ML23291A109

Subsequent License Renewal Application Requests for Confirmation of Information Environmental Review

ML23291A109
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	10/23/2023
From:	Jessica Umana NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ELRB
To:
Shared Package
ML23291A106	List: ML23291A109 ML23291A110
References
Download: ML23291A109 (18)

Text

MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUESTS FOR CONFIRMATION OF INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Regulatory Basis:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, which implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), include requirements for applicants to provide information as may be useful in aiding the NRC staff in complying with NEPA. Licensees are required by 10 CFR 51.45 to submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental Report.

The regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 require in part, the NRC staff to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before deciding the issuance or renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant. In accordance with Commission Legal Issuance (CLI) CLI-22-3, as part of the NRCs license renewal review for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP or Monticello) subsequent license renewal application, a site-specific EIS will be prepared.

Request for Confirmation of Information:

During the environmental audit, the NRC staff reviewed documents that were made available on the applicants electronic information portal in response to the staff audit needs. The staff also participated in breakout sessions for each resource area with applicant personnel to gather information that will likely be used in the site-specific environmental impact statement. To the best of the staffs knowledge, information on the applicants electronic information portal and discussed in breakout sessions is not currently on the docket or publicly accessible. The NRC staff requests that the applicant confirm that the information gathered from the audit and listed below is correct or provides the associated corrected information.

1) GEN-3, WM-5 & WM-6 The environmental report (ER) dated January 9, 2023 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ML23009A356), addresses spills that occurred through 2021. Please confirm that there have been no reportable inadvertent releases or spills of nonradioactive contaminants including oil in 2022 or 2023 to date (July 18, 2023).

2) MET-2 Section 3.3.3.2 of the ER states that there have been no notices of violation or non-compliances associated with Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Unit 1 (MNGP) emissions from 2016-2020.

During the environmental audit breakout session for Air Quality and Noise and in response to information need MET-2, Xcel Energy stated that MNGP has not received any notices of violation or non-compliance associated with its air emissions between 2020 and August 1, 2023.

Confirm that MNGP has not received any notices of violation or non-compliance associated with air emissions between 2020 and the present date.

Enclosure 2

2

3) MET-4 During the environmental audit breakout session for Air Quality and Noise and in response to information need MET-4, Xcel Energy stated that no field tests concerning emissions of ozone and nitrogen oxide compounds generated by MNGPs 115 kV and 345 kV in-scope transmission lines have been conducted. Confirm that no field tests concerning emissions of ozone and nitrogen oxide compounds generated by MNGPs 115 kV and 345 kV in-scope transmission lines have been conducted.

4) MET-5 Section 3.3.3.2 of the ER states that Xcel Energy applied to renew the MNGP air permit and that minor changes to the renewal application were requested. During the environmental audit breakout session for Air Quality and Noise and in response to information need MET-5, Xcel Energy stated that requested changes in the air permit renewal application included the addition of two existing onsite gasoline tanks and the removal of all nonroad engines. Confirm that changes requested in MNGPs air permit renewal application included the addition of two existing onsite gasoline tanks and the removal of all nonroad engines.

5) MET-6 Table 3.3-11 of the ER presents MNGPs annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. During the environmental audits Air Quality and Noise breakout session and in response to information need MET-6, Xcel Energy states that MNGP does use sulfur hexafluoride in a small number of voltage breakers, but the sites air permit (Permit No. 17100019-004) does not require that Xcel Energy calculate GHG emissions for this source. Confirm that MNGP uses sulfur hexafluoride in a small number of voltage breakers and that Xcel Energy is not required to calculate GHG emissions for this source.

6) NOI-1 Section 3.4 of the ER states that the nearest residence is located approximately 0.52 miles southwest of the site. During the environmental audits Air Quality and Noise break-out session and in response to information need NOI-1, Xcel Energy stated that the distance of 0.52 miles to the nearest residence was measured from the reactor building. Confirm that the nearest residence was measured from the reactor building.

7) NOI-2 Section 3.4 of the ER states that no noise complaints have been received related to plant activities at MNGP. During the environmental audits Air Quality and Noise breakout session and in response to information need NOI-2, Xcel Energy stated that there have been no noise complaints received related to MNGP plant activities since 2021. Confirm that no noise complaints have been received related to MNGP plant activities since 2021.

