ML14293A488
| ML14293A488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/2014 |
| From: | Brian Wittick License Renewal Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | Robichaud J Environmental Protection Agency |
| Tran T, 415-3617 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML14293A488 (17) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 31, 2014 Mr. Jeffery Robichaud Deputy Director Environmental Services Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 65219
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL PLANT-SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENT 51 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS REGARDING CALLAWAY, UNIT 1
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
Enclosed are three bound copies of the final plant-specific Supplement 51 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS),
regarding the renewal of operating license NPF-30 for an additional 20 years of operation for Callaway, Unit 1 (Callaway).
The final Supplement 51 to the GEIS is being submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) via e-NEPA and copies were mailed or e-mailed to interested Federal and state agencies, industry organizations, interested groups, and members of the public. A copy of this document has also been placed in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, and in the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible on the NRCs website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS accession number for final Supplement 51 to the GEIS is ML14289A140.
Additionally, enclosed are NRCs responses to EPAs comments that were provided by letter dated April 7, 2014, during the public comment period on the draft Supplement 51 to the GEIS.
These responses can also be found in Appendix A of Supplement 51.
If further information is required, please contact the NRC Environmental Project Manager, Mr. Tam Tran, at 301-415-3617 or by e-mail at Tam.Tran@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Brian Wittick, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-483
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
- 1. Package (ML14304A330)
- 2. Letter (ML14293A488)
- 3. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 51 (ML14289A140)
- concurred via email OFFICE LA:RPB2:DLR*
PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR:
NAME IKing TTran (EKeegan for)
BWittick DATE 10/21/14 10/31/14 10/31/14
ENCLOSURE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Responses to Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the draft Supplement 51 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants The comments and associated responses are extracted from the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), Section A.4 and in the order listed in the SEIS, Section A.4. The original source for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments can be found in the SEIS, Section A.5 and are labeled with the commenter identifier No. 12.
Alternatives Comment 12-6: Though a summary of impacts for each alternative is presented in Table 8-6, there does not appear to be a rigorous evaluation of the alternatives carried forward in the DSEIS for detailed review. In our view, the power of the evaluation required by NEPA, particularly an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed action, is in a detailed and well-documented determination of whether it is good public policy to proceed with an action as opposed to another alternative. The discussion of this evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives within Chapter 8 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives is not compelling and separation points critical to an informed decision to select the preferred alternative over a different alternative are not readily apparent.
As presently described in the DSEIS, the impacts of the alternatives considered are characterized according to rather broad categories, primarily in isolation from each other and the proposed action. It does not appear that the alternatives are evaluated in direct comparison to the license renewal/extended operation proposed alternative. In effect, the license renewal stands separately from all other alternatives and is evaluated on its merit alone. As mentioned previously in our comments, this intent is reflected in the project purpose and need statement.
Additionally, some significant impacts associated with continued operation of any facility are not addressed within the DSEIS, but are addressed generically in the GElS or other NEPA documentation, making a complete comparison of several large scale impacts of continued operation to the other alternatives impossible. Though we understand that many of the issues being discussed are addressed in the GElS, there are certainly some sections that would seem to warrant reproduction or reiteration within the individual supplemental EISs. It would appear that this would be an issue that would certainly bear inclusion in the SEIS. The FSEIS should incorporate the evaluation of all of the impacts of license renewal, addressed in other NEPA documentation, into the assessment of the preferred action and utilize this information to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives as is required in 40 CFR 1502.14(a).
Response
NRCs license renewal process classifies environmental and human health issues as either Category 1 (generic to all nuclear power plants) or 2 (requires a site-specific evaluation).
Category 1 issues are termed generic issues because the conclusions related to their environmental impacts were found to be common to all plants (or, in some cases, to plants having specific characteristics such as a particular type of cooling system). For Category 1 issues, a single level of significance was common to all plants, mitigation was considered, and the NRC determined that it was not likely to be beneficial.
Issues that were resolved generically are not reevaluated in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) because the conclusions reached would be the same as in the GEIS, unless new and significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEISs conclusions. During the environmental review of license renewal of Callaway, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any new and significant information exists that would change the generic conclusions for Category 1 issues.
Category 2 issues are those that require a site-specific review. For each of the Category 2 issues applicable to Callaway, the staff evaluated site-specific data provided by Ameren, other Federal agencies, State agencies, tribal and local governments, as well as information from the open literature and members of the public. From this data, the staff has conducted a site-specific evaluation of the particular issues and presents its analyses and conclusions in the SEIS.
