the NRC staff 42 finds that the environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear power plant license, in regard to a 43 terrorist attack, are not significant. The comment provides no new and significant information; 44 therefore no changes were made in the SEIS in response to this comment.
45 46 The following comments assert that the SAMA analysis in the draft SEIS is incomplete 47 because it did not consider the contribution to severe accident costs from a fire in either 48 of the SFPs at Indian Point. No SAMAs that would avoid or mitigate such costs have 49 been identified. If the costs of SFP fires were considered, the value of SAMAs would be 50 significant.
51 December 2010 A-129 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00565
Appendix A 1 102-I-NE/OE/PA, 128-r-SM/UF, 140-cc-SM, 147-b-NE/OE/PA, and 174-e-NE/OE/PA 2
3 Response: The objective of the SAMA evaluation is to identify and evaluate potential plant 4 improvements that provide the greatest level of risk reduction in a cost-beneficial manner. The 5 focus of SAMA evaluations is on reactor accidents because reactor accidents account for the 6 majority of the severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant facility. Previous studies show that 7 the risk associated with spent fuel pool accidents and dry cask storage accidents is 8 considerably less than that for reactor accidents (e.g., NUREG-1738 and NUREG-1864). Given 9 that a spent fuel pool accident risk is considerably less than that for a reactor accident, a SAMA 10 that addresses spent fuel accidents would not be expected to have a significant impact on total 11 risk for the site. Additional mitigation strategies implemented subsequent to September 11, 2001 12 further reduce the risk from SFP fires by enhancing spent fuel coolability and the ability to 13 recover SFP water level and cooling prior to a potential SFP fire, and make it even more unlikely 14 that additional SFP safety enhancements could substantially reduce risk or be cost-beneficial.
15 Further, as the Commission recently observed in the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding, the 16 GElS determined that the impacts of onsite spent fuel storage, including spent fuel pool 17 accidents, are "small" and constitute a Category 1 issue for which site-specific consideration in a 18 license renewal proceeding is not required (CLI-10-14). The comments provide no new and 19 significant information; therefore no changes were made in the SEIS in response to this 20 comment.
21 22 The following comment asserts that the SAMA analysis in the draft SEIS underestimates 23 the potential for containment bypass during a core-damage accident. In light of current 24 knowledge about severe reactor accidents, it is prudent to assume that all accident 25 sequences that proceed to core damage with a dry secondary side and at high reactor 26 coolant system pressure would result in induced failure of steam generator tubes, and 27 that one or more of the secondary side safety valves downstream of the affected steam 28 generator(s) would remain open after tube failure. This would significantly increase the 29 conditional probability of an Early High release from that used in the ER. If the economic 30 benefit of averted containment bypass accidents were appropriately considered, a 31 number of SAMAs rejected as too costly would be cost-effective.
32 33 140-dd-SM 34 35 Response: The proposed assumptions are bounding in nature, and fail to acknowledge that 36 only a portion of the accidents that proceed to core melt with high primary side pressure and a 37 dry secondary side would be expected to result in an induced SGTR. In many sequences, other 38 reactor coolant system (RCS) piping components are estimated to fail prior to (or very close to) 39 the estimated time of SG tube rupture, thereby depressurizing the RCS and reducing the 40 potential for an induced SGTR. Use of bounding assumptions is inconsistent with Commission 41 policy on the use of PRA evaluations in support of regulatory decisions which states that such 42 PRAs should be as realistic as practicable. Nevertheless, the impact of assuming a 43 substantially higher probability of induced steam generator tube rupture was assessed as part of 44 Entergy's SAMA evaluation. As described in Section G.6.2 of Appendix G of the SEIS, no 45 additional cost beneficial SAMAs were identified as a result of this assessment. The comment 46 provides no new and significant information; therefore no changes were made in the SEIS in 47 response to this comment.
48 49 The following comment asserts that the source term used to estimate the consequences 50 of the most severe accidents with early containment failure was based on radionuclide 51 release fractions generated by the MAAP code, and is smaller than that specified in NRC NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-130 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00566
Appendix A 1 guidance such as NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light- Water Nuclear Power 2 Plants (1995) and the NRC's recent reevaluation for high-burnup fuel, ERI/NRC 02-202, 3 Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants. High Burnup and MOX 4 Fuels (2002).
5 6 140-ee-SM 7
8 Response: The source terms (radionuclide release fractions) described in the referenced 9 documents were developed primarily to support reactor siting criteria wherein substantial 10 meltdown into containment is postulated and the containment is assumed to leak at its 11 maximum allowable leak rate. These source terms do not account for fission product removal, 12 such as would occur if the release were into the containment (e.g., fission product removal by 13 containment sprays), or if the release were the result of a SGTR event (e.g., fission product 14 deposition within the primary system piping and within the steam generators). As such, use of 15 the source terms proposed by the commenter represents a very conservative (non-realistic),
16 essentially bounding estimate of releases to the environment for the "early high" release 17 category. Use of bounding assumptions is inconsistent with Commission policy on the use of 18 PRA evaluations in support of regulatory decisions which states that such PRAs should be as 19 realistic as practicable. In fact, the radionuclide release fractions calculated by the MAAP code 20 for SGTR events (which dominate the "early high" release category) are in generally good 21 agreement with those calculated by NRC-sponsored codes, as indicated in the NRC staff's 22 review of the Indian Point Individual Plant Examination. The comment provides no new and 23 significant information; therefore no changes were made in the SEIS in response to this 24 comment.
25 26 The following comment asserts that the SAMA analysis significantly underestimated 27 offsite costs resulting from a severe accident at Indian Point because it failed to 28 adequately consider the uncertainties in its consequence calculations resulting from 29 meteorological variations.
30 31 140-ff-SM 32 33 Response: To account for potential uncertainties in the SAMA analysis, estimated benefits for 34 each SAMA were increased by a multiplier of approximately 2 based on the ratio of the 95th 35 percentile core damage frequency to the mean core damage frequency. The comment fails to 36 recognize that: (1) there are additional conservatisms in other parts of the analysis, specifically, 37 the risk reduction estimates and the cost estimates, (2) the SAMA analysis is a probabilistic 38 assessment of a broad range of accident sequences, meteorological conditions and other 39 pertinent factors rather than an assessment of one accident under a single set of meteorological 40 conditions, and (3) combining the estimated uncertainties in each step of the SAMA evaluation 41 would result in an over-estimate of the uncertainties, and could lead to inappropriate decisions 42 regarding whether a SAMA would realistically be cost-beneficial. Consistent with the use of risk 43 methods and uncertainties in other regulatory applications, the SAMA analysis is based on best 44 estimate (mean value) risk estimates, but considers the potential impact of uncertainties on the 45 results of the evaluation, i.e., whether additional SAMAs would be cost-beneficial given the 46 uncertainties. Although on its surface a multiplier of about 2 may appear small relative to the 47 uncertainties in other parts of the analysis, the staff considers the margin adequate to cover 48 those uncertainties, since the risk reduction and cost estimates were evaluated in a 49 conservative manner. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore no 50 changes were made in the SEIS in response to this comment.
51 December 2010 A-131 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00567
Appendix A 1 The following comment asserts that the SAMA analysis significantly underestimated 2 offsite costs of a severe accident because it inappropriately used a $2,OOO/person-rem 3 dose conversion factor. The $2,OOO/person-rem conversion factor is intended to 4 represent the costs associated with stochastic health effects (Le., fatal cancers, nonfatal 5 cancers, and hereditary effects), and does not account for the costs associated with 6 deterministic effects (Le., early fatalities from acute radiation exposure). The total cost of 7 latent cancer fatalities could also be higher because some members of the public will 8 receive doses above the threshold level for application of a dose- and dose-rate 9 reduction effectiveness factor. These deficiencies undervalue the offsite costs of severe 10 accidents and the benefits of SAMAs that would mitigate the environmental impacts of 11 severe accidents.
12 13 140-ff-SM 14 15 Response: The NRC staff estimates that the costs associated with deterministic health effects 16 would be less than 3 percent of the costs of stochastic health effects estimated using the $2000 17 per person-rem dose conversion. Thus, the inclusion of deterministic health effects, while 18 consistent with the regulatory guidance in NUREG-1530, would have a negligible impact on the 19 results of the SAMA analysis. The comment provides no new and significant information; 20 therefore no changes were made in the SEIS in response to this comment.
21 22 The following comment asserts that the NRC should be more vigilant in assessing cost 23 measures and not engage in a pro forma, deferential analysis of the costs of safety 24 design measures provided by the plant owner.
25 26 170-d-PA/SM 27 28 Response: The NRC Staff did not engage in a pro forma, deferential analysis of the cost 29 estimates provided by the licensee. Rather, the Staff reviewed the bases for the licensee's cost 30 estimates and also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar 31 improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees' SAMA analyses.
32 Where Entergy's cost estimates appeared high, the Staff obtained additional information and 33 justification for the values. The Staff concluded that the cost estimates provided by Entergy 34 were reasonable and consistent with estimates provided in other license renewal applications.
35 The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore no changes were made in 36 the SEIS in response to this comment.
37 38 The following comments assert that editorial corrections should be made in the FSEIS.
39 The NRC Staff's review of the comments led the Staff to conclude that certain editorial 40 corrections should be made to the FSEIS, and are indicated in the category "Editorial 41 Comments - To Be Addressed in FSEIS" below. Other comments were rejected by the 42 NRC Staff, as indicated in the category "Editorial Comments - Not applicable" below, 43 where the comment was determined to be incorrect, insignificant, inconsistent, 44 confusing, and/or adequately addressed elsewhere.
45 46 SAMA Editorial Changes Incorporated in the SEIS:
47 48 Page 5-6, Table 5-3. The last entry for IP3 (loss of essential service water) should be 1.8x10-8 49 rather than 1.9x1 0-8 . [40-ww-EO/SM]
50 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-132 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00568
Appendix A 1 Page G-3, Table G-1. The last entry for IP3 (loss of essential service water) should be 1.8x1 0-8 2 rather than 1.9x1 0-8 . [40-III-EO/SM]
3 4 Page G-14, line 5-6. Parenthetical information indicates that gas turbine and AFW components 5 are located in 'sheet metal clad structures'. It should list EOG components rather than AFW 6 components. ER Section E.1.3.3.1 indicates that the high wind analysis resulted in proposal of 7 an enhancement to upgrade the EOG building. [40-III-EO/SM]
8 9 Page G-17, line 22-25. Change the text to read "The information was derived from 10 Westinghouse Electric Company, Core Radiation Sources to Support IP2 Power Uprate Project, 11 CN-REA-03-4 (3/7/2005), and Westinghouse Electric Company, Core Radiation Sources to 12 Support IP3 Stretch Power Uprate (SPU) Project, CN-REA-03-40 (5/19/2005)". (See the 13 response to RAI 4a in reference Entergy 2008A.) [40-III-EO/SM]
14 15 Page G-21, line 32-34. Text states that a modification to replace the existing gas turbines with 16 an IP2 SBO/Appendix R diesel is planned for the near future. In fact, installation of this diesel 17 was made a condition of acceptance of the LRA for review. The diesel was installed and 18 operational prior to 4/30/08. See Entergy letter NL-08-074, Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, 19 Amendment 4 to License Renewal Application (LRA), April 30, 2008 (ML081280491). [40-111-20 EO/SM]
21 22 Page G-32, line 31-33. The overall multiplier shown has been rounded to one decimal place for 23 each unit: "(i.e. 3.8x2.1=8.0 for IP2 and 5.5xI.4=7.7 for IP3)". While not incorrect, this does 24 create a slight apparent disconnect with the description, which states that the multiplier of 8 25 slightly exceeds the (actual calculated value). Suggest keeping the second decimal (as follows) 26 to provide some clarification: "(i.e., 3.80x2.10=7.98 for IP2 and 5.53x1.40=7.73 for IP3)". [40-111-27 EO/SM]
28 29 SAMA Editorial Changes Not Incorporated in the SEIS 30 31 Page 5-7, Table 5-4. The entries for In-vessel steam explosion for IP2 and IP3 are 1 and 0, 32 respectively. This appears to be due to rounding up or down at 0.5%. However, this is not 33 consistent with the treatment for Intact Containment and may lead to confusion since the 34 percentages for IP2,no longer add up to 100%. Suggest that the percentage for In-vessel steam 35 Explosion be shown as "<1" for both IP2 and IP3. [40-ww-EO/SM]
36 37 Page 5-7, Table 5-4. The total population dose for I P3 is 24.5 rather than 24.3. Suggest 38 changing "22.0" and "24.3" to "22" and "24" for IP2 and IP3, respectively. [40-ww-EO/SM]
39 40 Page 5-8, Line 30-34. The OSEIS states that Entergy identified 5 potentially cost-beneficial 41 SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and two additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs (44 42 and 56) when uncertainties are considered. ER Table 4-4 (page 4-74) indicates that SAMA 28 43 was not cost-beneficial without accounting for uncertainty. The FSEIS should state that Entergy 44 identified 4 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and three 45 additional (28, 44, and 56) when uncertainties are considered. [40-ww-EO/SM]
46 47 Page 5-9, Line 11-14. See comment for pages 5-8, lines 30-34. For consistency with SAMAs 48 44 and 56, SAMA 28 should be annotated "(cost beneficial with uncertainties)". [40-ww-EO/SM]
49 50 Page G-4, Table G-2. The entries for In-vessel steam explosion for IP2 and IP3 are 1 and 0, 51 respectively. This appears to be due to rounding up or down at 0.5%. However, this is not December 2010 A-133 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00569
Appendix A 1 consistent with the treatment for Intact Containment and may lead to confusion since the 2 percentages for IP2 no longer add up to 100%. Suggest that the percentage for In-vessel steam 3 Explosion be shown as "<1" for both IP2 and IP3. [40-III-EO/SM]
4 5 Page G-4, Table G-2. The total population dose for IP3 is 24.5 rather than 24.3. Suggest 6 changing "22.0" and "24.3" to "22" and "24" for IP2 and IP3, respectively. [40-III-EO/SM]
7 8 Page G-25, Table G-6. Change population dose risk reduction from "18" to "1' for IP2 SAMA 9 56. The value is 0.45 (see ER Table E.2-2). [40-III-EO/SM]
10 11 Page G-25, Table G-6. Change population dose risk reduction from "20" to "40" for IP2 SAMA 12 65. The value is 40.45 (see ER Table E.2-2). [40-III-EO/SM]
13 14 Page G-30, line 10-15. Text states that Entergy identified 5 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 15 for IP2 in the baseline analysis and two additional (44 and 56) when uncertainties are 16 considered. ER Table 4-4 (pg 4-74) indicates that SAMA 158 G-30 10-1528 was not cost-17 beneficial without accounting for uncertainty. FSEIS should state that Entergy identified 4 18 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and three additional (28, 44, 19 and 56) when uncertainties are considered. [40-III-EO/SM]
20 21 Page G-30, line 25-28. See comment #158 for page G-30, lines 10-15. For consistency with 22 SAMAs 44 and 56, SAMA 28 should be annotated "(cost beneficial with uncertainties)". [40-111-23 EO/SM]
24 25 A.2.11 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues 26 The following comments raise concerns about the long term storage of spent fuel in 27 spent fuel pools and dry casks, and state that the risk is greater than described in the 28 draft SEIS. Also, they generally assert that, because of radioactive waste leaks, there 29 should be increased inspection of the sources of nuclear waste leakage and their effects 30 on current and future human health:
31 9-c-LE/PA/RW; 11-e-RW/ST; 12-e-RW/ST; 17-r-EP/GI/RI; 20-a-PA/SF/ST; 38-g-RW; 47-c-32 RW; 61-a-LE/RW/ST; 63-b-RW; 72-a-EP/LE/ORlRW; 80-a-EP/ORIRW/ST; 80-b-33 LE/RW/SF/ST; 87-b-HH/PA/RW/ST; 91-e-ORIRW/ST; 106-a AE/LE/RW/SF; 123-e-RW/SF; 34 126-a-OE/RW/SF/ST 35 Response: A generic assessment of the radiological and nonradiological environmental 36 impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes is contained in 37 10 CFR Part 51, Tables S-3 and S-4, respectively. 10 CFR Part 51.51(a) states in part, "Every 38 environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-water-coo/ed nuclear 39 power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of 40 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the 41 environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, 42 isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive 43 materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fue/-
44 cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor." The 45 information, with the exception of Radon-222 (Rn-222), Technetium-99 (Tc-99), provides the 46 basis for the environmental information provided by applicants and must be used at individual 47 licensing proceedings for the construction of light-water reactors. The GElS for license renewal NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-134 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00570
Appendix A 1 supplements the data on environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-2 3 and of transportation of radioactive wastes presented in Table S-4 to to extend the evaluation 3 of impacts to Rn-222, Tc-99, higher fuel enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and license renewal for 4 an additional 20 years of operation. The data in Table S-3 were developed to represent the 5 worst case on bounding estimates of the potential releases from the uranium fuel cycle while 6 still being in compliance with NRC regulatory limits. The GElS for license renewal provides a 7 review of regulatory requirements of the various stages of the fuel cycle, including detailed 8 discussions of the on-site and off-site requirements. The storage and disposal of spent fuel, 9 low-level radioactive waste, and mixed waste storage and the radiological and Nonradiological 10 impacts to the environment are also discussed.