8) NOI-3 During the environmental audits Air Quality and Noise break-out session and in response to information need NOI-3, Xcel Energy stated that it has not conducted any offsite noise studies in the vicinity of MNGP. Confirm that Xcel Energy has not conducted any offsite noise studies in the vicinity of MNGP.

2

2

9) AQ-2 As discussed during the audit, the NRC staff understands that as part of the cooling water intake system, two sets of spray nozzles wash fish and debris off the intake screens as the screens travel upward. Fish and debris then enter a trough that is 1.3 feet wide and approximately 170 feet long. The trough flows back to the Mississippi River downstream of the intake. Although the trough functions to return impinged fish to the source water, Xcel Energy has not conducted studies to evaluate impingement survival. Please confirm that this is an accurate characterization of the fish return system is accurate.

10) SW-2 Attachment D of the January 2023 ER states that the cooling towers were replaced in 2021 and 2022 and that these new towers are equipped with drift eliminators. Please confirm that the design drift loss limit is 0.0005 percent.

11) SW-3 Tables 3.6-4a and 3.6-4b in the ER present monthly and yearly surface water withdrawal data for 2016-2020. Please confirm tables 3.6-4a and 3.6-4b contain the recent monthly and surface water withdrawal data.

3

2

12) SW-8 Section 3.6.3.1 of the ER states that special operating conditions are applicable if Mississippi River flow at MNGP is less than 860 cfs. Please confirm that Mississippi River flow at MNGP is determined using river level measurements taken at the MNGP site along with a site-specific rating curve.

13) GW-9 Tables 3.6-6a and 3.6-6b of the ER presents monthly and yearly groundwater withdrawal data for 2016-2020. Prior to the environmental audit, the NRC staff requested updated tables with the most recent data available. Updated tables were provided via the online portal, and yearly totals are stated below.

4

2 Please confirm that the yearly totals and averages provided below for groundwater withdrawals from onsite wells 11 and 12 are correct.

Information Need GW-9 Table. MNGP Yearly Groundwater Withdrawal Summary - Water Wells 11 (MDH Unique Well No. 236025) and 12 (MDH Unique Well No. 218039), Total Withdrawal and Average Daily Withdrawal (2016-2022)

Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Yearly Total (gal/yr) 11,546,836 11,820,088 12,056,366 10,712,516 11,141,602 11,202,037 10,127,678 Average (gpd) 31,548.73 32,383.8 33,031.14 29,349.36 30,441.54 30,690.51 27,747.06 Average gallons per year 2016-2022 11,229,589 Average gallons per day 2016-2022 30,741.73

14) TER-1 Section 2.2.5.3 of the ER states that Xcel Energy installs swan diverters on company transmission lines areas where incidents of bird collisions have occurred. As discussed in the audit, please confirm that no swan diverters have been installed on the MNGP site.

15) HH1 & HH-2 Section 3.10.1 of the ER discusses waterborne outbreaks as summarized in the Minnesota Department of Health Waterborne Illness Surveillance Statistics.

1. As discussed during the audit, please confirm that there are no additional updates or changes since the subsequent license review (SLR) ER concerning waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the plant. Also, Section 3.10.1 notes that one of the outbreaks due to Legionella was associated with exposure to a cooling tower.

2. As discussed during the audit, please confirm that this exposure was not at the MNGP site. The Minnesota Department of Health statistics only provide data through 2018, but the cooling towers were replaced onsite during 2021 and 2022.

3. Please confirm that there have been no occurrences of Legionella exposure post-2018 onsite or during the replacement of the cooling towers as discussed during the audit.

16) WM-1 Section 3.6.4.2.2 of the ER discusses a carbon tetrachloride release and subsequent actions taken including the site becoming a voluntary responsible party under the Superfund Program.

The ER states that Well 10 was sealed at the end of 2020 and an affidavit on the property was filed stating that no water supply wells will be installed near Well 10 in the future.

(1) As discussed during the audit, please confirm that the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a Letter of No Action dated May 1, 2020. The letter states, Based on a review of the information provided to the MPCA, a determination is hereby made to take no further action with regard to the Identified Release; specifically, the MPCA staff will not refer the Identified Release to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for inclusion on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System list, to the State Site Assessment staff for evaluation, 5

2 or to the MPCA Commissioner for the placement of the Site on the Permanent List of Priorities.