In the SEIS, the NRC staff considered all alternatives in detail, based on the technical review of the potential environmental impacts found in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The NRC staff rigorously explored and devoted sufficient treatment to each considered alternative to determine which alternatives were environmentally preferable. Each of the alternatives considered were evaluated in terms of potential environmental impacts by NRC technical staff in the same resource areas evaluated for the proposed action in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Potential environmental impacts in each resource area were determined to be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE based on these technical evaluations in order to provide a clear basis for choice among the alternatives. These findings are presented in Chapter 8, Table 8-6 alongside the impacts of the proposed actionCallaway license renewalin order to present a clear and direct comparison of the overall impact levels. From this comparison, the NRC staff determined that these alternatives resulted in larger potentially adverse environmental impacts than the proposed action.
As allowed by NEPA and consistent with the staffs standard review plan, the staff incorporated by reference the analysis and conclusion from the GEIS as appropriate in this SEIS (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).
The comment provides no significant new information relevant to the proposed action for this SEIS and, therefore, the staff made no changes to the SEIS as a result of the comment.
License Renewal and NEPA Process Comment 12-1: The Purpose and Need statement, as written, seems to warrant further explanation in the FSEIS, as the document appears to confuse project purpose and need with the proposed action itself. The intent of 40 CFR 1502.14 is difficult to achieve when project purpose and need are so directly linked to the reissuance of an operating license. Clarification whether the purpose of the project is to meet the projected future energy demands of the region currently met by Callaway operation, or rather if it specifically pertains to a license renewal decision, would be beneficial. Without such clarification of purpose and need, the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] has concerns about whether a rigorous evaluation of the alternatives carried forward can truly be completed, as required by 40 CFR 1502.14.
Comment 12-3: We acknowledge that the DSEIS relies upon the GElS for its purpose and need statement and that this statement is generic to all NRC license renewal decisions. However, we believe it is important to comment on this feature of the DSEIS as it appears to influence the thoroughness of the documents evaluation of alternatives. Both the GElS and the draft SEIS appear to confuse project purpose and need with the proposed action itself.
This misinterpretation could impede the complete and effective consideration of all reasonable alternatives in this DSEIS.
In a NEPA context the project purpose and need is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, which may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal decisionmakers (Section 1.2, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action).
However, the expiration of Callaways current operating license and the need to meet existing energy needs in the region are what the NRC is responding to in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action (40 [CFR] 1502.13), only one of which is the renewal of the existing license. For the purpose of meeting the existing and projected energy needs in the region, per 40 CFR 1502.14 (a), (b), (c), and (d), various alternatives to the relicensing of the Callaway plant should be fully considered and evaluated. This approach to purpose and need fully implements CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] requirements regarding NRCs responsibility to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency, and include the alternative of no action.
The intent of 40 CFR 1502.14 is difficult to achieve when project purpose and need are so directly linked to the reissuance of an operating license. An alternative which does not meet the project purpose and need, as stated, does not appear to be a reasonable or viable alternative.
The FSEIS should clarify whether the purpose of the project is to meet the projected future energy demands of the region currently met by Callaway operation, or rather if it specifically pertains to a license renewal decision.
Comment 12-11: The EPA has some concern about the timing of this DSEIS and licensing action being conducted so far in advance [of the expiration date] of the existing license. The existing license expires in 2024. Therefore, this DSEIS in support of relicensing is being prepared more than 10 years before the existing license expires. While it is indeed logical to start this process well in advance of the expiration date to allow for the time needed to conduct an appropriate analysis and allow for public involvement in the process, 10 years may be excessive. Such a large span of lead time poses potential problems, such as the increased chance that conditions could change in material ways that would necessitate further supplemental environmental review and revisiting of the licensing decision. There is always a risk of changed circumstances, but that risk is much greater when a review is being done so far in advance of the action in question taking effect.
Response
These comments express concern about the adequacy of the license renewal rule. These comments, except for 12-11, refer to the GEIS which is codified in 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B; the purpose and need statement for this SEIS is specified in the GEIS. Comment 12-11 refers to the timeliness of the submittal of the Callaway license renewal application and the associated development of the SEIS, which is codified in 10 CFR 54.17(c). These comments are beyond the scope of the NRCs environmental review. Comment petitioning to issue, amend, or rescind the license renewal rule is governed by 10 CFR 2.802, Petition for Rulemaking, and is beyond the scope of this environmental review for Callaway license renewal.