11 Based on the information contained in the GElS for license renewal, the Commission 12 concluded that the impacts from the uranium fuel cycle are SMALL except for the off-site 13 radiological collective impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 14 disposal, which the Commission concluded, are acceptable.
15 The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to the uranium fuel 16 cycle during its review of the IP2 and IP3 environmental report, the site audit, and the scoping 17 process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the 18 GElS for license renewal.
19 The NRC ensures that nuclear power plants are operated safely within radiation protection 20 requirements; the NRC does this by licensing the plants and the plant operators, and 21 establishing license conditions for the safe operation of each plant. The NRC provides 22 continuous oversight of plants through its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to verify that they 23 are being operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The NRC has authority to take action 24 to protect public health and safety and may demand immediate licensee actions, up to and 25 including a plant shutdown. The NRC currently inspects existing radioactive waste handling and 26 storage facilities at IPEC. Security issues for the facility and all radioactive material are also 27 part of the ROP which the NRC provides continuous oversight.
28 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 29 the final SEIS.
30 The following comment asserts that nuclear power has significant environmental 31 impacts, specifically from uranium mining and discharges of radioactive effluents into 32 the atmosphere and groundwater from nuclear power plants:
33 13-e-RW/UF 34 Response: The comment is noted. The SEIS, in chapter 6, contains a discussion of the 35 impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and greenhouse gas emissions. The SEIS, in chapters 2 36 and 4, contains an evaluation of the impacts to human health from radioactive emissions from 37 IPEG. The Human Health and Leaks comment response sections also contain information on 38 the impacts from radioactive effluents.
39 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 40 the final SEIS.
41 The following comments raise concerns about the safe transportation of radioactive 42 waste in the public domain:
December 2010 A-135 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS71
Appendix A 1 35-c-AM/RW; 84-a-RW 2 Response: The transportation of radioactive waste is evaluated in chapter 6 of the SEIS and 3 in chapter 6 of the GElS for license renewal. The GElS addresses both the radiological and 4 nonradiological environmental impacts resulting from shipments of low-level radioactive waste 5 (LLIIV) and mixed waste to off-site disposal facilities and of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable 6 storage or permanent repository. The nonradiological impacts are traffic density, weight of the 7 loaded truck or railcar, heat from the fuel cask, and transportation accidents. The radiological 8 impacts include possible exposures of transport workers and the general public along 9 transportation routes. Radiation exposure to these groups also may occur through accidents 10 along transportation corridors.
11 In addition, Table S-4 in 10 CFR Part 51 lists the environmental impacts of transportation of 12 spent fuel and waste to and from a nuclear power reactor.
13 The environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste attributable to license 14 renewal were found to be small when they are within the range of impact parameters indentified 15 in Table S-4. The estimated radiological effects are within NRC's regulatory standards. The 16 nonradiological impacts are those from periodic shipments of fuel and waste by individual trucks 17 or rail cars and thus would result in infrequent and localized minor contributions to traffic 18 density.
19 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 20 the final SEIS.
21 The following comments assert that radioactive waste pollutes the Hudson River and the 22 local region, the region where it is disposed, and potentially areas through which it is 23 transported.
24 38-b-PA/RW/ST; 38-f-RW/SF 25 Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release some 26 radioactive material to both the air and water during normal operation. NRC regulations require 27 that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants meet radiation dose-28 based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, the "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) 29 dose criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Part 190.
30 Regulatory limits are placed on the radiation dose that members of the public might receive from 31 radioactive material released by nuclear plants. The NRC regulations are dose based, such 32 that the dose resulting from the radioactive effluent is the value used by the NRC to determine 33 compliance with regulatory limits. Nuclear power plants are required to report their radioactive 34 gaseous, liquid, and solid effluent releases as well as the results of their radiological 35 environmental monitoring program annually to the NRC. The annual effluent release and 36 radiological environmental monitoring reports submitted to the NRC are available to the public 37 through the ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC website (www.NRC.gov).
38 The NRC staff performed an evaluation of the impacts from radioactive effluents discharged into 39 the environment in chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. As indicated, the staff reviewed the results of 40 IPEC's radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP), which show that concentrations 41 of radioactive contaminants in native leafy vegetation, soils and sediments, Hudson River 42 surface water and fish from the vicinity of IPEC are very low (at or near the threshold of the 43 survey instrument's detection capability) and seldom above background levels. Based on 44 these data, the NRC staff concluded that no disproportionately high and adverse human health NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-136 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOS72
Appendix A 1 impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of 2 subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife.
3 The issues of transportation of radioactive waste, radioactive pollution in the local area where it 4 is generated and stored, and the impacts associated with its disposal are evaluated in chapter 5 6 of the dSEIS and in chapter 6 of the GElS for license renewal. The GElS addresses both the 6 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts resulting from shipments of low-level 7 radioactive waste (LLIIV) and mixed waste to off-site disposal facilities and of spent fuel to a 8 monitored retrievable storage or permanent repository. The nonradiological impacts are traffic 9 density, weight of the loaded truck or railcar, heat from the fuel cask, and transportation 10 accidents. The radiological impacts include possible exposures of transport workers and the 11 general public along transportation routes. Radiation exposure to these groups also may occur 12 through accidents along transportation corridors.
13 In addition, Table S-4 in 10 CFR Part 51 lists the environmental impacts of transportation of 14 spent fuel and waste to and from a nuclear power reactor.
15 The environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste attributable to license 16 renewal are found to be small when they are within the range of impact parameters indentified 17 in Table S-4. The estimated radiological effects are within NRC's regulatory standards. The 18 Nonradiological impacts are those from periodic shipments of fuel and waste by individual trucks 19 or rail cars and thus would result in infrequent and localized minor contributions to traffic 20 density.
21 The issue of radioactive leaks is addressed in chapter 2 and 4 of the dSEIS and in the Human 22 Health and Leaks comment response sections.
23 The comment does not present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant 24 a change to the final SEIS.
25 The following comments assert that radioactive waste was used to make weapons used 26 in Iraq that cause more damage to homes and people than regular weapons:
27 38-c-RW/SF/ST; 38-e-RW/SF; 38-f-RW/SF 28 Response: The comment appears to relate to the use of depleted uranium used for military 29 applications. Radioactive waste from commercial nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC is 30 not used to make weapons. The NRC requires its licensees to maintain strict control over the 31 use, storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive material and waste. Spent nuclear fuel 32 is stored at the reactor site under strict controls for its safety and security in accordance with 33 NRC regulations.
34 The comments are out of scope and do not present any significant new information that would 35 warrant a change to the final SEIS.
36 The following comment raises concerns about the cost of storing radioactive wastes:
37 39-a-RW/SF 38 Response: The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) 39 falls within the jurisdiction of the states and, to some extent, within the jurisdiction of the Federal 40 Energy Regulatory Commission. It should be noted that the President's Council on 41 Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations interpret NEPA to require an assessment of the December 2010 A-137 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00573
Appendix A 1 cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-made environment and 2 indicate that the determination of the need for generating capacity is the states' responsibility.
3 The NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), does not require the licensee to address the 4 need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the license renewal or of 5 alternatives to the proposed action, except insofar as such costs and benefits are either 6 essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives 7 considered or are relevant to mitigation. An evaluation of the economic costs associated with 8 IPEC's storage of radioactive waste and of the leaks of radioactive material is outside the scope 9 of the license renewal review.
10 The impacts related to the leaks of radioactive material are evaluated in chapters 2 and 6 of the 11 SEIS and in the Human Health and Leaks comment response sections.
12 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 13 the final SEIS.
14 The following comments indicate that the GElS does not adequately evaluate the long 15 term impacts and safety of the generation and long-term storage of radioactive waste:
16 50-n-RW/SF; 96-j-LRIPA/RW; 38-g-RW; 38-i-RW; 47-c-RW 17 Response: The GElS for license renewal contains a complete and thorough evaluation of the 18 uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management. The NRC is conducting a rule making, 19 including public notice and consideration of public comments, to codify the conclusions of the 20 GElS in Table 8-1 of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 51.
21 Additionally, the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, states that "the 22 Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any 23 reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years 24 beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed 25 license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either on site or offsite independent 26 spent fuel storage installation. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance 27 that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-28 first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the 29 licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and 30 spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time." While the Commission has 31 initiated a rule making proceeding regarding the Waste Confidence Rule, the rule remains in 32 effect at this time.
33 Accordingly, no discussion of the environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility 34 storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installation is required for an environmental 35 impact statement associated with license renewal.
36 The NRC has considered and addressed the issue; the comments do not present any 37 significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS or to the GElS for 38 license renewal.
39 The following comments assert that nuclear waste is accumulating without possible 40 future disposal. License renewal lengthens this storage period. As a result, the SEIS 41 should evaluate the case where Indian Point's spent fuel is permanently stored at the 42 site:
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-138 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00574
Appendix A 1 38-c-RW/SF/ST; 38-f-RW/SF; 38-g-RW; 47-a-SF; 47-b-LE/EP/SF; 54-a-LE/ORIRW/SF; 71-c-2 LE/RW; 84-a-RW; 102-c-RW/SF; 102-k-RW; 103-b-RW/SF 3 Response: As discussed above, the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, 4 states that "the Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel 5 generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for 6 at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised 7 or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either on site or offsite 8 independent spent fuel storage installation. Further, the Commission believes there is 9 reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the 10 first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 11 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-12 level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time."
13 Accordingly, no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility 14 storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installation is required for an environmental 15 impact statement associated with license renewal.
16 The comments are out of scope and do not present any significant new information or 17 arguments that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
18 The following comments assert that the final SEIS should contain specific information 19 (Le. location, shielding, storage duration, and security) on IP's plan for the storage of 20 low-level radioactive waste:
21 55-c-RW; 129-c-RW; 137-g-NE/RW 22 Response: Issues regarding storage of low-level radioactive waste are outside of the scope of 23 the environmental review process for license renewal. The NRC has determined that the 24 environmental impacts related to the storage of low-level radioactive waste, as set forth in 25 NUREG-1437 and in Table B-1 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51, are small. That finding is 26 based on the comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses 27 being achieved at all power reactors. The NRC staff included a brief discussion of IPEC's plan 28 for low-level radioactive waste due to the closure of the Barnwell, South Carolina facility to 29 states outside of the Atlantic compact. The NRC ensures that nuclear power plants are 30 operated safely within radiation protection requirements; the NRC does this by licensing the 31 plants and the plant operators, and establishing license conditions for the safe operation of 32 each plant. The NRC provides continuous oversight of plants through its Reactor Oversight 33 Process (ROP) to verify that they are being operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The 34 NRC has authority to take action to protect public health and safety and may demand 35 immediate licensee actions, up to and including a plant shutdown. The NRC currently inspects 36 existing radioactive waste handling and storage facilities at IPEG. Security issues for the facility 37 and all radioactive material are also part of the ROP which the NRC provides continuous 38 oversight. Any future facility used for the storage of radioactive waste will be inspected in 39 accordance with the ROP to ensure that the radiation doses to plant workers and members of 40 the public are within regulatory limits.
41 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 42 the final SEIS.
December 2010 A-139 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00575
Appendix A 1 The following comment asserts that radioactive material has been lost at some nuclear 2 power plants because they do not have an adequate accountability measures for high-3 level radioactive wastes stored in the spent fuel pools:
4 63-f-RW/ST 5 Response: The comment is noted. The issue is not unique to license renewal; it is a current 6 operating issue that is addressed through the NRC's inspection program. Radioactive material 7 accountability issues are periodically reviewed by NRC inspectors for compliance with NRC 8 requirements. The reviews continue throughout the term of the operating license, whether the 9 original or renewed license. If issues related to radioactive material accountability are 10 discovered at a nuclear plant, they are addressed immediately, and any necessary changes are 11 incorporated under the operating license.
12 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 13 the final SEIS.
14 The following comments assert that used fuel is a resource that can be used in future 15 generations through recycling, as is done in other countries:
16 71-d-RW; 120-h-OP/RW 17 Response: The comment raises a generic national policy issue that is outside the scope of the 18 environmental review for license renewal and the NRC's regulatory authority under the Atomic 19 Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
20 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 21 the final SEIS.
22 The following comments assert that storage of spent fuel in storage pools and dry casks 23 at Indian Point are very robust and are not vulnerable from natural events and terrorist 24 attack:
25 79-j-HH; 120-m-RW/SF 26 Response: The comment is noted. The comment does not present any significant new 27 information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
28 The following comment asserts that if Indian Point shuts down, spent fuel could be left 29 unmonitored onsite until decommissioning:
30 124-a-ALIRW/SF 31 Response: The NRC staff does not agree with the comment. Although the comment is outside 32 the scope of the environmental review, the NRC staff notes that any spent fuel stored at the site 33 after the plant is shutdown will be controlled in a safe and secure manner.
34 NRC regulations require that spent nuclear fuel be stored and maintained in a safe and secure 35 manner while the plant is operating and after the plant operating license expires. The spent fuel 36 remains under the direct control of the licensee and the regulatory oversight of the NRC until its 37 ultimate disposition.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-140 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00576
Appendix A 1 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 2 the final SEIS.