(2) Please confirm there will be no other actions or institutional controls on the site required other than sealing Well 10 (which is completed), and the affidavit on the property stating that no water supply wells will be installed near Well 10 in the future, which is in progress.

17) WM-2 & WM-8 As discussed in section 2.2.6.1 of the ER, MNGP does not perform planned radioactive liquid waste discharges. As discussed in the audit, please confirm that the following is an accurate description of the effluent pathways and how they are monitored. There are two normal discharges of non-radioactive liquid from the plant:

1. the discharge canal to the river and

2. the sewage lift station to the city of Monticello Sanitary Sewer System, both of which are monitored by the Process Radiation Monitoring System.

The plant also currently has two locations of gaseous radioactive effluent discharge:

1. the off-gas stack and

2. the reactor building ventilation exhaust, both of which are also monitored by the Process Radiation Monitoring System.

The Process Radiation Monitoring System consists of several subsystems that provide continuous monitoring of the radiation levels of liquid and gaseous processes throughout the plant and assist in controlling the releases to prescribed limits in the Technical Specification and Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). As discussed during the audit, MNGP is currently constructing a groundwater remediation storage pond to store the tritiated groundwater that is being collected in response to the tritium leak. The water will either be reused in plant systems or be evaporated from the pond. If pond evaporation is implemented, it will be the third gaseous point for tritium at the plant. As discussed during the audit:

1. tritium releases to the air from the current storage tanks associated with groundwater remediation are being controlled through use of covers,

2. a cover is planned to be placed on the groundwater remediation pond once it is filled, and

3. if evaporation from the groundwater remediation pond is implemented, the necessary updates to the Technical Specifications and ODCM will be made to appropriately measure the effluent pathway.

18) HCR-1 Section 3.8 of the ER states that Xcel Energy contacted the Minnesota Historical Society for informal consultation and correspondence is included in attachment C of the ER. Attachment C 6

2 of the ER, however, does not have documentation related to the Minnesota Historical Society.

During the environmental audits Historic and Cultural resources break-out session and in response to information need HCR-1, Xcel Energy clarified that they did not contact the Minnesota Historical Society for informal consultation. Confirm that Xcel Energy did not contact the Minnesota Historical Society for informal consultation associated with the subsequent license renewal application.

19) WM-4 Section 2.2.6.6 discusses low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and states that there is currently no waste Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) stored. Please confirm the following as clarified during the audit:

1. Xcel Energy has identified components in the spent fuel pool which are potentially GTCC. The components are local power range monitor detectors.

2. Xcel Energy has no plans to store LLW at MGNP for the long-term. The LLW will be shipped to a licensed facility such as Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah, or Erwin, Tennessee. Shipments are made when economical and there are no minimum quantities for shipments.

3. Xcel Energy has no plans to change the way LLW is managed during the license renewal term and does not plan to expand the storage facilities.

20) WM-7 Licensees are required to consider pollution prevention measures as dictated by the Pollution Prevention Act (Public Law 101 5084) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended (Public Law 94 580). RCRA governs the disposal of solid waste.

In addition, in accordance with RCRA Section 3002(b) and 40 CFR 262.27, a small or large quantity generator must certify that a waste minimization program is in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste generated to the degree determined to be economically practical. Section 9.5.13 of the ER states that MNGP is meeting this requirement because procedural measures are in place to minimize hazardous waste generated to the maximum extent practical. As clarified during the audit, please confirm that (1) MNGP is a very small quantity generator, which meets the conditions for exemption listed in 40 CFR 262.14, Conditions for exemption for a very small quantity generator and is therefore not required to have a written minimization plan. (2) Through procedures associated with Hazardous Waste Management and the Radiation Protection Program, the production of mixed waste and radioactive waste are minimized and through the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, the site works to eliminate or minimize contact of stormwater with significant materials that may result in pollution of the runoff that reaches waters of the State.

21) SNF-1 Section 4.11.2.2 of the ER states that there are 30 current dry containers on the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) pad, and to store all the fuel that the site will have by 2030 MNGP would need 40 total dry containers (so an additional 10 containers by 2030). The existing ISFSI security perimeter can accommodate another 36 dry containers potentially, but on a second support pad (to be built) without having to change the security perimeter. The ISFSI 7

2 facility requires a state of Minnesota Certificate of Need. The placement of the 30 canisters was allowed by a Certificate of Need. issued in 2006 that expires in 2030. The ER states that Xcel Energy applied for an additional Certificate of Need.to allow Xcel Energy to place ~13 more canisters from 2030-2040 on a new storage pad within the security perimeter footprint.