The staff noted that, in response to the Amerens application for license renewal, the staff has prepared this SEIS taking into consideration the best available information with respect to the requested licensing action, as allowed by NEPA. Relative to revisiting a licensing decision, the staff further noted, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission has the authority to suspend, modify, revoke, etc. (as warranted) an issued license regardless if it is a current license or a renewed license.
The comments provide no significant new information relevant to the proposed action for this SEIS and, therefore, the staff made no changes to the SEIS as a result of the comments.
Specific Comments on Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Comment 12-2b: The DSEIS effectively identifies the purpose and utilization of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program [REMP], a supplement to the Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Program, in relation to the Callaway plant operations and monitoring. The NRCs assertion that the impacts from radioactive effluents would be SMALL would further benefit from the adequate and thorough characterization of the data produced by these monitoring programs, as well as an identification of the monitoring sites used to collect data, the type of
[medium] sampled at each location and a representation of monitoring trends relative to baseline data. A more complete discussion in the FSEIS of more detailed requirements and regulatory limitations set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit would be valuable to the integrity of the assertions outlined in the Environmental Impacts of Operation section.
Comment 12-7: Section 4.9.2.2 addresses Callaways current Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program [REMP] and the Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Program, which provide a formal mechanism for determining the levels of radioactivity in the local environment and in facility effluents/releases. The REMP supplements the Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Program by verifying that any measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation in the environment are not higher than those calculated using the radioactive effluent release measurements and transport models. Ameren issues an annual radiological environmental operating report that discusses the results of the REMP and files an annual report with the NRC that lists the types and quantities of radioactive effluent releases. The NRC reviewed [5] years of annual REMP data and effluent release reports in preparation of the DSEIS. It is stated in this section that Routine plant operational and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during the license renewal term. Based on the past performance of the radioactive waste management system in maintaining the dose from radioactive effluents at ALARA levels, similar performance is expected during the license renewal term...Continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the license renewal term; therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents would be SMALL.
While the EPA recognizes that the approach to monitoring environmental and effluent radioactivity by Ameren under both programs appears to be very comprehensive, we suggest that the FSEIS should include a more detailed presentation of data than is provided in the DSEIS. Subsections within Section 4.9.2, Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations include a description of how the REMP is designed and a statement that the NRCs evaluation of data resulted in no indication of an adverse trend in radioactivity levels in the environment. There is no detail about monitoring locations or a document vehicle summarizing the actual data reviewed by the NRC. The subsection summarizing the effluent release data does provide some degree of quantified presentation, but, given the importance of the issue of radiological release, it is not prominent and combines both gaseous and liquid releases. We suggest that the FSEIS contain a map showing the locations of monitoring stations within the REMP, a table listing those stations, the media sampled at each location, and a representation of monitoring trends relative to baseline data. Effluent release data should be characterized in the FSEIS specific to gaseous or liquid releases and sources of release within the facility.
A more complete discussion in the FSEIS of more detailed requirements and regulatory limitations set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit would be beneficial to both Chapters 2 and 4. The NPDES permit for the Callaway Plant is possibly the most significant regulatory document available for public review. The permit regulates 11 discharges to the Missouri River, and these discharges, arguably, constitute the largest opportunity for facility-generated contaminants to leave the facility site. The FSEIS should include a copy of the complete permit, including special conditions, and a section summarizing what parameters are monitored and which are limited and how the NPDES permit requirements dovetail with the Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Program.
Response
The staff considered the best available information for its independent analysis in the SEIS. For consideration of non-radiological contaminants to leave the site, the NRC staff discussed NPDES permit and impacts to water resources in Chapter 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
For radiological contaminants consideration, the NRC staff discussed Callaways REMP in Section 4.9.2.2 of the SEIS. REMPs at nuclear power plants were generically evaluated in the License Renewal GEIS (GEIS) as part of the Human Health issue listed in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 and classified as a Category 1 issue generic to all nuclear power plants. The GEIS contains a thorough discussion of the purpose, function, and description of the types of samples taken, the radiological analysis performed on those samples, and the results of the monitoring.
The detailed analyses from the GEIS are incorporated by reference into the SEIS. As a Category 1 issue, the REMP discussion in the Callaway SEIS tiers off (is based on) the information in the GEIS so as not to repeat information that has already been evaluated in the LR GEIS, and the environmental impacts were determined to be SMALL for all nuclear power plants.
As part of the Callaway review, the NRC reviewed 5 years of REMP data to support its conclusion that there were no significant impacts or an adverse trend of radioactivity building up in the environment. Based on the NRC staffs review of Amerens ER, the scoping comments, the site audit, and Callaways REMP data, the NRC staff found no new and significant information that would contradict conclusions in the GEIS.