3 The following comments assert that the basis for the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 4 are out of date and need to be revised:
5 50-u-GLlUF; 123-d-GE/SF 6 Response: The NRC committed to review and revise the GElS for license renewal on a 10-7 year cycle, if necessary. In July 2009, the NRC staff issued a draft for public comment of 8 revision 1 to the GElS. Since publication of the 1996 GElS, over 30 plant sites (50 reactor 9 units) have applied for license renewal and undergone environmental reviews, the results of 10 which were published as supplements to the 1996 GElS. The revised GElS will include a 11 review and reevaluation of the technical issues and findings of the 1996 GElS. It will 12 incorporate lessons learned and knowledge gained during previous license renewal reviews. In 13 addition, new research, findings, and other information will be considered in evaluating the 14 significance of impacts associated with license renewal. Nevertheless, the draft revision has not 15 been adopted; the 1986 GElS is still applicable. Section 4.12.1 of the draft GElS contains the 16 environmental consequences of the uranium fuel cycle.
17 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 18 the final SEIS.
19 The following comments assert that the NRC inadequately evaluated negative impacts of 20 uranium mining, fuel fabrication, and storage of waste on communities, including low 21 income and minority populations' water resources and health:
22 51-a-HH/PA/UF; 70-b-UF; 79-y-EJ/UF; 1S4-h-UF 23 Response: A generic assessment of the radiological and non radiological environmental 24 impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes is contained in 25 10 CFR Part 51, Tables S-3 and S-4, respectively. 10 CFR Part 51.51(a) states in part, "Every 26 environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-water-coo/ed nuclear 27 power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of 28 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the 29 environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, 30 isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive 31 materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fue/-
32 cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor." The 33 information, with the exception of Radon-222 (Rn-222), Technetium-99 (Tc-99), provides the 34 basis for the environmental information provided by applicants and must be used at individual 35 licensing proceedings for the construction of light-water reactors. The GElS for license renewal 36 supplements the data on environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-37 3 and of transportation of radioactive wastes presented in Table S-4 to extend the evaluation of 38 impacts to Rn-222, Tc-99, higher fuel enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and license renewal for an 39 additional 20 years of operation. The data in Table S-3 were developed to represent the worst 40 case on bounding estimates of the potential releases from the uranium fuel cycle while still 41 being in compliance with NRC regulatory limits. The GElS for license renewal provides a review 42 of regulatory requirements of the various stages of the fuel cycle, including detailed discussions 43 of the on-site and off-site requirements. The storage and disposal of spent fuel, low-level 44 radioactive waste, and mixed waste storage and the radiological and Nonradiological impacts to 45 the environment are also discussed.
December 2010 A-141 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI000136?A_O~S??
Appendix A 1 Based on the information contained in the GElS for license renewal, the Commission 2 concluded that the impacts from the uranium fuel cycle are SMALL except for the off-site 3 radiological collective impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 4 disposal, which the Commission concluded, are acceptable.
5 The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to the uranium fuel 6 cycle during its review of the IP2 and IP3 environmental report, the site audit, and the scoping 7 process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the 8 GElS for license renewal.
9 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 10 the final SEIS.
11 The following comments assert that greenhouse gases attributable to the mining of 12 uranium, its manufacture in to fuel, and use at Indian Point needs to be fully disclosed in 13 the SEIS:
14 81-a-UF; 96-i-EJ/UF; 103-a-ALlUE 15 Response: The issue of greenhouse gases (GHG) is discussed in chapter 6 of the SEIS. The 16 NRC staff concluded that estimating the GHG emissions associated with current nuclear energy 17 sources is challenging because of differing assumptions and noncomparable analyses 18 performed by the various authors. The differences and complexities in these assumptions and 19 analyses increase when using them to project future GHG emissions. However the NRC staff 20 was able to draw some conclusions.
21 (1) The current estimates of GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are far below those for 22 fossil-fue/-based energy sources.
23 (2) IP2 and IP3 license will involve continued uranium mining, processing, and enrichment, but 24 will not result in increased GHG emissions associated with plant construction or 25 decommissioning (as the plant will have to be decommissioned at some point whether the 26 license is renewed or not).
27 (3) Few studies predict that nuclear fuel cycle emissions will exceed those of fossil fuels within 28 a timeframe that includes the IP2 and IP3 periods of extended operation. Several studies 29 suggest that future extraction and enrichment methods, the potential for higher grade resource 30 discovery, and technology improvements could extend this timeframe.
31 The comment does not present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant 32 a change to the final SEIS.
33 34 A.2.12 Comments Concerning Radiological Impacts 35 The following comment questioned GElS statements that the radiological impacts from 36 license renewal are SMALL. An article in the Wall Street Journal about a drop in power 37 demand that worries utilities, and an article in TIME magazine about increased energy 38 efficiency:
39 2-a-ALIRI NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-142 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00578
Appendix A 1 Response: The comment is noted. The comment appears to relate to the need for power from 2 IP2 and IP3; that issue is beyond the scope of license renewal and of the NRC's regulatory 3 authority. The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a 4 change to the final SEIS.
5 The following comment asserts that Entergy's radiological environmental monitoring 6 program should include the testing of lichen as an indicator of radioactive 7 contamination:
8 93-b-RI/TE 9 Response: IPEC conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) in which 10 radiological impacts to the environment and the public around the IPEC site are monitored, 11 documented, and compared to NRC standards. Entergy summarizes the results of its REMP 12 in an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The reports are publicly available 13 on the NRC's public website. The purpose of IPEC's REMP is to enable the identification and 14 quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area and to measure radionuclide 15 concentrations in the environment attributable to operations at the IPEC site.
16 The REMP samples environmental media in the environs around the site to analyze and 17 measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The media samples are representative of 18 the radiation exposure pathways to the public from plant radioactive effluents. The REMP 19 measures direct radiation and airborne, and waterborne pathways for radioactivity in the 20 vicinity of the IPEC site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from buildings and plant 21 structures and airborne material that may be released from the plant. In addition, the REMP 22 also measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, naturally occurring radioactive 23 material, including radon and global fallout). Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to 24 measure direct radiation. The airborne pathway includes measurements of air, precipitation, 25 drinking water, and broad leaf vegetation samples. The waterborne pathway consists of 26 measurements of Hudson River surface water, fish and invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, 27 bottom sediment, and shoreline soil.
28 The results of the REMP are intended to supplement the results of the radiological effluent 29 monitoring program by verifying that the measurable concentrations of radioactive material and 30 levels of radiation are not higher than expected on the basis of the effluent measurements and 31 modeling of the environmental exposure pathways. The two programs work together as a 32 check against each other.
33 The REMP provides measurements of radiation and of radioactive materials in those exposure 34 pathways and for those radionuclides which lead to the highest potential radiation exposure to 35 members of the public. It does not require that every type of environmental media or biota in 36 the area be sampled and analyzed. The NRC requires that only commercially or recreationally 37 important species in the vicinity of the discharge point be sampled and analyzed. Other biota, 38 such as lichen, which may be present in the area, do not represent a significant dose pathway 39 to humans and are not required to be part of the REMP.
40 41 The radiological effluent monitoring and environmental monitoring programs are part of the 42 NRC's Reactor Oversight Process inspection program for every nuclear power plant to ensure 43 compliance with regulatory requirements. For license renewal, the NRC staff reviewed these 44 programs and found them to be acceptable. The Staff's evaluation can be found in Chapters 2 45 and 4 of the final SEIS.
December 2010 A-143 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00579
Appendix A 1 The NRC has considered and addressed this issue in the SEIS. The comment does not present 2 any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
3 The following comments assert that the draft SEIS does not adequately discuss the long 4 term health impacts from radioactive emissions and from radionuclides leaking into the 5 environment:
6 96-d-HH/LE/RI; 98-c-HH/LE/RI; 117-a-AM/LE; 117-b-AM/LE; 126-d-LE/RI 7 Response: The issue of radioactive leaks from IPEC was addressed in chapters 2 and 4 of the 8 SEIS and in the Human Health and Leaks comment resolution sections.
9 The NRC has considered and addressed these issues in the SEIS. The comments do not 10 present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
11 The following comment asserts that the EIS does not evaluate the synergistic impacts of 12 radioactive effluents and chemical toxins such as PCBs and mercury:
13 102-h-HH/RI; 174-a-HH/RI; 174-c-HH; 180-e-HH/LE/RI 14 Response: The NRC's primary mission is the safe regulation of commercial uses of nuclear 15 materials, and to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the effects of 16 radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. The NRC's regulatory limits for 17 radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful health effects 18 of radiation on humans. The limits are based on the recommendations of standards-setting 19 organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by national and 20 international organizations. The NRC actively participates and monitors the work of these 21 organizations to keep current on the latest trends in radiation protection.
22 Federal regulatory agencies, such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate 23 hazardous materials that are released into the air, water, and land. Additionally, individual State 24 regulatory agencies regulate non-radioactive materials and from industrial facilities.
25 The combination of radiological and non-radiological controls in place at IPEC ensures that the 26 public and the environment are adequately protected. If the NRC, EPA, or State agency 27 determines that there is a need to revise its regulations to protect the public, facility workers, or 28 the environment, the agency will initiate a rulemaking. The assessment models used by federal 29 and state agencies to assess an impact typically use conservative assumptions and are based 30 on data obtained from actual effluent waste streams or directly from the environment to develop 31 a protection standard or limit.
32 The comment does not present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant 33 a change to the final SEIS.
34 A.2.13 Comments Concerning Spent Fuel 35 The comment states that spent fuel storage, disposal and groundwater contamination 36 must conform to state standards and should not impact coastal uses, users, and 37 resources:
38 4-c-LRISF I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-144 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_OOSSO
Appendix A 1 Response: The State of New York, not the NRC, is responsible for coastal zone management 2 and for assuring that coastal zone management issues are properly addressed. The NRC is 3 responsible for protecting the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological 4 impacts of IP2 and IP3 operation. Nevertheless, the NRC's process for the license renewal of 5 nuclear power facilities includes substantial involvement and cooperation with state and local 6 government agencies. These requirements are contained in 10 CFR 51.71 (d), which states:
7 "Consideration will be given to compliance with environmental quality standards and 8 requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having 9 responsibility for environmental protection, including applicable zoning and land-use regulations 10 and water pollution limitations or requirements issued or imposed under the Federal Water 11 Pollution Control Act. The environmental impact of the proposed action will be considered in the 12 analysis with respect to matters covered by environmental quality standards and requirements 13 irrespective of whether a certification or license from the appropriate authority has been 14 obtained. While satisfaction of Commission standards and criteria pertaining to radiological 15 effects will be necessary to meet the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the 16 analysis will, for the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects of the proposed action 17 and alternatives."
18 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 19 the final SEIS.
20 The following comments raise concerns about the long term impacts from the storage of 21 spent fuel in spent fuel pools and dry casks, especially with regard to terrorist attacks 22 and the U.S. Department of Energy's failure to open a disposal site that is sized to 23 accommodate all the spent fuel expected to be generated. In addition, the comments 24 assert that the SEIS should evaluate the impacts of a fire, accident, or attack on the spent 25 fuel:
26 13-c-PA/SF/ST; 13-d-PA/SF; 17-a-NE/SF; 17-p-EP/PA/RI; 17-h-SF; 17-i-SF/ST; 17-k-SF/ST; 27 20-a-PA/SF/ST; 27-e-SF/ST; 37-b-LE/SF/ST; 41-b-AM/SF; 44-b-AM/DE/SF; 50-n-RW/SF; 79-28 k-SF; BO-a-EP/ORIRW/ST; BO-b-LE/RW/SF/ST; B9-a-HH/PA/SF; 103-b-RW/SF; 106-a-29 AE/LE/RW/SF; 117-c-ORISF; 123-d-GE/SF; 123-e-RW/SF; 126-a-DE/RW/SF/ST; 12B-r-30 SM/SF/ST; 129-b-UF; 140-gg-UF; 162-e-AM/RW; 162-a-ORlRW; 174-b-RI; 17B-LE/ORlRW; 31 1BO-f-RW; 17-p-EP/PA/RI; 32 Response: A generic assessment of the radiological and nonradiological environmental 33 impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes is contained in 34 10 CFR Part 51, Tables S-3 and S-4, respectively. 10 CFR Part 51.51(a) states in part, "Every 35 environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-water-coo/ed nuclear 36 power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of 37 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the 38 environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, 39 isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive 40 materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fue/-
41 cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor." The 42 information, with the exception of Radon-222 (Rn-222), Technetium-99 (Tc-99), provides the 43 basis for the environmental information provided by applicants and must be used at individual 44 licensing proceedings for the construction of light-water reactors. The GElS for license renewal 45 supplements the data on environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-46 3 and of transportation of radioactive wastes presented in Table S-4 to extend the evaluation of December 2010 A-145 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00581
Appendix A 1 impacts to Rn-222, Tc-99, higher fuel enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and license renewal for an 2 additional 20 years of operation. The data in Table S-3 were developed to represent the worst 3 case on bounding estimates of the potential releases from the uranium fuel cycle while still 4 being in compliance with NRC regulatory limits. The GElS for license renewal provides a review 5 of regulatory requirements of the various stages of the fuel cycle, including detailed discussions 6 of the on-site and off-site requirements. The storage and disposal of spent fuel, low-level 7 radioactive waste, and mixed waste storage and the radiological and Nonradiological impacts to 8 the environment are also discussed.
9 Based on the information contained in the GElS for license renewal, the Commission 10 concluded that the impacts from the uranium fuel cycle are SMALL except for the off-site 11 radiological collective impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 12 disposal, which the Commission concluded, are acceptable.
13 The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to the uranium fuel 14 cycle during its review of the IP2 and IP3 environmental report, the site audit, and the scoping 15 process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the 16 GElS for license renewal.
17 The NRC ensures that nuclear power plants are operated safely within radiation protection 18 requirements; the NRC does this by licensing the plants and the plant operators, and 19 establishing license conditions for the safe operation of each plant. The NRC provides 20 continuous oversight of plants through its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to verify that they 21 are being operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The NRC has authority to take action 22 to protect public health and safety and may demand immediate licensee actions, up to and 23 including a plant shutdown.
24 In regard to the frequency of malevolent acts, the NRC has determined that security and 25 mitigation measures the NRC has imposed upon its licensees since 9/11, coupled with national 26 anti-terrorist measures and the robust nature of reactor containments and spent fuel pools, 27 make the probability of a successful terrorist attack, though numerically indeterminate, very low.
28 The security-related measures and other mitigation measures implemented since 9/11 include 29 actions that would improve the likelihood of identifying/thwarting the attack before it is initiated, 30 mitigating the attack before it results in damage to the plant, and mitigating the impact of the 31 plant damage such that reactor core damage or a spent fuel pool fire is avoided. Given the 32 implementation of additional security enhancements and mitigation strategies, as well as further 33 consideration of the factors identified above, the NRC staff concludes that the frequency of large 34 radionuclide releases due to malevolent acts is very low. In addition, the NRC currently inspects 35 existing radioactive waste handling and storage facilities at IPEG. Security issues for the facility 36 and all radioactive material are also part of the ROP which the NRC provides continuous 37 oversight.
38 Regarding the long term storage and ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel, the NRC's 39 Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, states that "the Commission has made a 40 generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored 41 safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed 42 life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at 43 its spent fuel storage basin or at either on site or offsite independent spent fuel storage 44 installation. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one 45 mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-146 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00582
Appendix A 1 sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for 2 operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating 3 in such reactor and generated up to that time."
4 Accordingly, no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility 5 storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installation is required for an environmental 6 impact statement associated with license renewal.
7 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 8 the final SEIS.