Subsequent to when the audit occurred, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved the request to place 14 additional canisters. Beyond 2040, Xcel Energy would need to seek additional Certificates of Need. to place additional canisters on the second storage pad. As discussed during the audit, please confirm that the estimated timeframe for construction of the second pad in the MNGP ISFSI would be approximately 2026-2027 to support a 2028 dry storage loading campaign for the up to 14 additional canisters. Furthermore, please confirm that the expanded ISFSI capacity along with the spent fuel pool is anticipated to be capable of storing all the spent nuclear fuel generated during the SLR term.

22) SOC-2 Please confirm the MNGP total property taxes paid for 2022 were: $6,681,301 to Wright County,

$5,579,484 for City of Monticello, $1,150,591 to State of Minnesota, $3,724,864 to Monticello public school district #882-01, and $190,737 to Other. Please confirm that the 2022 charitable contribution to the Wright County Area United Way was $72,604. Please confirm the annual emergency planning and preparedness funding to the State of Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management increased to $1.6 million in 2022.

23) TER-New-2 Please confirm that the backup meteorological tower is 22 meters tall, was installed in the early 1980s, and is lit at the top with a solid lit red light.

8

2 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 10 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

1) Document Requests Please submit the following documents on the docket.

AQ-4 (a) Xcel Energy Environmental Services. 2022. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program, 2020-2021 Biennial Report.

Prepared for Northern States PowerMinnesota, an Xcel Energy Company. April 12, 2022. 78 p.

AQ-5 (b) MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 2007. Monticello Nuclear Power Station 316(b) Impingement and Entrainment Characterization Study Report. Prepared for Xcel Energy. January 14, 2007. 106 p.

(c) Xcel Energy Environmental Services. 2019. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r)(9) Entrainment Characterization Study. Prepared for Northern States PowerMinnesota, an Xcel Energy Company. August 16, 2019. 94 p.

AQ-6 (d) URS Corporation. 2009. Thermal Effluent Discharge Analysis for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Prepared for Xcel Energy. September 11, 2009. 67 p.

AQ-7 (e) Xcel Energy. 2023. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, NPDES/SDS Permit Number MN0000868, 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Application Materials, Executive Summary.

January 4, 2023. 9 p.

(f) Xcel Energy Environmental Services. 2023. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2)-(r)(8) Information. August 16, 2019. Updated January 4, 2023. 57 p.

(g) Burns & McDonnell. 2019. 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r)(11) Benefits Valuation Study for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Prepared for Xcel Energy. Project No. 110029.

December 18, 2019. 56 p.

(h) Burns & McDonnell. 2019. 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r)(12) Non-water Quality Environmental and Other Impacts Study for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

Prepared for Xcel Energy. Project No. 110029. December 18, 2019. 115 p.

9

2 (i) Burns & McDonnell. 2019. 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r)(10) Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

Prepared for Xcel Energy. Project No. 110029. December 18, 2019. 175 p.

(j) Xcel Energy. 2023. Water Quality Submittals Form. January 9, 2023. 1 p.

(k) Xcel Energy. 2023. Letter from Shawn Hafen, Plant Manager, to Brian Schweiss, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Subject:

316(b) Cooling Water Intake Application Materials, NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0000868, T122N, R25W, Section 33, Monticello, Wright County Minnesota. January 4, 2023. 1 p.

(l) Burns & McDonnell. 2019. 316(b) Peer Review Report. Prepared for Xcel Energy.

Project No. 110029. December 18, 2019. 65 p.

(m) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2023. Final NPDES/SDS Permit, Monticello Nuclear Generating Facility, Permit No. MN0000868, Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. May 1, 2023. 93 p.

2) GEN-1 REQUIREMENT: Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51.45(d) requires that environmental reports list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed action.