Information on the Callaway REMP, including types and numbers of samples, maps showing the locations of sampling stations, and radionuclide analysis are contained in Callaways Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports. The reference list at the end of Chapter 4 contains a listing of the REMP reports reviewed by the NRC staff. These annual reports are available on the NRCs public Web site. Therefore, there are no impacts beyond those identified and evaluated in the GEIS.
The comments provide no significant new information relevant to the proposed action for this SEIS and, therefore, the staff made no changes to the SEIS as a result of the comments.
Specific Comments on Waste Confidence (Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel)
Comment 12-2a: The FSEIS should include updated information regarding the decisionmaking process for the revised Waste Confidence Rule in regards to Callaway. Additionally, the DSEIS indicates that there is a future necessity for the implementation of an independent spent fuel storage installation for the plant because the spent fuel pool does not have adequate storage capacity to take the plant to the end of its current operating license. By approximately 2020, the spent fuel pool will not have enough capacity to offload an entire core. The DSEIS states that, because this project is sufficiently far in the future, no specific plans have been developed. EPA asserts that the FSEIS cannot sufficiently address the issue of the storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to completion of the Waste Confidence GEIS and completion and approval of a plan for the facility to properly manage spent fuel on-or off-site within the next 6 years.
Comment 12-4: Storage, transportation, and disposition of spent nuclear fuel is of particular concern for all nuclear power plants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently commented on NRCs Waste Confidence [continued storage] Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pending update to the Waste Confidence Rule. The EPAs comment letter was submitted to NRC on January 15, 2014. The EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
The FSEIS should include updated information regarding the decisionmaking process for the revised Waste Confidence Rule in regards to Callaway. It should address how radioactive waste handling, storage, and disposition will be conducted at Callaway in light of the updated rule, and the changes to current procedures that will be made as a result of the updated rule.
The FSEIS should clarify the potential changes in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the updated rule.
The [Continued Storage Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement] states that, if the results of the Waste Confidence Rule and supporting [generic] EIS identify information requiring a supplement to the SEIS, that an appropriate additional NEPA review will be performed for those issues prior to the NRC making a final licensing decision. Section 2.1.2 Radioactive Waste Management of the DSEIS states that an independent spent fuel storage installation is proposed for the plant because the pool does not have adequate storage capacity to take the plant to the end of its current operating license. By approximately 2020, the spent fuel pool will not have enough capacity to offload an entire core. This section goes on to state that Ameren intends to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation, but this project is sufficiently far enough in the future that no specific plans have been prepared at this time. Being that the spent fuel pool will reach its maximum capacity prior to the start of the proposed license renewal and that this renewal would extend the licensing period 30 years into the future, the EPA contends that the timely preparation of a plan for construction of an ISFSI is indeed exceptionally relevant and pertinent to making a fully informed and effective license renewal decision. The unique circumstances of spent fuel management at the Callaway Plant make this, in our opinion, an issue for which significant information has been identified warranting a site-specific analysis. This issue has not been adequately addressed in the DSEIS.
As the FSEIS cannot sufficiently address the issue of the storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to completion of the Waste Confidence GEIS and completion and approval of a plan for the facility to properly manage spent fuel on-or off-site within the next 6 years, we request that the issuance of the FSEIS be delayed until those two issues are fully and finally addressed. As directed by the Commission, the NRC will not issue a renewed license before the resolution of waste confidence-related issues. We strongly echo this standpoint, but also recommend that no decision on the reissuance of Callaways license be made until and unless the Waste Confidence [Continued Storage Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement] has been finalized and the facility-specific plan for spent fuel storage past 2020 has been finalized and approved by the NRC.
Response
The License Renewal GEIS (GEIS), NUREG-1437, addresses the onsite storage of SNF during the 20-year license renewal period. The GEIS concluded that the impact of onsite storage of SNF during the 20-year license renewal term would be SMALL and that the issue was generic to all nuclear power plants. The Callaway SEIS discussion in Chapter 6 tiers off the GEISs discussion and conclusion. The NRC identified no new and significant information related to the storage of SNF during the 20-year license renewal period, during its independent review of Amerens ER, the scoping process, or the site audit. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no impact during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
For the period beyond the licensed life for reactor operations, on August 26, 2014, the Commission approved a revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23 and associated Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-2157, ADAMS Accession No. ML14188B749). Subsequently, on September 19, 2014, the NRC published the revised rule (79 FR 56238) in the Federal Register along with NUREG-2157 (79 FR 56263).