9 The following comment indicates that storage of spent fuel in dry casks, while safer than 10 spent fuel pool storage, will not reduce the amount of spent fuel in the pools.
11 17-j-SF 12 Response: The comment is noted.
13 Regardless of the final quantity of spent nuclear fuel generated during the operation of a nuclear 14 power plant, the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, states that "the 15 Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any 16 reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years 17 beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed 18 license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either on site or offsite independent 19 spent fuel storage installation. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance 20 that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-21 first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the 22 licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and 23 spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time. 'The comment does not 24 present any significant new information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
25 The following comment asserts that the National Academy of Sciences supports the 26 need for an evaluation of the potential impacts from a terrorist attack:
27 17 -I-SF/ST 28 Response: The comment is noted. The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened 29 vigilance and implemented initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by 30 terrorists, including the use of aircraft against commercial nuclear power facilities and 31 independent spent fuel storage installations.
32 In regard to the frequency of malevolent acts, the NRC has determined that security and 33 mitigation measures the NRC has imposed upon its licensees since 9/11, coupled with national 34 anti-terrorist measures and the robust nature of reactor containments and spent fuel pools, 35 make the probability of a successful terrorist attack, though numerically indeterminate, very low.
36 The security-related measures and other mitigation measures implemented since 9/11 include 37 actions that would improve the likelihood of identifying/thwarting the attack before it is initiated, 38 mitigating the attack before it results in damage to the plant, and mitigating the impact of the 39 plant damage such that reactor core damage or a spent fuel pool fire is avoided. Given the 40 implementation of additional security enhancements and mitigation strategies, as well as further 41 consideration of the factors identified above, the NRC staff concludes that the frequency of large December 2010 A-147 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00583
Appendix A 1 radionuclide releases due to malevolent acts is very low. In addition, the NRC currently inspects 2 existing radioactive waste handling and storage facilities at IPEG. Security issues for the facility 3 and all radioactive material are also part of the ROP which the NRC provides continuous 4 oversight. The NRC will continue to assess security-related measures and other mitigation 5 measures that may be needed to assure adequate protection of the licensed facility. In the 6 Pilgrim license renewal proceeding, the Commission affirmed that the National Environmental 7 Policy Act (NEPA) imposes no legal duty to consider malevolent acts in conjunction with license 8 renewal (CLI-10-14). The comment does not present any significant new information that would 9 warrant a change to the final SEIS.
10 The following comment indicates that the storage of nuclear waste is not good for 11 humans and the environment:
12 21-a-AE/ORISF 13 Response: The comment is noted. The comment does not present any significant new 14 information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.
15 The following comments indicate that the Iraqi people were killed by nuclear waste-16 tipped warheads and continue to be impacted by the fallout from the weapons:
17 38-e-RW/SF; 38-f-RW/SF 18 Response: The comment appears to relate to the use of depleted uranium used for military 19 applications. Radioactive material and waste from commercial nuclear power plants licensed by 20 the NRC is not used to make weapons. The NRC requires its licensees to maintain strict control 21 over the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive material and waste. Spent 22 nuclear fuel is stored at the reactor site under strict controls for its safety and security in 23 accordance with NRC regulations.
24 The comments are out of scope and do not present any significant new information that would 25 warrant a change to the final SEIS.
26 The following comment asserts that radioactive waste is going to last a long time at 27 potentially great cost:
28 39-a-RW/SF 29 Response: The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) 30 falls within the jurisdiction of the states and, to some extent, within the jurisdiction of the Federal 31 Energy Regulatory Commission. It should be noted that the President's Council on 32 Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations interpret NEPA to require an assessment of the 33 cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-made environment and 34 indicate that the determination of the need for generating capacity is the states' responsibility.
35 The NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), does not require the licensee to address the 36 need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the license renewal or of 37 alternatives to the proposed action, except insofar as such costs and benefits are either 38 essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives 39 considered or are relevant to mitigation. An evaluation of the economic costs associated with 40 IPEC's storage of radioactive waste and of the leaks of radioactive material is outside the scope 41 of the license renewal review.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-148 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00584
Appendix A 1 The impacts related to the leaks of radioactive material are evaluated in chapters 2 and 6 of the 2 SEIS and in the Human Health and Leaks comment response sections.
3 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 4 the final SEIS.
5 The following comment indicates that Yucca Mountain is no longer a viable option for the 6 disposal of IP's spent fuel. Consideration should be given to evaluating the use of 7 monitored retrievable storage in the NRC's GElS on License Renewal as well as for IP:
8 50-g-GE/SF 9 Response: The comment is on an issue that is beyond the scope of license renewal and of the 10 NRC's regulatory authority. The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the 11 preparation of an environmental impact statement for a storage or disposal facility for spent 12 nuclear fuel. The NRC is responsible to evaluate the safety issues associated with the method 13 of storage/disposal repository proposed by the DOE. The NRC's evaluation will determine the 14 suitability of the proposed method for a license. However, regarding the long term storage or 15 monitored retrievable storage and ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel, the NRC's Waste 16 Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, states that "the Commission has made a generic 17 determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and 18 without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for 19 operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its 20 spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installation.
21 Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined 22 geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and 23 sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for 24 operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating 25 in such reactor and generated up to that time."
26 Accordingly, no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility 27 storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installation is required for an environmental 28 impact statement associated with license renewal.
29 The comments do not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 30 the final SEIS.
31 The following comment asserts that the SEIS should evaluate the case where Indian 32 Point's spent fuel is permanently stored at the site:
33 102-c-RW/SF 34 Response: The NRC addressed similar comments related to the issues associated with spent 35 fuel in the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management and Spent fuel comment response 36 sections.
37 The following comment asserts that storage of spent fuel in storage pools and dry casks 38 at Indian point are not vulnerable to natural events and terrorist attack:
39 120-m-RW/SF December 2010 A-149 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_OOS8S
Appendix A 1 Response: The comment is noted. The NRC addressed comments related to the issues 2 associated with spent fuel in the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management and Spent fuel 3 comment response sections.
4 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 5 the final SEIS.
6 The following comment asserts that spent fuel would be left onsite for 60 years, 7 unmonitored, until the facility is decommissioned:
8 124-a-ALIRW/SF 9 Response: This comment was addressed in the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 10 and Spent fuel comment response sections.
11 A.2.14Comments Concerning Alternatives 12 The following comments are generally opposed to power alternatives due to 13 environmental impacts, lack of proven feasibility or resource availability, or potential 14 effects on electric rates:
15 34-a-ALlEC); 57-f-ALlAQ; 99-c-ALlEC; 9-h-AE/ALlAQlHH; 14-c-ALlAQ; 14-d-ALlEJ/GL; 23-16 c-ALlAQ; 42-g-ALlAQ; 45-b-ALIEC/EJ; 49-g-ALlAQ/EJ; 52-c-ALlAQlEJ; 52-d-AL; 56-a-17 ALlAQlEC; 56-f-ALlSA; 58-b-ALlAQlEJ; 67-d-AL; 90-c-ALlAQlHH; 90-e-ALlAQ; 99-d-18 ALlAQ; 108-b-ALIGI/SR; 105-b-ALlEC; 112-a-ALlAQ/EC; 112-b-ALlAQ/EC; 112-c-AL; 112-19 d-ALlAQ; 112-e-ALlAQ; 112-f-ALlAQ; 112-g-ALlAQ/EC; 113-k-ALlAQlRG; 113-f-ALlAQ;;
20 120-c-ALlAQ/EC; 120-i-ALlAQ/GI; 120-j-ALIAQ -IP; 127-c-ALlSR; 133-d-ALIAQ/SR; 134-a-21 ALlAQlGI; 134-b-ALlAQlEJ; 144-d-ALlOS; 148-a-ALlSO; 148-b-ALlSO; 148-c-ALlSO; 148-p-22 ALISO; 157-b-ALIEC/SO, 157-f-ALIEC/SO; 158-b-ALlAQ/EC; 159-b-ALISA/SR; 159-e-23 A LlAQlSR; 166-b-ALIEC/SO; 166-c-ALlHH; 166-f-ALlHH; 169-b-ALlAQ/EC; 169 24 ALIEC/SO 25 Response: In Chapter 8 of this SEIS, NRC staff evaluates potential effects of alternatives to 26 license renewal. Many of these comments express concerns about air quality effects of 27 alternatives to license renewal. NRC staff has evaluated potential air quality effects from 28 alternatives in Chapter 8 of this SEIS. The staff's findings indicate that alternatives to license 29 renewal would not necessarily have major effects on air quality, though those alternatives that 30 utilized combustion technologies would have proportionately greater impacts. Air quality 31 impacts from continued operation of IP2 and IP3 are Category 1 issues, and the staff has not 32 found any new and significant information that would challenge this determination.
33 During the public comment period on the draft SEIS, many commenters expressed concerns 34 about the impacts of shutdown for minority and low-income populations, based on an increased 35 reliance on older and less clean (or less efficient) electric generating stations located near 36 minority or low income populations. While NRC staff cannot predict with certainty how electric 37 generators would respond to the loss of Indian Point, the NRC staff assumes that new 38 generation or new market access for existing generation (via transmission projects, for example) 39 to loads in and around New York City would occur to offset electricity supplied by IP, rather than 40 an increased loading for old, inefficient, and expensive generation capacity located in New York 41 City. The NRC's framework, set forth by the GElS, assumes that there is a need for the power 42 generated by the IP units, and thus, simply shutting the units down would not fulfill the need for 43 power. Thus, the staff assumes the need for some sort of replacement, which includes new NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-1S0 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00586
Appendix A 1 generation and energy efficiency/energy conservation (though not generation alternatives, per 2 se, they are options used by energy planners to address the need for power). These matters 3 are, however, outside of NRC's jurisdiction.
4 The NRC staff recognizes substantial efforts on the part of New York State regulatory, policy-5 setting, and policy-implementing agencies to promote and further renewable energy and energy 6 efficiency in New York. The NRC staff acknowledges the State's estimates regarding the 7 potential of renewable energy and energy conservation, as these are matters which the State 8 exercises jurisdiction. As a result, the NRC staff disagrees with commenters who indicated that 9 conservation or energy sources considered renewable by New York State couldn't replace at 10 least a portion of the electricity supplied by the IP units. The NRC staff's review of alternatives 11 includes consideration of proposed transmission projects, which could facilitate to power from 12 new generation projects -like wind power- to reach New York City or other downstate regions 13 served by IP2 and IP3. Thus, replacements won't necessarily occur in Westchester County or 14 New York City. The staff also recognizes, however, that repowered facilities could be built on 15 existing power plant sites in Westchester or New York City, though these new facilities would 16 have modern emissions controls and would likely be substantially cleaner than the facilities they 17 replaced.
18 The NRC staff has also reviewed comments indicating that coal-fired power would be infeasible, 19 and the staff has now removed the coal-fired alternative from the range of alternatives 20 considered in depth.
21 The following comments state that the socioeconomic effects discussed under the "No 22 Action Alternative" do not accurately address the negative impacts on local 23 communities:
24 9-g-ALlSO; 23-h-ALlAQ; 90-d-ALIEC/SO; 94-c-ALIEC/OE; 169-a-ALIEC/SO 25 Response: Actual decisions about what types of power plants will operate, whether IP2 and 26 IP3 get renewed licenses or not, will be made by state and utility decision makers. The NRC 27 does not playa role in energy planning decision-making in New York. The NRC staff does, 28 however, in Chapter 8, provide an evaluation of environmental impacts that may result from 29 potential alternatives to license renewal. This evaluation addresses effects to air quality and 30 whether these effects may be high and disproportionate for low income and minority 31 communities. Issues of electrical grid stability that may result from an Indian Point shutdown 32 would be addressed by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). NYISO has 33 indicated that Indian Point plays an important role in electric reliability and supply in downstate 34 New York, and has also indicated a potential need for Indian Point's generators to continue 35 operating as synchronous condensers in the event that the reactors themselves shut down. (A 36 synchronous condenser is required to provide the necessary reactive power loading for electric 37 grid operation.) Matters related to electric rates are outside the NRC's jurisdiction; rates are set 38 by entities buying and selling power on New York's restructured energy system.
39 The following comments request that the license be conditioned to require the 40 installation of a closed-cycle cooling system:
41 9-e-AE/AL; 87-d-AE/AL; 97-h-AE/ALIOE 42 Response: Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the New York State Department of 43 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has the sole authority to require installation of December 2010 A-151 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI000136? A_OOSS?
Appendix A 1 measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants - including heat from operating the Indian Point 2 reactors - to surface waters. The decision of whether to require cooling towers is a matter for 3 the NYSDEC to decide. Information on the NYSDEC permitting processes, hearings, and 4 decisions regarding cooling towers at Indian Point can be found at 5 http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html(State Pollution Discharge Elimination System 6 process) and http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/63150.html(Water Quality Certification process).
7 The NYSDEC, not the NRC, has the authority to require installation and operation of cooling 8 towers for water quality purposes.
9 The following comments request that the staff include a discussion of additional 10 environmental impacts for the coal-fired generation alternative:
11 92-c-ALlAQ; 92-f-ALlEC; 113-i-ALlAQ; 120-I-AL; 157-c-ALIEC 12 Response: Based on comments on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff has removed the coal-fired 13 alternative from the range of alternatives considered in depth. The comments no longer apply 14 to the SEIS.
15 The following comments request more information about the natural gas fired combined-16 cycle generation alternative including feasibility, type, retrofitting, and location:
17 9-i-ALlED; 140-00-AL 18 Response: The decision regarding which alternatives would replace IP2 and IP3 in the event 19 that the licenses are not renewed is within the authority of New York State and utility decision-20 makers, not the NRC. As a result, the NRC staff's analysis in Chapter 8 is not prescriptive 21 about the specific type of units that would be built or their specific locations. Further, Entergy is 22 a merchant operator that sells power to load serving entities in New York, and does not have a 23 firm obligation to serve load. Entergy, therefore, would not need to replace IP2 and IP3 if the 24 two units cannot continue to operate. The alternatives analysis in Chapter 8 is intended to 25 provide insight into the likely impacts of alternatives to license renewal so that the NRC can 26 determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great 27 that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be 28 unreasonable (see 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)).
29 Regarding the onsite, natural gas-fired alternative, the NRC staff understands that construction 30 potentially could proceed while IP2 and IP3 are operating, so that the alternative might be 31 available when IP2 and IP3 would have to shut down if the licenses are not renewed (or if 32 Entergy chose not to continue operating the facility). The NRC staff has, as suggested in these 33 comments, replaced "gas-fired alternative" with NGCC in the text of Chapter 8. In addition, the 34 NRC staff has reworded the conclusion in Chapter 8 to more clearly differentiate relative impact 35 levels of alternatives.
36 Finally, the NRC staff acknowledges, as suggested in these comments, that natural gas plays 37 an important and growing role in New York State's energy portfolio.