ISSUE: The NRC staff is preparing a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 and CLI-22-03, both dated February 24, 2022, that considers the site-specific environmental impacts of subsequent license renewals (SLRs) of MNGP. Table B-2 of the draft supplemental EIS, Operating Permits and Other Requirements, will list the permits and licenses issued by Federal, State, and local authorities for activities at MNGP, as identified in table 9.1-1 in chapter 9.0 of the MNGP Nuclear Generating Plant Subsequent License Renewal Application, Appendix E, Environmental Report (ER), dated January 9, 2023 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) ML23009A356). As part of preparing the site-specific EIS, the staff must consider whether there have been any changes to operating permits or other requirements.

REQUEST: Please provide any relevant updates to table 9.1-1 that have transpired since the ER dated January 9, 2023, was submitted. If any permits have expired since submitting the SLR application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), please provide the status of those permits and/or renewals as of August 1, 2023.

3) AQ-1 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(b) and 51.53(c)(2) requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment.

ISSUE: Section 4.6.2.2 of the ER states that several fish kills have occurred at MNGP since 2017. The NRC staff requires more information concerning these fish kills to independently review and assess thermal impacts on aquatic organisms during the proposed license renewal term.

10

2 REQUEST: For fish kills that have occurred from 2017 to the present, please provide estimated number of fish affected, species composition (if known), cause of the event, and date reported to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (if applicable).

4) ALT-1-5 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(c) and 51.53(c)(2) requires the ER include a discussion of the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action and 10 CFR 51.71(d) requires that draft EISs include, in part, a preliminary analysis of environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed action.

ISSUE: Section 7.2 of the ER contains information on energy alternatives to the proposed action. As part of the environmental audit, the NRC staff requested information and received responses on the following questions relating to alternatives from the applicant. The intent of this RAI is to request these audit responses in a format that can be cited in the site-specific SLR EIS.

REQUEST: Please formally provide the new information provided during the audit related to responses to ALT-1 through ALT-5, so they can be referenced and used as the basis for the alternatives to the proposed action discussion in the site-specific EIS.

1. On February 7, 2023, new legislation was signed into law requiring that 100 percent of electricity generated or procured for use in Minnesota must be from carbon-free resources by 2040. Please clarify how this new law would affect Xcel Energys determination of reasonable replacement power alternatives described and evaluated in Sections 2, 7, and 8 of the ER.

2. Similar to other the technologies described in ER Section 7.2.2, please address the bases for why natural gas was not considered a reasonable discrete replacement energy alternative.

3. ER Section 7.2.3.1 indicates that the Natural Gas and Renewables Alternative would employ 750 megawatts (MW) of natural gas generation supplied by new and existing combustion turbine units.

(a) Please identify the assumed capacity factor, estimated air emissions (annual tons sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxide compounds, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide equivalents) and estimated cooling water requirements (withdrawal and consumptive use) associated with these combustion turbine units. Include any assumptions used in calculating these values.

(b) Please clarify what amount of MNGPs 640 MW of generation each component of this alternative (i.e., new gas generation, wind, solar, existing gas generation, and purchased power) is projected to replace or offset.

4. ER Section 7.2.3.2, indicates that the Renewables and Storage Alternative would employ 300 MW of lithium battery storage supporting 10 64-MW offsite solar facilities.

(a) Please indicate how these numerical factors are calculated to support replacement of MNGPs 640 MW of net generation.

11

2 (b) Please clarify what amount of MNGPs 640 MW of generation each component of this alternative (i.e., wind, solar, battery storage, existing gas generation, and purchased power) is projected to replace or offset.

5. ER Section 7.2.3.3 indicates that the small modular reactor alternative would be constructed outside of Minnesota but within Xcel Energys service area. Please confirm whether this would be confined to Xcel Energys Midwest service areas (i.e., Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin).

5) FPE-1, FPE-2, and FPE-3 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(b) and 51.53(c)(2) requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment.

ISSUE: Section 3.7.8.1.1 of the ER states that suitable roosting and maternity habitat for the northern long-eared bat is present on the MNGP site but does not describe where this habitat is or whether it would be affected by the proposed SLR. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule to list the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act on September 14, 2022 (87 FR 56381). This species occurs in Wright County; therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether the proposed MNGP SLR would affect this species or its habitat. Finally, the Fish and Wildlife Service lists the whooping crane (Grus americana) as an experimental, non-essential population in Minnesota. This species is not discussed in the ER.