The revised rule adopts the generic impact determinations made in NUREG-2157 and codifies the NRCs generic determinations regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactors operating license (i.e., those impacts that could occur as a result of the storage of spent nuclear fuel at at-reactor or away-from-reactor sites after a reactors licensed life for operation and until a permanent repository becomes available). By rule, those impacts are deemed incorporated into this SEIS.
NUREG-2157 supports the revised rule and includes, among other things, the staffs analyses related to the particular deficiencies identified by the D.C. Circuit in the vacated Waste Confidence decision and rule. The NRC staffs consideration of the issues identified by the D.C.
Circuit was aided considerably by the publics extensive participation in the process, including comments received during scoping, on the draft NUREG-2157 and revised rule, and participation in nationwide public meetings, among other things.
The revised Continued Storage Rule does not require any changes to the management (i.e.,
handling, storage, and disposition) of SNF at a reactor site. As previously stated, the revised 10 CFR 51.23 documents the environmental impacts of continued storage of SNF. Therefore, there are no potential changes in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that result from the revised rule.
The NRC staff intends to address any impacts from the Continued Storage Rule subsequently in a Record of Decision or as a supplement to this SEIS, as appropriate.
Text Clarification Comment 12-9 (a): Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action lists all of the current permits applicable to the operation of the Callaway Plant. Several of these permits, issued by Missouri Department of Natural Resources, specifically the NPDES permit, CAA Title V Part 70 Air Permit, and CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, have reached their expiration dates at the time of issuance of this DSEIS.
Comment 12-9 (b): Section 2.2.2.1 Air Quality states that Existing emission sources at Callaway are regulated under Operating Permit No. OP2008-045. This operating permit expires on September 17, 2013. It is expected that MDNR will issue a renewed operating permit for an additional 5 years, incorporating any changes to emission sources at Callaway during the 5-year period of the existing permit.
Comment 12-9 (c): Additionally, Section 2.2.4 indicates that Callaways surface water discharges are permitted under a NPDES permit, which expired on February 12, 2014. This section states that On August 17, 2012, Ameren submitted a letter to MDNR asking for confirmation that the license extension would not violate Missouris Water Quality Standards.
The letter also asked for confirmation that the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be required by MDNR or whether a letter of approval, based on the existing Section 401 Water Quality Certification, coupled with the ongoing NPDES permit authorization, would be issued. At the time the DSEIS was written, a letter response on this issue from MDNR had not yet been received. EPA requests that the FSEIS include the current status of each of these permits. Additionally, including either copies of the licenses and permits currently issued to Callaway in the Appendices section, or at minimum, including links to these documents somewhere within the narrative of the FSEIS would be beneficial.
Comment 12-13: The DSEIS refers to many other documents as can be seen in the list of references provided at the end of each section. Because the underlying basis for most of the information provided in this supplement are contained in these documents, a complete comprehensive review would have to include the information contained in these documents.
The need for the underlying information and analyses is most noticed in Section 2 Affected Environment of this DSEIS. Therefore, it is suggested that all pertinent information and backup analyses needed to understand and evaluate the provided consequences of the proposed license renewal be included in the FSEIS to the extent feasible. If a complete standalone SEIS cannot be developed for this project, the FSEIS should provide the specific document, section, and page where referenced documentation and analyses can be obtained to support the information provided. If appropriate, the specific NRC docket [Web] location should be provided. One option would be to make the supporting reference documents available in electronic format on the NRC [Web] site where the DSEIS is currently posted.
Response
These comments are editorial or clarification in nature. The comments are incorporated into the SEIS, as appropriate. The SEIS sections being revised are listed as follows:
Comment SEIS Section Summary Comment 12-9 (a)
(b)
(c) 1.9 2.2.2.1 2.2.4 The staff updated Table 1-1 in Section 1.9 to incorporate the most recent information on licenses and permits.
On February 19, 2013, Ameren submitted an air permit renewal application for Callaway to the MDNR. MDNR has notified the NRC that the facility will operate under the previous permit until the department issues a new operating permit. Section 2.2.2.1 has been updated accordingly to reflect this information.
On October 8, 2013, Ameren received a letter from MDNR that the NPDES permit provides appropriate environmental protection under the Missouri Clean Water Law and compliance with the Clean Water Act. Ameren submitted a permit renewal application to MDNR on August 1, 2013, and is still awaiting permit issuance.