38 The following comment requests greater specificity in the staff's consideration of 39 alternatives, including wind power sourced solely from offshore windfarms, removing 40 wood burning, and basing alternative locations on proposed but unfinished existing 41 projects:
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-152 December 201 0 OAGI0001367 A_OOSSS
Appendix A 1 9-j-ALIED/OE 2 Response: The NRC staff cannot assume that wind-generated power would come from 3 offshore wind projects, given that the vast majority of proposed wind generating projects likely to 4 be online in New York State and surrounding areas by the time the IP2 and IP3 licenses expire 5 is planned for onshore locations. The NRC staff notes that the wind power portion of the 6 combination alternatives does not include specific project locations because the capacity 7 needed exceeds anyone currently-proposed project; the staff's consideration of possible 8 impacts addresses the range that may occur at various locations. Regarding wood-fired power, 9 the NRC staff notes that wood-burning is explicitly included in New York State's Renewable 10 Portfolio Standard as a qualifying resource (under the category of "biomass'? Finally, the staff 11 notes that it may be possible to locate alternatives at proposed but unfinished project locations 12 for single-source replacements (like the NGCC alternative). The staff's consideration of both a 13 new site and an existing power plant site (either IP or a repowered site), encompasses the 14 potential impacts that would result from an NGCC unit at a proposed but unfinished location.
15 The following comments indicate that relying on alternative means of energy production 16 would avoid creation of nuclear waste:
17 11-f-ALlOR; 38-d-AL; 103-c-AL 18 Response: During operation, IP2 and IP3 generate several categories of radioactive waste 19 materials, which can range from slightly contaminated clothing items to spent nuclear fuel. The 20 NRC staff reviews waste management at IP2 and IP3 in Chapter 2, and addresses the nuclear 21 fuel cycle - including spent fue/- in Chapter 6 of this SEIS. In Chapter 8 of this SEIS, the NRC 22 staff evaluates environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, including waste 23 generation. In general, the alternatives to license renewal considered in this SEIS do not 24 produce radioactive waste materials.
25 Insofar as portions of these comments address conversion of the IP site to a wind power site, 26 the NRC staff notes that the site has relatively low wind potential and space for few turbines, 27 and the staff did not, therefore, explicitly consider a wind alternative at the IP site. In addition, 28 the NRC staff notes that comments suggesting the conversion of Sing Sing Correction Facility to 29 a manufacturing plant, or promotion by NRC of wind and solar power are outside the NRC's 30 statutory purview and authority.
31 The following comments support alternative energy sources, indicate that NRC staff's 32 analysis of alternatives in the draft SEIS was too restrictive, or indicate that the staff's 33 analysis was based on limited data:
34 2-a-AURI; 12-f-AL; 41-d-AL; 68-a-ALINE/OE; 68-d-ALlOE; 73-f-AQlWA/AL; 79-c-AL; 79-x-35 ALlEJ; 79-z-AL; 81-c-AL; 86-c-AL; 86-d-AE/ALlGL; 87-f-ALlOE; 95-a-ALlOE; 96-0-AL; 98-b-36 ALlSA; 102-a-ALlOE; 102-f-ALlOE; 110-c-ALIOP/ST; 122-d-AL; 124-a-ALIRW/SF; 129-f-AL; 37 129-h-AL; 129-k-ALlLR; 129-I-AL; 140-pp-AL; 140-rr-AL; 140-ss-LR; 141-d-ALlOR; 155-c-38 ALlSA; 170-g-AL; 173-b-AUOR; 174-i-AL; 180-b-ALlOE; 182-d-ALlEJ/OR 39 Response: In response to these comments and others, the NRC staff has updated its 40 consideration of energy alternatives in this SEIS. In particular, the SEIS now includes 41 conservation/energy efficiency as a full replacement alternative for Indian Point, and considers 42 state-level reports to characterize renewable energy potential. The NRC staff addresses the 43 impacts from alternatives in Chapter 8 of this SEIS.
December 2010 A-153 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00589
Appendix A 1 After reviewing the comments as well as available reference documents, the NRC staff 2 determined that solar power alone, or a combination of wind and solar, would be insufficient to 3 replace the power generated by IP2 and IP3 upon expiration of the licenses without license 4 renewal. Similarly, sufficient tidal power capacity is not likely to be available by 2013 or 2015 to 5 replace IP2 and IP3. New York does not have sufficient geothermal resources to function as a 6 replacement for IP2 and IP3.
7 Insofar as these comments address alternatives as merely a consequence of the no-action 8 alternative, the NRC staff disagrees. In developing and finalizing the staff's license renewal 9 environmental rule, NRC staff specifically indicated - in response to comments from EPA, the 10 Council on Environmental Quality, and others - that alternatives would not be handled as simply 11 consequences of the no-action alternative. The NRC staff includes in this SEIS a range of 12 alternatives that includes likely options that are "technically feasible and commercially viable,"
13 as set out in the GElS. These alternatives can also be consequences of the no-action 14 alternative, though they may be pursued by utilities even if the NRC renews a power plant 15 license.
16 The GElS limits the extent to which the staff must consider combinations of alternatives, 17 stating, "While many methods are available for generating electricity, and a huge number of 18 combinations or mixes can be assimilated to meet a defined generating requirement, such 19 expansive consideration would be too unwieldy to perform given the purposes of this analysis."
20 The GElS also indicates the "... NRC has determined that a reasonable set of alternatives 21 should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation sources and only electric 22 generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially available." GElS S8. 1. Based 23 on scoping-stage and draft SEIS comments, the NRC staff included - and now updated - two 24 combinations of alternatives. The staff does not include a broader portfolio of combination 25 alternatives in this SEIS, although the impacts of the more likely individual components of such 26 combinations have been considered.
27 Finally, several of these comments address issues related to energy policy choices, suggesting, 28 for example, that the government or utilities ought to pursue different energy generating (or 29 energy demand reducing) options. The NRC, for its part, does not engage in energy planning or 30 in energy portfolio policy development. These matters fall under the purview of New York State 31 (as New York asserted during the NRC's 1996 GElS rulemaking), utility company planners, or 32 other Federal (non-NRC) actors as indicated by law or regulation.
33 The following comments request additional information on the impacts of a cooling 34 tower:
35 4-b-ALlLR; 10-b-ALlOE; 14-b-ALlEJ/OE; 30-a-ALlAQlAS/EJ; 40-f-AE/OE 36 Response: The NRC staff has updated its impact analysis - contained in Chapter 8 - of 37 potential impacts from installing cooling towers at IP2 and IP3, including potential impacts to 38 aesthetics. The NRC staff considered analyses provided to the New York State Department of 39 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by Entergy in 2010 (attachments to the analyses were 40 developed in earlier years). These analyses are available from NYSDEC at 41 http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html. As the NRC staff notes throughout this SEIS, the 42 decision of whether to install cooling towers would be made by NYSDEC, under its authority to 43 issue SPDES permits under the Clean Water Act.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-154 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00590
Appendix A 1 Regarding comments that specifically address the need to provide more information for the 2 purposes of consistency with New York's Coastal Management Plan, the NRC staff notes that 3 Entergy will be separately applying to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), and 4 the NRC SEIS is not intended to meet the specific data needs of NYSDOS for its Federal 5 Consistency review.
6 Finally, several commenters expressed concerns that cooling towers would trigger major 7 impacts because Entergy would cease operating IP2 and IP3 rather than install cooling towers.
8 The NRC staff notes that such decisions are solely under the purview of Entergy, and the 9 commenters' assumption that Entergy would close IP2 and IP3 appears to be speculative. As 10 such, the NRC staff has not assumed that installing cooling towers would cause Entergy to 11 close IP2 and IP3. Nonetheless, the impacts of license renewal denial have been considered in 12 the Alternatives analysis of the SEIS.
13 The following comments indicate that environmental impacts from cooling towers would 14 be larger than indicated in the draft SEIS:
15 40-j-AE/AL; 40-v-ALlTS; 40-dd-AE/AL; 40-ii-AE/ALIOE/TS; 40-pp-AL; 40-ddd-ALlTS; 40-16 bbb-ALlOE; 40-ccc-ALlTE; 40-dddd-TS; 40-gggg-AL; 40-hhhh-AL; 40-jjjj-AL; 40-kkkk-AL; 17 40-eee-ALlAQ; 40-fff-AL; 40-ggg-AL; 40-IIII-AL; 40-mmmm-AL; 40-nnnn-AL; 40-0000-AL; 18 40-pppp-AL; 46-c-ALlEJ/SR; 49-e-ALlEJ ;49-g-ALlAQlEJ; 112-h-ALlRG; 113-g-AE/ALlAQ; 19 137-f-ALILE/PA/RF/SF; 137-h-AL; 139-f-ALlLR; 140-kk-AL 20 Response: The NRC staff has updated its impact analysis, in Chapter 8, of the potential 21 impacts from installing cooling towers at IP2 and IP3, including potential impacts to aesthetics.
22 The NRC staff considered analyses provided to the New York State Department of 23 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by Entergy in 2010 (attachments to the analyses were 24 developed in earlier years). These analyses are available from NYSDEC at 25 http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html. As NRC staff notes throughout this SEIS, the 26 decision of whether to install cooling towers falls to NYSDEC, not NRC.
27 In addition, the staff has updated all impact areas addressed by these comments and included 28 either new information provided by the comments or new information in recent documents 29 submitted to the NYSDEC. In general, the NRC staff does not assume that IP2 and IP3 would 30 shut down if they are required by NYSDEC to install cooling towers. Should, after various 31 adjudicatory and administrative process are completed, NYSDEC issue a SPDES permit 32 indicating that IP2 and IP3 have to install cooling towers, the decision of whether to continue to 33 operate would fall to Entergy. Nonetheless, the potential impacts of plant shutdown are 34 considered in the SEIS.
35 Regarding concerns about replacement power for electricity consumed by cooling tower 36 components and generating capacity lost due to lower thermal efficiency of the retrofitted units, 37 the NRC staff notes that the alternatives considered in Chapter 8 would also be available to 38 replace the capacity losses. In general, the 127 MW of replacement power that would be 39 required during the periods of maximum capacity loss could be installed with relatively little 40 additional environmental impact. A gas-fired alternative of this size would create an impact that 41 is a fraction of those created by the NGCC alternative considered in Chapter 8, and could be 42 constructed on an existing power plant site, including the existing IP site.
43 The following comments express support for conservation as an alternative:
December 2010 A-155 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00591
Appendix A 1 51-c-AL; 103-a-ALlUF; 130-c-AL; 129-g-AL; 140-qq-AL; 154-b-AL; 160-a-ALISA/ST; 161-i-2 AllOR 3 Response: As a result of comments received on the draft SEIS and as a result of efforts on the 4 part of many State and local level organizations, the NRC staff has revised its assessment of 5 energy conservation (used interchangeably with energy efficiency) in the FSEIS. The NRC staff 6 now considers energy conservation as a viable, stand-alone alternative to license renewal. The 7 staff addresses this alternative in Chapter 8 of the FSEIS.
8 The following comment indicates that comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions in the 9 SEIS should include Carbon Capture and Sequestration and address the importance of 10 IP2 and IP3 to New York's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative:
11 40-xx-ALlAQIOE 12 Response: The NRC staff's comparisons of relative greenhouse gas emission levels in the 13 draft SEIS did not include the effect of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on fossil fuel 14 emissions. Relative emission levels in the studies the NRC staff reviewed did not assume that 15 CCS was in place. While such efforts may well reduce the levels of carbon gas emissions, the 16 specific cost-benefits of such methods are for State and utility decision-makers to resolve.
17 The NRC staff recognizes that New York State is a part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas 18 Initiative (RGGI), but the staff does not state the relative importance of Indian Point to achieving 19 RGGI or State emission reduction goals. Those are matters for RGGI program administrators 20 and State decision-makers to determine.
21 No change has been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
22 The following comments indicate that the draft SEIS has incorrectly addressed cooling 23 tower costs and outage duration:
24 40-zz-ALlOE; 40-sss-AL; 40-iiii-AL 25 Response: The NRC staff has updated the cooling towers impact assessment with information 26 submitted since the draft SEIS publication, including cooling tower installation costs and 27 construction times. This includes information from these comments as well as new information 28 submitted by Entergy as part of the ongoing NYSOEC review processes. The NRC staff notes 29 that decisions about whether to require cooling tower implementation are for the NYSOEC to 30 determine. Evaluations of the potential impact levels are included to fulfill NRC's requirements 31 under NEPA.
32 The NRC staff has revised discussion of cooling tower installation costs and timelines based on 33 the information that it has received. This discussion occurs in Chapter 8 of this SEIS.
34 The following comments request that the cooling tower alternative be removed:
35 34-b-AE/AL; 40-aaa-AE/ALlOE; 40-rrr-AL; 113-b-AE/ALlEJ 36 Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. The cooling tower alternative is 37 considered in the SEIS, consistent with NEPA's requirements that reasonable alternatives be I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-156 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00592
Appendix A 1 considered, regardless of whether the alternatives are outside the agency's specific regulatory 2 purview.
3 The NRC staff has included additional information about the staffs rationale for maintaining the 4 cooling tower alternative in Chapter 8 of this SEIS. The NRC staff's consideration of a cooling 5 tower alternative is in no way intended to prejudice NYSDEC's determinations or any part of 6 ongoing administrative and adjudicatory processes.
7 The following comments indicate that the restoration alternative should be removed:
8 40-00-AE; 40-www-AL; 128-i-AL; 123-g-AL; 140-II-AL 9 Response: In light of comments received on the draft SEIS, as well as the staff's review of 10 recent judicial decisions and applicable law, the NRC staff has removed the restoration 11 alternative from the range of alternatives considered in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.
12 The following comment indicates difficulty comparing the impacts of different 13 alternatives across issue areas; 14 139-f-ALlLR 15 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that impacts in one resource area may not be directly 16 comparable to impacts in another resource area. In the GElS, however, the staff developed a 17 system for assigning impact levels for all resource areas based on the resource characteristics.
18 As such, a large impact on aesthetic values, for example, is not necessarily directly comparable 19 to a large impact on land use. Impacts within resource areas are, however, directly comparable 20 among alternatives.
21 No change has been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
22 The following comment requests that the impacts of the No Action Alternative include 23 the impacts to property values:
24 129-d-ALILU 25 Response: Offsite land use impacts of spent fuel storage in an ISFSI are not part of the 26 proposed action and are not within the regulatory scope of license renewal and therefore are not 27 addressed in the SEIS. These impacts have been addressed as part of a separate NEPA 28 review conducted by the NRC.
29 Regarding potential impacts to land use as a result of no action, the NRC staff assigned an 30 impact level of SMALL. In the staff's discussion of possible socioeconomic impacts of no action, 31 the staff notes that no action may result in positive effects on property values while it may also 32 cause reductions in tax revenues for local jurisdictions.
33 The NRC staff notes that it is not likely that the site would be cleared by 2025, as the 34 commenter asserts, if the licenses are not renewed. Denial of the license renewal applications 35 would not result prompt removal of spent fuel from the IPEC site. Spent fuel would continue to 36 be stored at the site, prior to eventual decommissioning. Even in cases where licensees 37 immediately decommission a power plant site, dismantle existing structures, and decontaminate 38 the site to applicable standards, ISFSls can remain onsite and are subject to separate licensing December 2010 A-157 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00593
Appendix A 1 procedures. Further, Entergy has not indicated that it would immediately initiate site dismantling 2 and decontamination if its licenses are not renewed. NRC decommissioning regulations provide 3 that licensees may maintain a facility in SAFSTOR status for up to 60 years before fully 4 decommissioning a site.
5 The following comments request that the staff address New York's renewable portfolio 6 standard and efforts to implement renewable energy in the alternatives analysis:
7 129-i-AL; 132-a-ALIOE 8 Response: The NRC staff has revised the SEIS to add information regarding New York State's 9 renewable energy and energy efficiency (energy conservation) programs to the extent that they 10 are useful in determining whether alternatives are reasonable. Also, the staff considers a stand-11 alone conservation/energy efficiency alternative to license renewal in the final SEIS. In addition, 12 the NRC staff has drawn on projections of renewable energy capacity developed by and for 13 New York State agencies, and has updated its treatment of renewable alternatives.
