ML24093A007
| ML24093A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/2024 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 89FR10107 | |
| Download: ML24093A007 (4) | |
Text
From: Virginia Gabrielle Javier <vgjavier@arizona.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:45 AM To: OconeeEnvironmental Resource Cc: cyrgarretson@arizona.edu; gabriellaparra@arizona.edu; kirawright42@arizona.edu
Subject:
[External_Sender] NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft, Docket ID NRC-2021-0146 Comments Attachments: Comment Letter-NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft.pdf
- Hello,
We are students at the University of Arizona and would like to submit a comment letter on the EIS "NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft," Docket ID NRC-2021-0146. I have attached our letter below. Thank you for your time.
- Best, Virginia Javier, Kira Wright, Gabriella Parra, and Cy Garretson Virginia Javier University of Arizona W.A. Franke Honors College l 2024 Natural Resources l Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Rangelands Partnerships Through Honors Program l Events & Experience Program Lead Tropical Climate and Coral Reef Lab l Lab Assistant FunEco Lab l Honors Thesis Researcher vgjavier@arizona.edu Federal Register Notice: 89FR10107 Comment Number: 9
Mail Envelope Properties (CAMt5GY0AWPu3k24vPu0wgzfmo3c84M3vFPV7gdpYr93uPPM8Rw)
Subject:
[External_Sender] NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft, Docket ID NRC-2021-0146 Comments Sent Date: 4/2/2024 12:44:40 AM Received Date: 4/2/2024 12:45:12 AM From: Virginia Gabrielle Javier
Created By: vgjavier@arizona.edu
Recipients:
"cyrgarretson@arizona.edu" <cyrgarretson@arizona.edu>
Tracking Status: None "gabriellaparra@arizona.edu" <gabriellaparra@arizona.edu>
Tracking Status: None "kirawright42@arizona.edu" <kirawright42@arizona.edu>
Tracking Status: None "OconeeEnvironmental Resource" <OconeeEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None
Post Office: mail.gmail.com
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 693 4/2/2024 12:45:12 AM Comment Letter-NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft.pdf 43943
Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
April1,2024
KiraWright,VirginiaJavier,GabriellaParra,andCy Garretson The UniversityofArizona SaguaroHall 1110 ESouth Campus Drive Tucson, AZ 85721
U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oce ofAdministration DigitalCommunications and AdministrativeServicesBranch Washington, DC 20555-0001
To Whom ItMay Concern, We areundergraduate studentsatthe UniversityofArizona, currentlytakinga NaturalResources PolicyandLaw course.Afterreviewing theEIS, Site-Speci"cEnvironmentalImpact Statement forSubsequent LicenseRenewal ofOconee NuclearStation,Units 1,2,and 3 SecondRenewal, Draft Report forComment, we believethattheNEPA process hasbeen followedproperly and theEIS addressedmost environmental and social concerns.However, we believesome issues,specicallyinvolvingtheimpactsofthe nuclearstationon an endangered batspecies,categoricalerrorsinvolvingcoolingsystemeectsonsurfaceand groundwater, and socioeconomic equityshould be addressedand furtherevaluated.
The rstpotentialenvironmental issuewenoticed iswiththe state-endangeredRanesques big-eared bat(Corynorhinus ra"nesquii).On pages3-67, line6,itisstatedthatDuke Energy protectssummer roosting habitatfortheRanesques big-earedbat byprotecting snagtreesand mature hardwood communities. While thismay helpprotectthe species'habitat,itisalsostatedonpages3-69,line34,that The NRC sta,therefore, expectsthatwildlifeintheaected habitatshaslongago acclimatedto thenoise andhuman activityofOconee Stationoperationsand adjustedbehavior patternsaccordingly.We feelthatinsteadofexpectingthatwildlife hasmoved from theareaor hasadapted to thenoiselevels,anevaluationshould bemade toseeif/how the noise isaectingwildlifebehavior,especiallyforbats.Therehavebeen studiesthatshow noiselevelsaectthe activity andfeeding behaviorsofbats astheyrelyon echolocation(Siemers & Schaub, 2011;Bunkley etal.,2015).A professionalevaluationwithintheirsummer roostinghabitatcouldclearup ifthe Oconee Stationhas anyeects onthem. Ifany eectsarefound, then Duke Energy couldlook intopossiblemitigationstrategies.Anypossible mitigationofnoisewithin theirhabitatcould benetthe endangered batsand assistintheirrecovery.