A copy of the current NPDES permit, maps of outfalls, schematic flow diagrams, and the renewal application is available in ADAMS under the following accession numbers ML101310076, ML12271A451, ML13240A302, ML13240A303, ML13240A304, and ML13240A306. The letter of 401 certification from the State of Missouri can be found at ML13283A182. These documents have been added to the references in the SEIS.
Comment 12-13 Chapter 2 references The staff developed the SEIS in accordance with the NRC standard review plan (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1). All information gathered from (a) public comments, (b) correspondences with the applicant, and (c) consultation process are listed as a part of the reviewing docket and documented in Appendix E of this SEIS, along with the agency record numbering (ADAMS accession number). ADAMS records are readily accessible from the NRC home page. Publicly available information such as information posted on the Internet are documented in the reference sections in the SEIS, along with the Web addresses. No changes have been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
Water Resource Comment 12-8: Section 2.1.6.1 Circulating Water System includes information regarding settling ponds used by the facility for sludge removal storage. There are four existing settling ponds at the facility, two of which are currently in use, the other two of which are at maximum capacity. This section states that No changes to the existing settling ponds are planned.
However, additional settling ponds may be added as needed. While we understand that there are no current specific plans in place for additional settling ponds, we feel that such future plans warrant further discussion. Table G-1 in Appendix G reflects an estimate of needing three additional sediment retention ponds over the next 20 years. However, there is no mention of what the plans may entail for the existing ponds. For instance, will these plans likely include the excavation and removal of sludge off site? Or will the existing ponds simply be decommissioned and left in place once they reach capacity, and the additional ponds be constructed?
Response
Section 2.1.6.1 of the SEIS has been updated to incorporate recent information the future and existing sedimentation ponds. From 2014 until the end of the license renewal period, Ameren expects it will construct 4 to 5 additional sedimentation ponds to support continued operation of Callaway during this time. Exelon plans to complete construction of two of these ponds in 2015.
All new ponds will be built on land that was previously disturbed by construction activities and has been evaluated for cultural resources. Each new sedimentation pond will cover a surface area of approximately 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) and will take about 6 months to construct. During construction Ameren will follow best management practices (PMPs) to suppress dust and minimize soil erosion. Appropriate permits and plan approvals from the State of Missouri will also be obtained. Excavated soil will be placed along the berms of the existing lagoons and may later be used for reclamation activities. In consultation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the long term reclamation plan for each sedimentation pond is to cap the pond and return it to a natural state.
Climate Change Comment 12-5: Amerens discussion of climate change and greenhouse gases [GHGs] in the DSEIS is appreciated. CEQ issued draft guidance for public comment on when and how
[Federal] agencies must consider GHG emissions and climate change in their proposed action.
While this guidance is not yet final, the EPA recommends that the FSEIS explicitly reference the draft guidance, describe the elements of the draft guidance, and to the relevant extent, provide the assessments suggested by the guidance. We furthermore recommend a discussion of best management practices to reduce GHGs and other air emissions during operation of the facility buildings, equipment, and vehicles.
The draft guidance proposes that climate change effects should be considered in the analysis of projects that are designed for long-term utility and located in areas that are considered vulnerable to specific effects of climate change within the projects timeframe. The focus of this analysis should be on those aspects of the environment that, based on the interaction between the proposed action and the environment, are affected by the proposed action and on the significance of climate change on those aspects of the environment. Agencies should consider the specific effects of the proposed action (including the proposed actions effect on the vulnerability of affected ecosystems), the nexus of those effects with projected climate change effects on the same aspects of our environment, and the implications for the environment to adapt to the projected effects of climate change.
Efforts should be made to minimize GHG emissions to the extent feasible during the license renewal period. Clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, should be a consideration in the purchase of maintenance equipment and vehicles. In addition, the EPA recommends that the project team thoroughly consider the need for measures to manage potential climate-related impacts, such as potential increases in storm frequency and intensity resulting in increased floodwater flows, and conversely, the potential for increased drought
- 11 -
events. The DSEIS does not address measures for climate change adaptation for the Callaway site. Though the power plant site area containing the major power generation facilities is sited 336 feet above the average elevation of the Missouri River, the intake structure is located within the river floodplain and thus has a higher potential to be directly affected by high water events.