14 The following comment indicates that the staff's characterization of a critical 15 transmission congestion area and transmission line capabilities are inaccurate:
16 129-j-AL 17 Response: The NRC staff has removed language regarding critical congestion areas and has 18 instead indicated that power transmission in New York State is highly congested. The NRC 19 staff has also included a discussion in Chapter 8 of this SEIS of several proposals for new 20 transmission as indicative of potential ways to transmit energy from upstate New York to New 21 York City and Long Island.
22 The following comment requests the use of updated information from the Energy 23 Information Administration (EIA) concerning alternative energy sources:
24 140-mm-AL 25 Response: The NRC staff has included updated information from EIA's 2010 Annual Energy 26 Outlook, and has generally updated related information in Chapter 8 of this SEIS.
27 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff devoted most of its alternatives 28 analysis to a coal-fired replacement and also requests that staff consider the alternative 29 of license renewal for one of the Indian Point units:
30 140-nn-AL 31 Response: Regarding a separate analysis of each unit, the NRC staff has addressed - in both 32 the draft and final SEISs - renewal of only one unit as a portion of a combination of alternatives.
33 Regarding portions of this comment that address the coal-fired alternatives, the NRC staff has 34 removed the coal-fired alternative from the range of alternatives considered in depth in the final 35 SEIS.
36 The following comment calls for an expanded analysis of the no action alternative:
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-158 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00594
Appendix A 1 9-f-ALIOE 2 Response: The NRC staff notes that, in the 1996 Statement of Consideration accompanying 3 the publication of the NRC's environmental regulations for the license renewal rule, the NRC 4 committed to review alternatives to license renewal as direct alternatives to the proposed action, 5 rather than merely as consequences of the no-action alternative. As such, the NRC staff 6 reviews a variety of alternatives to the proposed action in this SEIS. The NRC staff's 7 consideration of no action is limited to the direct effects of shutdown because the staff has 8 reviewed effects of decommissioning as well as the effects of other reasonable alternatives in 9 other sections of the SEIS. The NRC staff indicates, in Chapter 8, that additional impacts as a 10 result of replacement power or other actions will occur beyond the direct impacts of IP2 and IP3 11 shutdown and those impacts are considered in the SEIS.
12 Typically, matters related to energy costs are within the purview of State and utility decision-13 makers. In New York State's restructured energy market, energy costs are also dependent on 14 competition among energy producers and suppliers, as well as transmission owners and 15 operators, and the New York Independent System Operator. These matters are generally 16 outside of NRC's jurisdiction.
17 The following comment requests a change in classification of the impacts of green house 18 gases and air quality of the proposed alternatives:
19 40-hhh-ALIED 20 Response: The NRC staff has removed the coal-fired alternative from the range of alternatives 21 considered in depth and has adjusted the performance of the NGCC alternative as indicated by 22 these comments. Given that there is no specific regulatory system for assigning impacts from 23 greenhouse gases, the NRC staff has not assigned specific impact levels as a result of 24 greenhouse gas emissions. The NRC staff does, however, assess relative GHG emission 25 levels in Chapter 6 of this SEIS, and addresses the cumulative impacts of climate change in 26 Chapter 4. The NRC staff has also corrected the land use figures for wind power in 27 consideration of these comments.
28 The following comments are general statements opposed to alternatives to license 29 renewal involving coal- or natural-gas fired power generation and general support of 30 Indian Point on the grounds of avoided incremental impacts on existing air quality and 31 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
32 33 23-e-AQ; 46-b-AQ/EJ; 86-b-AQ; 88-a-AQ; 90-b-AQ; 119-h-AQ; 133-c-AQ; 177-c-AQ 34 35 Response: In Chapter 8 of this SEIS, NRC staff evaluates potential effects of alternatives to 36 license renewal including impacts on air quality. Section 2.2.4.3 in the IP SEIS describes the 37 existing ambient air quality within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the site and encompassing the 38 currently designated nonattainment areas of New York and New Jersey. Actual decisions about 39 what types of power plants will operate, whether IP2 and IP3 get renewed licenses or not, will 40 be made by decision makers on the state level and the utility level. NRC does not playa role in 41 energy planning decision-making. The NRC staff does, however, in Chapter 8, provide an 42 evaluation of environmental impacts that may result from potential alternatives to license 43 renewal. As described in Section 8.3 of this SEIS, the NRC staff has now removed the coa/-
44 fired alternative from the range of alternatives considered in depth based in part on comments 45 indicating that coal-fired power would be infeasible or highly unlikely. Replacement of the December 2010 A-159 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00595
Appendix A 1 electricity supplied by the IP units with a natural-gas fired plant, now referred to as the Natural 2 Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle (NGCC) alternative, remains a reasonable alternative. Section 3 8.3.1 specifically addresses the impacts of a new NGCC plant located at either the IP2 and IP3 4 site or an alternate site; Chapter 8 also considers combinations of alternatives that include 5 substantial amounts of renewable energy sources. Air quality impacts from continued operation 6 of IP2 and IP3 are Category 1 issues, and the staff has not found any new and significant 7 information that would challenge this determination. The NRC staff also assesses relative GHG 8 emission levels in Chapter 6 of this SEIS, and addresses some cumulative impacts of climate 9 change in Chapter 4. As presented in Chapter 8, the staff's findings indicate that alternatives to 10 license renewal would not necessarily have major effects on air quality, though those 11 alternatives that utilized combustion technologies would have proportionately greater impacts.
12 13 A.2.15Comments Concerning Decommissioning Issues 14 The following comment questions the decommissioning process regarding spent fuel 15 and the current status of 'long term storage' at the facility:
16 96-f-OC/LEIWA 17 Response: The storage of spent nuclear fuel is discussed in Chapter 7 of the SEIS. The safety 18 and environmental effects of spent fuel storage have been evaluated by the NRC and, as set 19 forth in the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), the Commission has made a generic 20 determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and 21 without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life of 22 operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its 23 spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.
24 In addition, on September 15, 2010, the Commission approved a revision to the agency's 25 "Waste Confidence" findings and regulation, expressing its confidence that the nation's spent 26 nuclear fuel can be safely stored for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life of any reactor and 27 that sufficient repository capacity will be available when necessary. However, until a revised 28 final rule is issued, the current determination under 10 CFR 51.23 remains in effect at this time 29 and governs the consideration of this issue.
30 31 The GElS for license renewal (NUREG-1437) evaluated a variety of spent fuel and waste 32 storage scenarios, including on site storage of these materials for up to 30 years following 33 expiration of the operating license, transfer of these materials to a different plant, and transfer of 34 these materials to an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). During dry cask 35 storage and transportation, spent nuclear fuel must be "encased" in NRC-approved casks. An 36 NRC-approved cask is one that has undergone a technical review of its safety aspects and 37 been found to meet all of the NRC's requirements. These requirements are specified in 10 CFR 38 Part 72 for storage casks and 10 CFR Part 71 for transportation casks. For each potential 39 scenario involving spent fuel, the GElS determined that existing regulatory requirements, 40 operating practices, and radiological monitoring programs were sufficient to ensure that impacts 41 resulting from spent fuel and waste storage practices during the term of a renewed operating 42 license would be small, and that this is a Category 1 issue. This conclusion is contained in I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-160 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00596
Appendix A 1 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Part 51. In sum, the Commission concluded that the impacts 2 associated with spent fuel and high-level waste disposal are Small. The Staff's evaluation of the 3 IP2 and IP3 license renewal application did not find any new and significant information related 4 to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Thus, there are no impacts related to spent nuclear fuel 5 storage beyond those discussed in the GElS.
6 7 The staff notes that on March 3, 2010, DOE submitted a motion to the Atomic Safety and 8 Licensing Board seeking to withdraw its application for a permanent geologic repository at 9 Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The ASLB denied that request and this matter is now pending before 10 the Commission. Notwithstanding DOE's decision to seek to withdraw its Yucca Mountain 11 repository application, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes the Federal government's 12 responsibility to provide a place for the permanent disposal of high-level waste and spent 13 nuclear fuel. The Act authorizes and requires the DOE to locate and build a permanent 14 repository and an interim storage facility and develop a transportation system between nuclear 15 power plants and the repository and interim storage facility. Accordingly, while DOE has not yet 16 specified an alternative to Yucca Mountain, there is every reason to believe that a permanent 17 solution to the issue of spent fuel storage will be achieved. Further, until the DOE takes 18 possession of it, the spent nuclear fuel will be safely stored at the nuclear power reactor site, 19 subject to NRC oversight ad regulation.
20 The following comment questions why the assessment of decommissioning is not a site 21 specific issue:
22 137-I-OC/RW 23 Response: The NRC's license renewal process classifies environmental and human health 24 issues as either Category 1 (generic to all nuclear power plants) or Category 2 (requires a site 25 specific evaluation). For license renewal, the NRC performed a comprehensive evaluation of all 26 nuclear power plants in the United States to assess the scope and impact to public health and 27 safety and the environment from radioactive material released from a nuclear power plant for an 28 additional 20 years of operation. That impact evaluation is presented in the Generic 29 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants NUREG-1437 (GElS).
30 The GElS identified 92 environmental issues that were considered for the license renewal 31 evaluation for power reactors in the U. S. The nuclear industry, Federal, state, and local 32 governmental agencies, members of the public, and citizen groups commented on and helped 33 identify these 92 issues during the preparation of the GElS. For each of the identified 92 issues, 34 the staff evaluated existing data from all operating power plants throughout the U. S. From this 35 evaluation, the staff determined which issues could be considered generically and which issues 36 do not lend themselves to generic consideration. The GElS divides the 92 issues that were 37 assessed into two principle categories: One for generic issues (which are termed "Category 1 38 issues') and the other for site-specific issues (termed "Category 2 issues').
39 Category 1 issues are termed "generic" issues because the conclusions related to their 40 environmental impacts were found to be common to all plants (or, in some cases, to plants 41 having specific characteristics such as a particular type of cooling system). For Category 1 42 issues, a single level of significance was common to all plants, mitigation was considered, and 43 the NRC determined that it was not likely to be beneficial. Issues that were resolved generically 44 are not reevaluated in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact December 2010 A-161 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00597
Appendix A 1 statement on license renewal (SEIS) because the conclusions reached would be the same as in 2 the GElS, unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to 3 reevaluate the GElS's conclusions. During the environmental reviews of license renewal 4 applications, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and 5 significant information exists that would change the generic conclusions for Category 1 issues.
6 The following issues associated with decommissioning were evaluated in the GElS: radiation 7 doses, waste management, air quality, water quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomic 8 impacts. The evaluation concluded that all of the issues were Category 1 issues that are 9 generic to all nuclear power plants and the impacts would be small.
10 During the scoping process and the environmental review, the NRC looks for any information 11 that could demonstrate that there are unique characteristics related to the facility or the 12 environment surrounding the facility that would lead to the conclusion that the generic 13 determination for a particular issue is not valid for a specific site. The NRC staff discusses and 14 evaluates potential new and significant information on impacts of operations during the renewal 15 term in the SEIS.
16 As with all Category 1 conclusions, the NRC staff review evaluates each license renewal 17 application and the site to determine if there is new and significant information that would 18 change the conclusion in the GElS.
19 The comments relating to decommissioning issues have been thoroughly evaluated in the GElS 20 for license renewal. No new and significant information was identified during the scoping 21 process, the review of the IPEC Environmental Report, and the Staff's site visit beyond those 22 identified and evaluated in the GElS. No changes will be made to the SEIS based on these 23 comments.
24 A.2.16 Comments Concerning Greenhouse Gas Issues 25 The following comments indicate that the greenhouse gas analysis in the draft SEIS is 26 based on one outdated study:
27 10-c-GL; 50-t-GL/UF 28 Response: The NRC staff's consideration of potential greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear 29 power as well as other alternatives relied on a number of studies, and not merely on Mortimer's 30 work, as stated in the comment. The NRC staff mentioned Mortimer as an early example of an 31 attempt to determine greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power, and included his 1990 32 study as only one of many. While some of Mortimer's assumptions may no longer be valid, the 33 NRC staff notes that some of changes to his assumptions (like ore grades) may result in greater 34 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle, while others (e.g., new 35 enrichment methods and programs like the Megatons to Megawatts program that turns former 36 Soviet nuclear warheads into US. reactor fuel) likely result in lower GHG emissions from the 37 nuclear fuel cycle than Mortimer calculated. The NRC staff considered each of these factors 38 prior to including Mortimer, and determined that it was reasonable to include Mortimer's study 39 along with other, more-recent studies. The NRC staff concluded that reduced grades of nuclear 40 fuel in the future would likely lead to greater GHG emissions, but that improved enrichment 41 technologies may reduce GHG emissions. On the whole, the staff concluded that GHG 42 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle would likely remain below the GHG emissions from 43 equivalent fossil-fuel facilities throughout the period of extended operation, and that GHG 44 emissions from equivalent renewable sources may be lower during the period of extended NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-162 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00598
Appendix A 1 operation. The comments provided no new or significant information, and NRC staff has made 2 no changes to the SEIS as a result of these comments.
3 The following comment states that emissions from fossil fuel power plants result in 4 global climate change:
5 14-d-ALlEJ/GL 6 Response: The NRC staff acknowledged, in Chapter 6 of the draft SEIS, that all forms of 7 power generation, including fossil fuel power plants, result in GHG emissions during their 8 lifecycles. No changes have been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
9 The following comment indicates that climate change effects on the Hudson River may 10 become catastrophic in the future:
11 86-d-AE/ALlGL; 12 Response: In Section 4.8.1, the NRC staff indicated that climate change could have 13 widespread and noticeable effects on the Hudson River ecosystem. This comment does not 14 present any new information, and the staff has not made any changes to the SEIS as a result of 15 the comment.
16 The following comments indicate that continued operation of Indian Point in concert with 17 climate change results in even greater effects to Hudson River biota:
18 87-e-GL; 102-b-AE/GLlOE; 102-i-AM/GLlOE; 147-a-GLlLE; 180-d-AM/GLIOE 19 Response: The NRC staff noted, in section 4.8.1, that cumulative effects to the Hudson River 20 ecosystem are likely to be large. In reaching this conclusion, the NRC staff considered the 21 impacts from continued Indian Point operation and the effects of climate change, as well as 22 other environmental stressors like water withdrawals and invasive and nuisance species.
23 Should rising river temperatures cause Indian Point to exceed the discharge temperature limits 24 in its SPDES permit at some point in the future, the New York State Department of 25 Environmental Conservation may take action to enforce the terms of the SPDES permit. These 26 comments contain no new information, and the staff has not made any changes to the SEIS as 27 a result of these comments.
28 The following comments indicate that climate change will result in more-frequent storms 29 and flooding, thus increasing corrosion and the likelihood of leaks:
30 102-i-AM/GUOE; 147-a-GLlLE; 180-d-AM/GLIOE 31 Response: These comments indicate that potentially increased storm and flooding events as a 32 result of climate change would accelerate corrosion in buried piping and other systems. In 33 general, aging of plant systems, structures and components is a matter for the safety review, 34 and monitoring for leakage is a matter for ongoing NRC oversight.