REQUEST: Please provide the following information pertaining to the federally protected species described above:

(a) Information describing suitable roosting and maternity habitat of the northern long-eared bat, whether or not this habitat would be affected by the SLR, and a summary of best management practices and procedures that Xcel Energy has in place to ensure that actions, such as removing hazard trees, would not adversely affect these species, if present (b) An analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed SLR on tricolored bat (c) An analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed SLR on whooping crane.

6) GW-5 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(b) and 51.53(c)(2) requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment.

ISSUE: On November 22, 2022, Xcel Energy notified the NRC and State officials that tritium concentrations above the offsite dose calculation manual and Nuclear Energy Initiative Groundwater Protection Initiative reporting levels had been detected in an onsite monitoring well. Section 3.6.4.2.1 of the ER discusses historical inadvertent releases of radionuclides to groundwater, but no discussion or assessment of the November 2022 leak of water containing tritium is provided.

12

2 REQUEST: Provide a narrative description of the detection and response to the inadvertent release(s) of tritium into groundwater (first reported in November 2022) through August 18, 2023. This description should include, but not be limited to, the following information:

(a) The source, volume, and activity of tritium and other radionuclides (if applicable) released, including how these values were estimated, (b) Monitoring data that indicated the release(s) had occurred, (c) The response taken to stop the release, including a timeline of events, (d) A description of and response to the second leak, reported on March 23, 2023, (e) A map showing the location of the holding tank that spilled on May 21, 2023, and estimates of the volume spilled and the tritium activity concentration of the holding tank at the time of the spill, (f) Maps showing locations of new monitoring wells and tritium recovery wells installed in response to the release(s),

(g) Maps showing the extent of tritium in groundwater since the occurrence of the release(s), and (h) New permits or permit changes required as a result of the response.

In addition to the narrative description and maps discussed above, include the following information:

(a) A well information table updated to include all the wells currently completed on the site. Table to include Well ID, Date Installed, Coordinates of Well, Surface Elevation (ft), Top of Riser ft, Bottom of Well ft, Screened Interval, Depth to Top of Screen ft mean sea level, Depth to Bottom of Screen ft, and Well Purpose.

(b) A table of hydraulic head measurements for all wells measured during 2022 and 2023. Table to include Well ID, Date of Measurement, Measured Value (feet above mean sea level).

(c) A table of tritium concentrations for all groundwater samples measured during 2022 and 2023. Table to include Well ID, Date of Measurement, Measured Value (pCi/L).

Include data from monitoring wells and pumping (tritium recovery) wells.

(d) Data that confirm the extent or absence of other radionuclides in groundwater following the November 2022 release.

(e) A table of pumping rate or withdrawal volume as a function of time during 2022 and 2023 for the wells being pumped in response to the tritium release. Table to include Well ID, Date, Pumping Rate or Cumulative Volume Pumped (gpm or gal).

13

2 (f) A table of tritium concentrations for all surface water samples measured during 2022 and 2023. Table to include Sample Location, Date of Measurement, Measured Value (pCi/L).

(g) A description of the current plan, subject to change, for remediation/mitigation of the groundwater tritium contamination, including:

- location of the cutoff wall,

- locations of hydraulic control pumping wells,

- estimated pumping rates of the hydraulic control pumping wells,

- disposition of the water pumped for hydraulic control,

- criteria to terminate pumping of tritium recovery wells and hydraulic control wells, and

- estimated time to remediate the tritium contamination.

7) CI-1 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(c) requires that the environmental report must also contain an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the activities to be authorized by the limited work authorization, construction permit, or combined license in light of the preconstruction impacts described in the environmental report.

ISSUE: Section 4.12.2 of the ER includes information about other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring in the vicinity of the nuclear plant that may result in a cumulative effect, as of the publication of the ER in January 2023.

REQUEST: Please provide the name, description, location, and status of any additional past, present, or reasonably foreseeable offsite actions identified since the ER was prepared.

Similarly, please provide any updates of actions discussed in the ER as conceptual or for which the need had yet to be determined.

8) TER-2 REQUIREMENT: 10 CFR 51.45(b) and 51.53(c)(2) requires the that ER include a description of the affected environment.