High water events possibly associated with regional climate change (e.g., changing precipitation patterns, changing hydrology) could threaten facility performance and control by interfering with or eliminating access to the intake structure or neighboring wells. In addition, low flows or drought conditions could affect access to Missouri River water through the intake structure and access to groundwater through wells terminating in the alluvial aquifer. Given that the relicensing of the Callaway facility would provide for its continued operation through 2044, we believe it is essential that the FSEIS address how the facility intends to adapt to reasonably foreseeable changes in climate which might affect the safety and performance of the facility and, particularly, the circulating water system. Underscoring both the significance and reality of this issue, the NRC need only review impacts to the operation of Cooper Nuclear Station at River Mile 533 on the Missouri River during the high water events of 2011. Low river flows have also frequently affected the ability of other energy facilities withdrawing Missouri River water for operational purposes from accessing adequate volumes of water. Please refer to EPA's website (www.epa.gov/climatechange) for useful information pertaining to climate change.
Response
The commenter provides recommendations to be incorporated in the FSEIS regarding climate change and GHG emissions considerations. The comments can be summarized into the following areas: (a) application of CEQs draft guidance on climate change; (b) efforts and practices to reduce GHG emissions during the license renewal period; and (c) impacts of climate change on operations and operational safety at Callaway and climate change adaptation. A response to the three areas identified by the commenter is discussed below.
Application of CEQs draft guidance on GHG and climate change As noted by the commenter, the CEQs guidance is yet to be finalized and is still in a draft form.
As it may be possible for CEQs guidance to change and be revised, the NRC staff believes it to be prudent to not reference this guidance until a final version is published. However, the NRC staff would like to note that a 2009 Commission Order (CLI-09-21) directs the NRC staff to consider GHG emissions in environmental reviews for major licensing actions. In response to the Commission Order, both climate change and GHG emissions are addressed in SEISs for License Renewal and as noted by the commenter, the Callaway SEIS includes a discussion of GHGs and climate change.
Efforts and practices to reduce GHG emissions during the license renewal period Based on its limited statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act, NRC cannot impose measures or standards on its nuclear power plant licensees that are not related to public health and safety from radiological hazards or common defense and security, such as clean energy options of maintenance equipment and vehicles. The licensee, not the NRC, is responsible for the purchase of maintenance equipment and vehicles. Nevertheless, licensees are required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local permit requirements relevant to their activities. Since there will be no refurbishment related activities, the NRC staff expects similar emissions during the license renewal period.
Impacts of climate change on operations of Callaway and climate change adaptation The commenter recommends that the EIS address adaptation to changes in climate that may affect the safety and performance of the facility and specifically raises concerns regarding changes in flow of Missouri River on the safety and performance of the circulating water system and access to groundwater wells. The comment is beyond the scope of the license renewal environmental review. The NRC evaluates nuclear plant operating conditions and physical infrastructure to ensure continued safe operations (including adaptation with natural phenomena hazard) through its ongoing inspection and oversight process, regardless during the current license term or a renewed term. The impacts of climate change on operations and safety at Callaway and climate change adaptation of a facility are therefore considered out of scope for the environmental review, which documents the potential impacts on the environment from continued operation.
All currently operating nuclear power plants are located in consideration of site-specific environmental (natural phenomena hazard) conditions. NRC regulations (10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria) require that plant structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena hazard such as flooding from severe storms, without loss of capability to perform safety functions. Furthermore, plant operations are dictated by NRC-issued operating license technical specifications which ensure that plants operate safely at all times. Technical specifications and operating procedures exist to ensure safe operation of the facility, including coping with natural phenomena hazard.
As new information that may affect plant safety becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information to determine if any changes are needed at existing plants or its regulations. For instance, as part of the Japan lessons-learned activities resulting from the March 2011, earthquake and tsunami, the NRC has used its regulatory authority under 10 CFR 50.54 to request flood reevaluations of existing nuclear power plants (see ADAMS No. ML12053A340).
Licensees of operating nuclear power plants have been asked to reevaluate the flooding hazards that could affect their sites using present-day information. These newly reevaluated hazards, if worse than what the plant had originally calculated upon initial licensing, will be analyzed to determine whether plant structures, systems, and components need to be updated to protect against the new hazards.
The commenter specifically raises concerns regarding changes in flow of the Missouri River on the safety and performance of the circulating water system and access to groundwater wells.
Should the plant ever be completely cut off from Missouri River water, the NRC requires the reactor to be shut down. Even in a shutdown condition, additional water would be needed to cool the reactor. Therefore, the NRC requires Callaway to continuously maintain a supply of water that can be immediately used to cool the shutdown reactor for a period of 30 days (see ADAMS No. ML113540354, Attachment F).