35 As part of the license renewal safety review, the NRC staff reviewed Entergy's proposed Aging 36 Management Program (AMP) for managing the aging effects of buried and underground piping.
37 The NRC staff is also in the process of revising its guidance in the Generic Aging Lessons 38 Learned (GALL) Report to capture recent industry and plant-specific operating experience to December 2010 A-163 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00599
Appendix A 1 effectively manage any potential aging effects for such piping. The results of the staff findings 2 for the safety review are documented in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for license renewal.
3 Although climate change may trigger storms with increased severity, and may also increase the 4 likelihood of flooding events at some sites, climate change could also trigger longer periods of 5 dry weather or drought, which may result in reduced precipitation and soil moisture. Thus, 6 potential climate change, by itself, does not warrant new evaluations or conclusions regarding 7 buried piping beyond the staffs finding in the SER for license renewal or ongoing oversight of 8 any potential leaks at reactor facilities.
9 The NRC staff has not made any changes to the SEIS as a result of these comments.
10 The following statements indicate that IP emits few greenhouse gases and is inexpensive 11 to operate:
12 33-a-AE/GLlLE; 159-a-EC/GL 13 Response: The NRC staff notes that nuclear facilities, while emitting essentially no GHGs 14 during power generation, do result in GHG emissions during their lifecycles. Fuel mining, 15 enrichment, fabrication, and transportation, for example, all result in GHG emissions. Also, 16 GHGs are produced in manufacturing raw materials to construct nuclear power plants.
17 Similarly, other energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide or other GHGs while 18 generating electricity result in GHG emissions at other points in their lifecycles.
19 The NRC has no authority to choose between alternative energy generating technologies, or to 20 consider cost of operation in its license renewal decisions. Such decisions are within the 21 jurisdiction of State, utility, and where appropriate, other Federal entities.
22 No changes have been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
23 The following are general statements expressing concern over potential climate change 24 effects on the Hudson River and indicate that Indian Point has either minor or mitigative 25 effects on climate change by comparison:
26 113-h-AE/GL; 113-d-AQ/GLISR 27 Response: The NRC staff evaluated cumulative impacts to the Hudson River, including 28 impacts as a result of climate change along with other factors affecting the river. In addition, 29 staff evaluated the potential impacts of continued Indian Point operation and other alternatives 30 on the Hudson River and its biota. These comments provide no new information, and, as a 31 result, the staff has made no changes to the SEIS in response to these comments.
32 A.2.17 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues Not Otherwise Addressed in This 33 Appendix 34 Page 2-77, line 34 Delete extra words and add reference:
35 40-t-AE/ED 36 Response: Editorial change made.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-164 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00600
Appendix A 1 Remove the reference to transmission lines on page 4-52, line 9-11 because the 2 lines are all on the Indian Point site.
3 40-rr-AE/ED/TL 4 Response: Editorial change made.
5 Change section heading to "protected species" 6 40-u-ED/TS 7 Response: The NRC staff has changed the SEIS section heading to 4.6.1, Aquatic 8 Special Status Species.
9 Page 8-54, line 18 Change "hypotheses" to "conclusions."
10 40-000-AE/ED/OE 11 Response: Editorial change made.
12 13 Page 2-16, line 3 - The FSEIS should stat that IP1 provides waste processing for IP2 only.
14 15 40-I-ED 16 17 Response: Editorial change made.
18 19 20 Page 2-22, line 15 Replace the paragraph with one suggested.
21 22 40-m-ED 23 24 Response: Editorial change made, with some modifications.
25 26 27 Page 4-53, line 26 - Start new paragraph after" ... vicinity of the site."
28 29 40-ss-ED 30 31 Response: Editorial change made.
32 33 34 Page 4-2, Table 4 Remove "Eutrophication" from table 35 Page 4-3, line 1 Replace the sentence with one suggested.
36 Page 4-6, line 6 Replace the sentence with one suggested.
37 38 40-x-ED 39 40 Response: The NRC staff has considered these editorial comments. NRC staff has retained 41 "eutrophication" as a Category I issue in Table 4-1 as it is listed in the GElS as applicable to all 42 plants. As the NRC staff noted, no new and significant information related to this issue was 43 identified during the staff's review. The NRC staff has made the indicated text changes on page 44 4-3 and 4-6..
December 2010 A-165 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00601
Appendix A 1
2 3 Page 4-8, line 12 Replace the sentence with one suggested.
4 Page 4-8, line 31 Revise FSEIS to note that the NYSDEC was discussing generalized 5 characteristics of ecosystems, not the specific characteristics of the Hudson River 6 ecosystem.
7 8 40-aa-ED 9
10 Response: The NRC staff has made the change on lines 12-13 regarding the status of the 11 SPOES permits. The NRC staff has not changed the quoted text on lines 31-32, as that text 12 was taken directly from page 29 of NYSOEC's 2003 Hudson River Power Plants FEIS. The 13 statement is quoted directly from an NYSOEC staff-written portion of the document.
14 15 16 Page 4-63, line 15-7 -Insert suggested wording after " ... depending on the species."
17 Page 5-6, Table 5 The last entry for IP3 (loss of essential service water) should be 18 1.8x10-8 rather than 1.9x1 0-9
- 19 20 40-vv-ED 21 22 Response: The NRC staff has made the proposed change to what were formerly lines 15-17 of 23 page 4-63. The NRC staff has also changed the text in Table 5-3.
24 25 26 Page 8-2, line 6 Revise FSEIS to note that the "normal design flow rate" given in the 27 DSEIS is actually the maximum design flow rate.
28 Page 8-2, line 14 - "Has" should be changed to "may potentially have."
29 30 40-yy-ED 31 32 Response: Editorial changes made.
33 34 35 Page 9-9, Table 9 Change "SMALL to LARGE" under Coal-Fired Plant Alternate Site 36 column to "MODERATE."
37 Page E-3, Table E Add footnotes suggested.
38 Page E-4, Table E Add footnotes suggested.
39 Page E-4, Table E Provided updated status of various certificates and permits.
40 41 40-iii-ED 42 43 Response: The first editorial change is no longer applicable due to changes to the SEIS. The 44 staff has made the remainder of the changes in this comment.
45 46 A.2.18 Comments Concerning Refurbishment I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-166 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00602
Appendix A 1 The following comment indicates that the draft SEIS did not address the potential 2 impacts of replacing the reactor vessel heads and control rod drive mechanisms 3 for IP2 and IP3:
4 137-k-RF 5 Response: Chapter 3 of the DSEIS provides the NRC staff's analysis of the potential 6 impact of refurbishment activities associated with the possible replacement of reactor 7 vessel heads and control rod drive mechanisms at IP2 and IP3. No change has been 8 made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
9 10 A.2.19 Comments Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License 11 Renewal: Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging Management; 12 Need for Power; Energy Costs, etc.
13 The following comments address various issues outside the scope of license renewal:
14 83-a-OS; 131-a-OS; 151-b-OS; 120-d-OS 15 Response: These comments include a narrative about personal involvement in a fish study, a 16 statement indicating that Indian Point provides funding for scholarships in nuclear fields, an 17 assertion that Riverkeeper has historically worked to restore the Hudson River, and an assertion 18 that individuals living near Three Mile Island unit 2 would've traded economic gains from the 19 power plant to avoid the 1979 accident at that facility.
20 21 These comments do not address matters within the scope of this review, and the staff has made 22 no changes to the SEIS as a result of these comments.
23 24 The following comment is a general statement that nuclear waste is used for weapons:
25 84-b-OS 26 Response: The commenter appears to address the use of depleted uranium by the United 27 States armed forces for certain types of munitions meant to pierce hardened vehicles or 28 facilities. Oepleted uranium is a byproduct of uranium enrichment and is not produced at the 29 Indian Point site. Spent nuclear fuel and the other types of radioactive waste materials 30 generated at IP2 and IP3 are disposed of according to federal regulations. Spent fuel resides in 31 IP2 and IP3 spent fuel pools or the site's dry cask storage facility, as discussed in Chapter 6.
32 Low-level wastes are either stored onsite or shipped offsite for disposal, as discussed in 33 Chapter 2.
34 35 36 37 38 A.2.19.1 Aging Management December 2010 A-167 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00603
Appendix A 1 The following comments question the reliability and performance of plant operations to 2 ensure proper plant management:
3 13-f-AM/GE/OM; 32-a-AM/OP/PA; 35-c-AM/RW; 41-b-AM/SF; 44-b-AMIDE/SF; 63-e-AM; 73-4 h-AM/LRlST; 96-c-AM/LE/OM; 96-n-AM/LE; 102-n-AM; 121-b-AM/LE; 141-b-AMIDE/PA/RW; 5 145-a-AM/PA; 147-c-AM; 153-e-AM; 174-g-AM; 179-g-AM; 180-i-AM 6 Response: Extensive studies and experience have shown that commercial nuclear power 7 facilities can be safely operated for more than 40 years. As a result, the NRC has provided an 8 option in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) that allows owners of nuclear 9 power reactors to seek license renewal for up to an additional 20 years with no limitations on the 10 number of times the license may be renewed. The decision whether to seek license renewal, 11 including the length of the renewal period, rests entirely with nuclear power reactor owners and 12 typically is based on the plant's economic viability and whether it can continue to meet NRC 13 safety and environmental requirements. The NRC bases its decision regarding license renewal 14 on whether the facility would continue to meet the requirements for safe operation and whether 15 the protection of the environment can be assured during the renewal term.
16 Steps the NRC takes to ensure that each licensee meets its primary responsibility of plant 17 safety include the ongoing licensing process, the Reactor Oversight Process, and the 18 Enforcement Program.
19 The Reactor Oversight Process is composed, in part, of an inspection program. The core of the 20 NRC inspection program for nuclear power plants is carried out by a minimum of two, on site 21 resident inspectors. The NRC baseline inspection program typically consists of approximately 22 2700 hours112.5 days <br />16.071 weeks <br />3.698 months <br /> per site. In the implementation of the baseline program, the NRC can make 23 adjustments to the inspection plan based on plant performance trends. The NRC screens each 24 event and assesses its safety significance, identifies the need for prompt follow-up, determines 25 the need for plant-specific or generic licensing-related action, and/or identifies abnormal 26 occurrences.
27 The concerns expressed in these comments are assessed on an ongoing basis and are outside 28 the scope of the environmental review for license renewal.
29 The following comments question the IP exemption from a one-hour fire rating 30 requirement:
31 87-c-AM/HH/OM; 102-0-AM; 152-b-AM/SA; 152-b-AM/SA; 153-c-AM; 174-h-SA; 180-j- AM 32 Response: The fire exemption addressed in these comments refers to the Hemyc electrical 33 raceway fire barrier system (ERFBS). In response to testing performed by the NRC in 2005 34 reflecting potential non-conformance to the 1-hour fire rating, Entergy performed testing on the 35 system and declared the Hemyc ERFBS at Indian Point 3 inoperable. Entergy implemented 36 temporary compensatory measures including an hourly fire watch and verification that the fire 37 detection systems were operable in the affected areas until compliance was restored for the 38 Hemyc ERFBS.
39 In a letter dated July 24, 2006, Entergy stated that it would modify the installed Hemyc ERFBS 40 based on the test results. These modifications provided at least a 24-minute rated fire barrier 41 for cable tray configurations, and a 30 minute rating for conduit and box configurations, between 42 redundant trains of safe shut down equipment and cables. Entergy asserted that in light of the I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-168 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00604
Appendix A 1 minimal fire hazards and the existing fire protection features in the affected areas, this 2 configuration continues to satisfy the basis for an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50. 12.
3 Upon extensive review the NRC staff concluded that the 30-minute fire barrier is adequate for 4 protection of the redundant safe shutdown equipment, due to the lack of significant combustible 5 loading in the area, the partial fire wall which localizes a postulated fire from affecting redundant 6 equipment, and the available fire detection and manual suppression systems. The referenced 7 exemption was granted on September 28, 2007. The exemption relates to a safety issue and is 8 beyond the scope of the environmental review for license renewal.
9 The following comments question the inspection process and ability to manage buried 10 piping:
11 102-i-AM/GL; 1S3-d-AM/LE/OM; 180-d-AM/GL; 183-b-AM/OM 12 Response: The principal concerns presented in these comments relate to the aging of buried 13 piping important to the continued safe operation of the facility. As part of the safety review for 14 license renewal, the NRC staff makes the determination whether aging effects will be 15 adequately managed throughout the period of extended operation.
16 The buried piping and tanks inspection program includes preventative measures to mitigate 17 corrosion and inspections to manage the effects of corrosion on the pressure retaining capability 18 of buried carbon steel, gray cast iron, and stainless steel components. The Generic Aging 19 Lessons Learned (GALL) contains the staff's generic recommendation and evaluation of plant 20 programs and documents the technical basis for determining whether existing programs are 21 adequate without modification or should be augmented for the extended period of operation.
22 In consideration of recent operating history, which involved a February 2009 leak on the return 23 line to the condensate storage tank for Unit 2, the applicant submitted an amendment to the 24 License Renewal Application which modified the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection Program.
25 The applicant's modification to the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection program significantly 26 increases the number of inspections as compared to its original submittal.
27 The aging management of safety systems is part of the license renewal safety review. The 28 Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection Program is addressed in the "Safety Evaluation Report 29 Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, " Section 30 3.0.3.1.2.
31 Issues raised in these comments are beyond the scope of the environmental review for license 32 renewal.
33 The following comments are concerns over inspections of the containment dome:
34 3S-a- AM/LE; 1S2-d-AM/OP 35 Response: The principal concerns raised in these comments relate to the aging management 36 of the containment and potential loss of intended function. As part of the safety review for 37 license renewal, the NRC makes the determination whether aging effects will be adequately 38 managed throughout the period of extended operation.
39 The aging management of safety systems is part of the safety review. The Containment 40 Inservice Inspection Program is addressed in the NRC staff's "Safety Evaluation Report Related December 2010 A-169 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00605
Appendix A 1 to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, " Section 2 3.0.3.3.2.
3 These comments pertain to issues that are beyond the scope of the license renewal review for 4 license renewal.
5 A.2.19.2 Safety 6 The following comments express general support for the safety of the plant:
7 29-c-EC/SA; 48-g-AQ/SO; 57-a-SA; 52-a-SA; 56-f-ALlSA; 57-c-SA/SE/SO; 90-a-SA; 115-a-8 SA/SE/SO; 120-a-EC/SA; 127-a-SA/SR; 137-a-SA/SR; 144-a-EC/SA/SR; 150-a-SA/SE; 150-9 b-SA/SO; 150-c-SA/SE; 159-b-ALISA/SR 10 Response: The comments support the general safety of Indian Point. The comments provide 11 no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to 12 these comments.
13 The following comments are opposed to Nuclear Power due to the associated risks of 14 operation:
15 9-b-ORlSA; 13-f-AM/GE/OM; 64-a-LE/OM/ORlRW; 74-b-SA; 75-c-EC/SA; 87-c-AM/HH/OM; 16 96-c-AM/LE/OM; 98-b-ALlSA; 102-m-GE/OM; 151-c-SA; 155-c-ALlSA; 160-a-ALISA/ST; 17 164-d-LRlOM; 174-f-GI/OM; 179-a-SA/RW/SF; 179-b-LE/OP/SA; 179-h-ORlSA; 180-h-18 GI/OM; 19 Response: These comments are general in nature and address concerns regarding the safe 20 operation of IPEG. Steps the NRC takes to ensure that each licensee meets its primary 21 responsibility of plant safety include the ongoing licensing process, the Reactor Oversight 22 Process, and the Enforcement Program.