ISSUE: The NRC staff is preparing a site-specific EIS in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI 03, both dated February 24, 2022, that considers the site-specific environmental impacts of SLR of MNGP. As part of preparing the site -specific EIS, the staff must consider whether there has been any new information related to terrestrial resources. During the August 2023 environmental audit, terrestrial breakout session, and in response to information need TER-2, Xcel Energy provided a bird deaths and injury report.

REQUEST: Please provide reports of bird deaths or injuries from 2014-2023 at MNGP.

9) HCR-1 REQUIREMENT: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) directs Federal agencies to identify historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE). Specifically, 36 CFR 800.4(b) states that, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Indian Tribes, the Federal agency shall take the steps necessary to identify historic properties within the APE based on:

14

2

1. a review of existing information on historic properties within the APE, including any data concerning possible historic properties not yet identified (36 CFR 800.4(a)(2)), and

2. information gathered from consulting parties (SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Indian Tribes) likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties within the APE (36 CFR 800.4(a)(3)).

The level of effort (36 CFR 800.4(b)(1)) required for identifying historic properties is determined by the agency official and is required to be a reasonable and good faith effort for the APE and undertaking as a whole, and may include, background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey. Identification of cultural resources may also occur through a phased identification and evaluation approach (36 CFR 800.4(b)(2)) where memoranda or agreements, programmatic agreements, or other agreement documents and processes are followed, agreed to, and established through consultation.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), Federal agencies must consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking. The agency official shall ensure that consultation in the Section 106 process provides Indian Tribes a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties; advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance; articulate its views on the undertaking's effects on such properties; and participate in the resolution of adverse effects. This requirement applies regardless of the location of the historic property.

ISSUE: Section 3.8.5 of the ER states that no cultural resource surveys or assessments have been performed onsite at MNGP. Section 3.8 of the ER states that for purposes of subsequent license renewal, the above-ground APE includes the entire MNGP site, and the archaeological APE is considered bounded by the approximately 2,000-acre MNGP site, where ground disturbance might compromise the physical integrity of archaeological data.

While preparing its application for subsequent license renewal, Xcel Energy contacted the Minnesota (MN SHPO) by letter dated March 17, 2022, seeking input on the potential effects from continued operation of MNGP on historic and cultural resources (ML23009A356). In response, by letter dated April 29, 2022, the MN SHPO recommended, in part, that Xcel Energy complete an archaeological survey for areas within the MNGP site that may be subject to ground disturbance as part of relicensing (ML23009A356).

By letter dated March 13, 2023, the NRC initiated consultation with the MN SHPO (ML23069A278). By letter dated July 3, 2023, to the NRC (ML23199A280), the MN SHPO requested documentation that describes and/or shows the horizontal and vertical extent of the sites ground disturbance and a map indicating areas within the site boundary where Xcel Energy is committed to performing an archaeological survey. By letter dated August 21, 2023, to the NRC, the MN SHPO recommended that, absent of documentation demonstrating the extent of disturbance of the site (both vertically and horizontally) or previously surveyed areas, the APE be subject to a Phase I archaeological survey (ML23222A126). Furthermore, the MN SHPO stated that the survey need not encompass areas that are obviously disturbed by the 15

2 construction of the plant and previous operations and maintenance activities at the plant.

Additionally, the MN SHPO stated that the report/documentation should meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified.

By letter dated March 13, 2023, the NRC initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) (ML23069A280). This letter also notified the Band that the NRC intends to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA through the National Environmental Policy Act process per 36 CFR 800.8(c). On April 12, 2023, the Band responded with a letter which provided their concerns and feedback and requested continued discussions through government-to-government consultation (ML23117A313). On July 25, and August 10, 2023 (ML23222A126 and ML23237A264), the NRC conducted teleconferences with representatives from the Band to continue dialogue and consultation. During the July 25, 2023, teleconference, the Band expressed concern that MNGP has not been subject to a cultural resources survey, particularly given the potential for burial mounds along the Mississippi River. During the August 10, 2023, teleconference, the Band requested that an inventory of culturally important plant species be conducted to determine/identify if red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and wild rice (Zizania species) are present on the MNGP site, and to be involved in the process to select a contractor to perform an archaeological survey. Additionally, the Band requested to participate in both surveys. The MN SPHO and Band are consulting parties with the NRC and consultations are currently ongoing.