Next, itwas made clearthatthe subsequent licenserenewal(SLR) EIS fortheOconee Nuclear Station would usethe framework provided by theNCR LicenseRenewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement (LR GEIS) to complete asite-specicanalysisofthestationtopreparethisEIS.Specically,theyreferredto TableB-1 in Appendix Bto Subpart A of10 CFR Part 51(TN250), alistofgenericissuesthatallnuclear power plantswillencounter,and iscategorizedinto2 levels.Category1coversissuesthatareknown to haveno orasmall impact on thespeciedarea (astheyaregenericissuesseenat allnuclearplants),whereasCategory 2 issuescouldhavemoderate orlargeimpacts,and need to beaddressed on asite-specicbasis.InthisEIS, however,itwas requiredthat everyissue,evenstatedasCategory 1,had to beanalyzed on-sitebecausethe LR GEIS was not abletocover anynuclear stationsthatareundergoing an SLR process.Thisiswhere therewere some discrepanciesfound,asthe SLR EISdid not cover2 criticalareasdescribedinTN250. First,Oconee NuclearStation hasa once-through coolingsystem inplace,and thisEIScovers surfacewateruse conicts (plantswithonce-through cooling systems),aCategory 1 issue.However,there isanemergency coolingsystem inplacethatwould takeoverifthe waterpulled from Lake Howee isno longerowing or ata highenough level.
Thisemergency systemisan on-sitecoolingpool withimpounded water,situatedwithinthe intakecanal.This isnow no longera once-through coolingsystem and should belistedunder surfacewateruse conicts(plants withcooling ponds orcooling towersusing makeup waterfrom a river),whichisaCategory 2 issue.Inaddition tothis,thereisanotherproblem withthiscooling pond system thatholdsimpounded water(a closedsystem),
anditisanother sectionthatwas not addressed,groundwater qualitydegradation (plantswithcooling ponds at inlandsites),anotherCategory2 issue.We implore thatDuke Energy assessthediscrepancieslistedhere,and ensurethattheseissuesaremade clearinthenext draftoftheirSLR EIS.
In reviewingsection 3.9Historicand Cultural Resources,we believethatredening acronyms in this section,suchasNRHP and NRC, willmake thissectioneasiertounderstand forthe common reader.On pages 3-143line13, itisunclearthattheOld Pickens PresbyterianChurch islistedunderthe NationalRegisterof HistoricPlaces,werecommend clearlystatingthis.Lastly,ourteamwas happy toseeenvironmental justiceand healthimpactsbeing addressed.To improve on thissection,we recommend an additionof acrossanalyzationof theamount ofemployment for peopleof colorinthisarea.Section3.10 does agood job ofshowing dierent economic opportunitiesprovided by Oconee Station,but afurtherlook intowhich groups thesejobsarebeing providedforcan provide insightintothesocioeconomic equityofOconee Station.An equitableemployer will show employment roughly equalto theratioofracialand ethnicgroups of theseareas,toensurethateconomic opportunitiesarebeing well-spreadinthecommunity.
In conclusion,we feelthat,overall,thisEISaddressedmajor environmental and socialimpactsregarding renewing theOconee Stationlicenseandevaluated allpossiblealternatives.However,therearestillsome concernsthatwe found afterreviewingtheEIS, especiallyregardingtheimpactsof thestationon an endangered batspecies,categoricalerrorsinvolvingcoolingsystemeectson surfaceand groundwater, and socioeconomic equityconcerns.We stronglyencourageyou to addressand reevaluatetheseissuesand considerboth short-and long-termimpacts.
Thank you, KiraWright, VirginiaJavier,GabriellaParra,andCy Garretson