23 The concerns expressed in these comments are assessed on an ongoing basis and are outside 24 the scope of the environmental review for license renewal.
25 26 A.2.19.3 Energy Costs/Energy Needs 27 The following are general comments stating the energy supplied by Indian Point will 28 need to be replaced if the license is not renewed:
29 7-d-AQ/EC/SR; 34-a-ALlEC; 36-c-ALlAQlEC; 52-c-ALlAQ/EC; 56-a-ALlAQlEC; 67-b-EC 30 Response: The NRC staff assumes, as part of its environmental review, that the power 31 supplied by a power plant currently undergoing license renewal review is needed. Thus, NRC 32 staff assumes that some form of power generation or demand reduction would be necessary if a 33 license were not to be renewed. In Chapter 8, the NRC staff considers the environmental 34 impacts of a range of alternatives to license renewal.
35 These comments contain no new information, and the NRC staff has made no changes to the 36 SEIS as a result of them.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-170 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00606
Appendix A 1 The following comments indicate that Indian Point shutdown would increase energy 2 costs, reduce reliability, or would be problematic because alternatives are not available 3 or are too difficult to site and permit:
4 1-b-EC/SE; 1-c-EC/SO; 19-a-EC/SR; 19-b-EC/SO/SR; 23-f-EC/SO; 23-i-EC/SO/SR; 26-a-5 EC/LR; 26-c-EC/SO/SR; 28-a-EC/SR; 28-b-EC/SO; 29-c-EC/SA; 42-a-EC/SR; 42-f-EC/SO; 6 57-b-AQ/EC/SO; 57-e-EC/OP/SO; 65-b-EC/SR; 65-c-EC/SO/SR; 67-c-EC; 85-c-EC/SO/SR; 7 88-c-EC/SR; 90-d-ALIEC/SO; 111-c-EC/SO; 116-b-EC/SO; 118-b-EC/EJ/SR; 120-g-EC; 133-8 b-EC; 144-a-EC/SA/SR; 146-b-EC; 157-c-ALlEC; 157-d-EC/SR; 159-d-EC; 169-b-ALlAQlEC; 9 177-a-AQ/EC/SO; 177-b-EC; 1-a-EC/SO/SR; 1-d-AQ/EC; 31-b-EC/EJ/HH; 45-b-ALIEC/EJ; 10 46-a-EC/SR; 48-b-EC/SO; 49-h-AQ/EC; 92-a-EC/SO; 92-f-ALlEC; 105-c-EC/SR; 113-j-EC; 11 119-c-AQ/EC/SO; 119-e-EC/GI/SO; 120-c-ALlAQ/EC; 157-b-ALIEQ/SO; 157-f-ALIEC/SO; 12 169-a-ELIEC/SO; 19-c-EC/SO/SR; 23-d-EC; 40-g-EC; 42-b-EC/SO; 58-c-AQlEC/SO; 78-b-13 EC/GI/ST; 85-a-EC/SO/SR; 88-b-EC/SR; 99-c-ALlEC; 101-b-EC; 108-a-EC/SO/SR; 109-b-14 EC/EP; 119-b-EC/SO; 119-g-EC/SO/SR; 120-a-EC/SA; 131-e-AQlEC/SR; 133-a-EC/SO/SR; 15 146-d-EC/SO; 150-d-EC/SR; 158-b-ALlAQ/EC; 159-a-EC/GL 16 Response: The issues raised in these comments - electric rates, grid reliability, difficulty siting 17 and permitting new power plants, concerns about the relative success of electric-sector 18 restructuring, or restrictions on replacement options due to the Regional Greenhouse Gas 19 Initiative (RGGI) - are all outside the jurisdiction of the NRC and generally outside the scope of 20 license renewal.
21 Matters relating to electric system planning, transmission planning, electric grid reliability, and 22 new power plant siting and permitting are generally under the jurisdiction of New York State. In 23 the case of grid function and reliability, the New York Independent System Operator-24 established under New York State law - is the responsible organization. Electricity prices are 25 established by New York utilities or energy supply companies depending on available market 26 rates.
27 The NRC staff acknowledges NYISO concerns regarding reliability and also discusses RGG I in 28 Chapter 8 of this SEIS.
29 Many commenters raised concerns about electric prices as a result of possible shutdown. In 30 general the staff is not required to address economic costs or economic benefits of the 31 proposed action (license renewal or alternatives), as indicated in 10 CFR 51. 95(c)(2):
32 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 33 required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and 34 economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action 35 except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination 36 regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or 37 relevant to mitigation.
38 NRC staff have, however, included a statement recognizing concern with possible electrical 39 price effects in Chapter 8 of this SEIS.
40 The following is a general comment indicating that IP2 and IP3 can be replaced:
41 75-c-EC/SA December 2010 A-171 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00607
Appendix A 1 Response: In Chapter 8 of this SEIS the NRC staff consider alternative means of supplying 2 electrical power that are capable, in the NRC staff's professional judgment, of replacing the 3 power currently supplied by Indian Point. If NRC decides to issue renewed licenses, then the 4 choice about whether to operate Indian Point or rely on other energy alternatives is up to utility 5 and state-level decision makers. If NRC decides not to issue renewed licenses, then it will be 6 up to utility and state-level decision makers to decide how to replace the capacity currently 7 supplied by Indian Point. No changes have been made as a result of this comment.
8 The following comment indicates that nuclear power is subsidized and asserts that NRC 9 should provide actual costs for nuclear power:
10 81-b-EC 11 Response: The cost of power from continued operation of Indian Point and its alternatives, as 12 well as cost-benefit analyses of Indian Point and its alternatives, are generally outside the scope 13 of the NRC's license renewal environmental review. As indicated in 10 CFR 51. 95(c)(2):
14 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 15 required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and 16 economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action 17 except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination 18 regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or 19 relevant to mitigation.
20 In this case, continued operation of Indian Point is already included in the range of alternatives, 21 and none of the alternatives considered by staff in Chapter 8 were eliminated on the basis of 22 cost. This comment provides no new information, and no changes have been made to this 23 SEIS as a result.
24 The following are general comments expressing a need for power:
25 92-a-EC/SO/SR; 92-b-EC/SO; 94-c-ALIEC/OE; 105-b-ALlEC; 112-a-ALlAQ/EC; 112-b-26 ALlAQlEC; 127-b-EC/SO; 144-b-EC/SO; 155-a-EC/SO; 159-c-EC/SR 27 Response: NRC license renewal rules assume that a need exists for the power currently 28 supplied by Indian Point. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is the state-29 level organization tasked with maintaining electric grid reliability and monitoring adequacy of 30 state-level power supplies. Other state-level agencies, like the Oepartment of Public Service, 31 oversee permitting for new power projects. The NRC plays no role in either electric system 32 planning or new facility construction in New York State, and has no authority to reinstate the 33 State's expired Article X power plant siting authority. As a result, issues related to electric 34 system planning and consequences of Article Xs expiration are outside the scope of license 35 renewal. No changes have been made to this SEIS as a result of these comments.
36 A.2.19.6 Emergency Preparedness 37 The following are general comments expressing opposition to the evacuation plan:
38 6-a-EP/ORlOS; 9-d-EP; 13-g-DE/EP; 17-b-EP/ST; 17-m-EP; 17-r-EP/GI/RI; 35-b-EP; 47-b-39 ELIEP/SF; 50-d-EP/HH; 50-p-DE/EP/NE; 72-a-EP/LE/ORlRW; 73-d-EP; 75-b-EP/LE/OP/ST; 40 80-a-EP/ORIRW/ST; 87-a-DE/EP; 97-g-EP/PA; 98-a-EP/ORlPA; 124-b-EJ/EP/HH/PA; 125-a-41 DE/EP; 128-b-AE/EP/TS; 128-s-EP; 137-q-EP; 140-b-EP; 149-d-EP/HH/RI; 151-d-EP; 152-a-NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-172 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_00608
Appendix A 1 GE/PA; 164-b-EP; 164-e-EP/PA; 164-f-EJ/EP; 172-b-DE/EP; 173-a-AE/EP/ST; 182-c-EP/ST; 2 183-c-EP/HH/PA; 3 Response: These comments are addressed under Oemographics 4 The following comments question the psycho-social analysis factor for evacuations:
5 16-c-EP/PA/PS; 50-q-EP/PS 6 Response: These comments are addressed under Psycho-Social Effects 7 The following comments express concerns for the lack of planning for the evacuation of 8 Special Facilities:
9 79-v-EJ/EP/SM; 96-h-EP; 125-b-EP 10 Response: These comments are addressed under Environmental Justice 11 The following comments express support of the Emergency Planning technical expertise 12 and general support for the evacuation plan:
13 56-d-EP; 109-b-EC/EP; 146-a-EP/SE; 148-a-ALlSO; 148-b-ALISO 14 Response: The comments are supportive of the emergency management plan at Indian Point, 15 and are general in nature. The comments provide no additional information; therefore, there 16 were no changes made to the supplement.
17 A.2.19.7 Comments Related to Terrorism 18 The following comments express concern regarding either the potential for Indian Point 19 to be a terrorist target or the need for the NRC staff to assess the environmental impacts 20 of such potential attacks:
21 11-e-RW/ST; 12-e-RW/ST; 13-d-PA/RW/ST; 16-b-PS/ST; 17-b-EP/LI/ST; 17-g-OS/ST; 17-i-22 SF/ST; 17-k-SF/ST; 17-I-SF/ST; 17-n-EP/PA/ST; 18-b-OE/ST; 20-a-PA/SF/ST; 27-e-SF/ST; 23 37-b-LE/SF/ST; 38-b-PA/RW/ST; 38-h-ST; 39-d-PA/ST; 50-m-PA/ST; 52-b-ST; 54-b-DE/ST; 24 61-b-LE/RW/ST; 63-f-RW/ST; 73-h-AM/LRlST; 75-b-EP/LE/OP/ST; 80-a-EP/ORIRW/ST; 80-25 b-LE/RW/SF/ST; 87-b-HH/PA/RW/ST; 91-e-ORIRW/ST; 102-d-OW/PA/ST; 110-c-ALIOP/ST; 26 120-n-ST; 122-a-DE/PA/ST; 126-a-DE/RW/SF/ST; 135-c-RW/SF/ST; 137-d-LRlST; 137-q-ST; 27 144-c-ST; 145-b-RW/SF/ST; 160-a-ALISA/ST; 161-c-RW/ST; 161-g-ST/UF; 161-h-DE/ST; 28 162-b-ALISF/ST; 164-a-OE/PA/ST; 171-b-PA/ST; 172-c-ST; 173-a-AE/EP/ST; 176-e-29 RW/SF/ST; 179-f-SF/RW/ST; 182-c-EP/ST; 183-d-ST 30 Response: The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is 31 generally beyond the scope of license renewal. This matter will continue to be addressed 32 through the ongoing regulatory oversight process as current and generic regulatory issues that 33 affect all nuclear facilities. Appropriate safeguards and security measures have been 34 incorporated into the site security and emergency preparedness plans. Any required changes to 35 emergency and safeguards contingency plans related to terrorist events will be incorporated 36 and reviewed under the operating license.
37 The NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental impacts related to the extended 38 period of operation. To the extent that these comments urge the NRC staff to consider December 2010 A-173 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367 A_00609
Appendix A 1 environmental impacts of potential terrorist attacks, the Commission's long-standing position is 2 that NEPA does not require inquiry into the consequences of a hypothetical terrorist attack.
3 In a Memorandum and Order concerning the renewal of the operating license for the Oyster 4 Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Amergen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for 5 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CL/-07-8, 65 NRC 124 (February 26, 2007), ADAMS 6 Accession No. ML070570511), the Commission stated that it "respectfully . .. disagrees" with 7 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, v. NRC, 449 8 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) regarding consideration of the potential environmental impacts of 9 terrorist attacks at Diablo Canyon, and will follow the decision of the court as applicable to that 10 proceeding. But, as to other proceedings, the Commission continues to believe that such inquiry 11 is not required.
12 In the Oyster Creek Memorandum and Order, the Commission also reached the following 13 conclusions. First, terrorist issues are unrelated to "the detrimental effects of aging" and are 14 beyond the scope of license renewal. Second, the environmental effect caused by terrorists is 15 simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action to require a 16 study under NEPA. Third, a NEPA-driven review of the risks of terrorism would not be 17 necessary because the NRC has undertaken extensive efforts to enhance security at nuclear 18 facilities. These ongoing post-9/11 enhancements provide the best vehicle for protecting the 19 public. Fourth, substantial practical difficulties impede meaningful NEPA-terrorism review, while 20 the problem of protecting sensitive security information in the quintessentially public NEPA and 21 adjudicatory process presents additional obstacles. Finally, the GElS documents "a 22 discretionary analysis of terrorist acts in connection with license renewal, and concluded that the 23 core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse than the damage and 24 release to be expected from internally initiated events. "
25 No change to the SEIS will be made as a result of these comments.
26 A.2.19.8 Support for Entergy 27 The following comments are generally supportive of Entergy:
28 1-b-EC/SE; 7-a-SE/SL; 8-d-SE/SR; 23-a-SE/SR; 40-xxxxx-SE; 42-d-SE/SR; 42-h-SE/SL; 43-29 a-SE/SO; 48-a-SE/SO; 48-c-SE; 53-a-SE/SR; 56-c-HH; 56-e-SE; 57-c-SA/SE/SO; 57-h-30 SE/SR;60-a-SE; 60-b-AQ/SE; 67 -e-SE/SO; 109-c-SE/SO; 114-a-SE; 115-a-SA/SE/SO; 119-d-31 AQ/SE; 119-j-SE/SR; 131-b-SE; 131-c-SE/SR; 131-d-SE; 136-c-SE; 146-a-EP/SE; 148-b-32 OS/SE; 148-c-SE; 150-a-SA/SE; 150-c-SA/SE; 156-a-SE/SR; 163-a-SE/SO/SR; 181-a-SE/SR 33 Response: The comments are in support of Entergy and are general in nature. No new 34 information in provided and therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further. No change to 35 the SEIS will be made as a result of this comment.
36 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-174 December 201 0 OAGI0001367A_0061 0
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,
NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1437, Suplement 38, (See instructions on the reverse)
Vol. 1
- 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants MONTH YEAR Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 December 2010 Final Report 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER Main Report and Comment Responses
- 5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT See Appendix B of this Report Technical
- 7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Oates)
- 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, provide name and mailing address.)
Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
- 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above':' if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address.)
Same as 8 above
- 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Docket Nos. 05000247 and 05000286 TAC Nos. MD5411 and MD5412 11 . ABSTRACT (200 words or less)
This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Entergy Nuclear I ndian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear I ndian Point 3, LLC (all applicants will be jointly referred to as Entergy) to renew the opera~ng licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.
The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, (2) the environmental report and other information submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, Slate, Tribal, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staff's own independent review, and (5) the NRC staff's consideration of public commenls received during the scoping process and in response to the draft SEIS.
- 12. KEY WORDS/DESCRI PTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3 unlimited
- 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION IP2 IP3 (This Page)
IPEC unclassified Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (This Report)
FSEIS unclassified National Environmental Policy Act NEPA 15. NUMBER OF PAGES License Renewal GElS 16. PRICE NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OAGI0001367A_00611
A e Prmted
{In recycled paper OAGI0001367A_00612