REQUEST: Given that 1) no cultural resource surveys or assessments have been performed onsite at MNGP; 2) the potential for ground disturbing activities as part of ongoing maintenance activities and operations at MNGP during the SLR term; 3) lack of information on the level of disturbance of the site; and 4) information gathered from consulting parties, the NRC requests the following:

(a) Conduct an archaeological survey, which may include subsurface and pedestrian investigations, across the 2,000-acre APE. As described in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1), the final survey scope and type, including geographic area of reconnaissance and survey technique, will be determined through consultation with the NRC, MN SHPO, the Band, Xcel, and any other consulting parties identified in the Section 106 process. After the survey has been completed, provide a copy of the survey findings and associated inventory forms, if applicable, for NRCs confirmatory review. This archaeological survey must be completed by a Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist (36 CFR 800.4(b)(1)).

(b) Conduct a survey of culturally important plant species to determine/identify if red cedar and wild rice are present within the MNGP site. Provide a copy of the survey findings when finalized.

(c) Discuss any updates made to MNGPs procedures (discussed in Section 3.8.6 of the ER) used to identify, protect, and minimize the potential impact to cultural resources located within the MNGP site or new procedures developed as a result of the findings from the archeological survey and culturally important plant species survey.

10) HCR-2 REQUIREMENT: Section 106 of the NHPA directs Federal Agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to consult with the SHPO and Indian 16

2 Tribes. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.1(c), the NRC must complete the Section 106 process prior to making a decision on the licensing action. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b), in consultation with the SHPO and Indian Tribes, the NRC shall take the steps necessary to identify historic properties within the area of potential effect.

ISSUE: The Atomic Energy Commission issued a construction permit for MNGP on June 19, 1967, and an operating license on September 8, 1970. MNGP is now over 50 years old and should be evaluated for eligibility for listing as a historic property in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). While preparing its application for subsequent license renewal, Xcel Energy contacted the MN SHPO by letter dated March 17, 2022 (ML23009A356), seeking input on the potential effects from continued operation of MNGP on historic and cultural resources. By letter dated April 29, 2022 (insert ML23009A356), the MN SHPO recommended, in part, that the MNGP facility itself be subject to an intensive survey and evaluation to determine its eligibility for NRHP. By letter dated September 23, 2022 (ML23009A356), Xcel committed to conduct an architectural survey and evaluation to determine the eligibility of MNGP for listing in the NRHP.

By letter dated July 3, 2023, to the NRC, the MN SHPO staff confirmed that on May 15, 2023, Xcel Energy provided the final architectural survey regarding the MNGP facilitys NRHP eligibility to their office. By letter dated August 21, 2023, to the NRC (ML23241A973), the MN SHPO requested clarification regarding the presence or absence of any other above-ground resources 45 years old or older within the entire site.

Section 3.8 of the ER states that for purposes of the SLR, the above-ground APE includes the entire MNGP site, and the archaeological APE is considered bounded by the approximately 2,000 acres. During the environmental audit and in response to information need HCR-2, the NRC staff reviewed the architectural survey, which surveyed a limited portion of the MNGP site.

REQUEST:

(a) Explain the reasoning for the architectural APE not being consistent with the above-ground and archaeological APE (2,000 acres) identified in the ER.

(b) Are there any additional above ground resources within the 2,000-acre MNGP site that are 45 years or older that were not considered in the 2023 architectural survey (e.g.,

meteorological tower, training facility, etc.)? If so, identify these resources and update the architectural survey to encompass these additional resources.

(c) Provide a copy of the of the final architectural survey and associated inventory forms.

(d) Provide a copy of the MN SHPO letter to Xcel Energy dated February 27, 2023.

11) HCR-3 REQUIREMENT: Section 106 of the NHPA directs Federal agencies to assess the effects of the undertaking to identified historic properties within the APE.

ISSUE: By letter dated April 29, 2022, to Xcel Energy (ML23009A356), the MN SHPO requested that Xcel Energy provide additional information regarding the scope and nature of current operations including maintenance of existing structures. By letters dated July 3, 2023, and August 21, 2023, to the NRC (ML23199A280 and ML23241A973), the MN SHPO requested that the NRC further clarify and define the scope and nature of routine plant operations and maintenance activities.

17

2 REQUEST: Identify and discuss what activities associated with continued operations and routine maintenance (e.g., construction of new parking lots, maintenance of access roads, etc.)

could result in ground disturbance.

18