Callaway does not use groundwater from the Missouri River alluvial aquifer. The hydrologic interaction between the Missouri River and the Missouri River alluvial aquifer is described in Section 2.2.5. The impact of plant consumption on Missouri River flows during low flow conditions in the Missouri River (drought) is described in Section 4.4.2. The impact of Missouri River water consumption on alluvial aquifer water levels by the Callaway plant during low flow conditions in the Missouri River is described in Section 4.5.2.2. As described in cumulative impact Section 4.12.2.1, the Missouri River is a managed river. River flow is managed via the numerous dams that have been constructed in the Missouri River watershed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility under Congressional Authorization for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Missouri River for navigation, flood control, irrigation, recreation, and other related purposes. During the license renewal term, the staff expects that the Corps of Engineers will continue to manage the river to prevent floods and maintain adequate river flows for downstream uses.
Refurbishment Comment 12-10:
Table B-1 in Appendix B. National Environmental Policy Act Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, addresses Refurbishment Impacts under the Terrestrial Ecology section and states that there is the potential for Small, Medium, or Large environmental significance.
This section acknowledges that it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application.
Mentioned in Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment and included in Section 4.12 Cumulative Impacts as an action or project identified during this review and considered in the staffs independent analysis of the potential cumulative effects are Amerens plans for a reactor vessel head replacement. This replacement is stated in Chapter 3.0 to be scheduled to occur 10 years before the license renewal, which would effectively be at present time. Given this information, it would be expected that more specific and detailed information pertaining to this action would be provided in the SEIS. Though very briefly mentioned in Section 4.12, it is not shown on Figure 4-3 Projects and Actions with Potential for Cumulative Impacts.
Section 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment states that the applicant did not identify the need to undertake any major refurbishment or replacement actions associated with license renewal to support the continued operation of Callaway beyond the end of the existing operating license. However, the preferred alternative does not expressly address the possible need for facility component updates and/or refurbishing to extend plant operation for 20 additional years beyond the end of the current license period. Any needed updates or refurbishing should be identified and their associated environmental consequences and permits approvals should be addressed in the FSEIS. The DSEIS appears to suggest that other than changes to the onsite spent fuel storage and ISFSI, no major component updates or refurbishing will be needed to extend the Callaway Plant for the 20-year renewal period. If so, we recommend that the FSEIS include a general but more definitive statement indicating that Ameren believes that no substantive updates or refurbishing is needed for the proposed license renewal.
We recommend that the FSEIS discuss means for improving the safety, operation, and environmental compliance/monitoring for Callaway Plant 1. While there may essentially not be new construction impacts associated with the proposed renewal, improvements to ongoing operational protocols could conceivably result in a reduction of operational environmental impacts over the next 20-year timeframe. While we understand upgrading is an ongoing process, the proposed license renewal offers an excellent opportunity for Ameren to reassess any existing impacts and mitigating them procedurally and structurally (technology components), where appropriate.
Response
The staff considers the best available information for its analysis in the SEIS. In the Amerens ER, Ameren does not identify the need to undertake any major refurbishment or replacement action associated with license renewal. Therefore, the staff deleted the refurbishment discussion in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
In the ER, Ameren states that it plans to replace the reactor vessel head, which is scheduled to occur 10 years before current license expiration and is being performed to meet the current license life of the plant independent of license renewal. The current Callaway license includes Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan, which addresses environmental protection related to current license activities. The staff evaluated the reactor vessel head replacement activity as a part of cumulative impacts as appropriate.
Consultation Comment 12-12a: We appreciate and support your coordination efforts with resource agencies.
We recommend continued coordination in support of mitigation planning for ecological, cultural, and historic resource impacts, and in consideration and development of efforts to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
Response
The NRC coordinates with Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, throughout its NEPA review process. Consistent with the NRC standard review plan, documentation of all coordination and consultation activities is included in the SEIS (Appendix D). No changes have been made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
Comment 12-12b: The DSEIS summarizes NRCs coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and MDNR. Specifically related to the Federally listed pallid sturgeon, the NRC determined that the present and future operation of the Callaway plant through 2044 may affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of the pallid sturgeon and that any adverse effects would accrue primarily through direct mortality caused by entrainment and impingement of larvae and juveniles. Given the recent and future recovery efforts of this endangered species, the EPA recommends close monitoring and mitigation efforts and continued coordination with FWS and MDNR on these issues pertaining to Threatened and Endangered species.
Response
This comment is related to the discussion in the staffs biological assessment (Appendix H).
The staff and FWS consultation on the pallid surgeon is continuing. The staff will appropriately condition the license if the consultation is not concluded in a timely manner.