ML25114A254

Restart La Docs - EPA Comment Letter

ML25114A254
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/24/2025
From:	NRC
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
Download: ML25114A254 (10)

Text

From:

Mary Richmond Sent:

Thursday, April 24, 2025 5:18 PM To:

PalisadesRestart-EnvDocsPUBLICem Resource

Subject:

EPA Comment Letter Attachments:

EPA Comments re Draft EA Palisades Reauthorization.pdf

Hearing Identifier:

PalisadesRestart_EnvDocs_Public Email Number:

119 Mail Envelope Properties (SJ0PR09MB10696F65B4B8010C71D4940F9E4852)

Subject:

EPA Comment Letter Sent Date:

4/24/2025 5:17:47 PM Received Date:

4/24/2025 5:17:49 PM From:

Mary Richmond Created By:

Mary.Richmond@nrc.gov Recipients:

"PalisadesRestart-EnvDocsPUBLICem Resource"

<PalisadesRestart-EnvDocsPUBLICem.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

SJ0PR09MB10696.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3

4/24/2025 5:17:49 PM EPA Comments re Draft EA Palisades Reauthorization.pdf 460740 Options Priority:

Normal Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

April 7, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Daniel Barnhurst Chief. Oce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re:

EPA Comments: Draft Environmental Assessment for Palisades Nuclear Plant Reauthorization of Power Operations, Covert Township, Van Buren County, MichiganDocket ID NRC-2024-0076

Dear Mr. Barnhurst:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Signi"cant Impact (Draft EA), dated January 31, 2025, concerning Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP)

Reauthorization of Power Operations (hereafter: Project) in Covert Township, Van Buren County, Michigan.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the lead Federal agency considering license reauthorization under the National Environmental Policy Act. The U.S. Department of Energy Loan Program Oce is a Cooperating Agency considering the provision of a loan guarantee for the resumption of power operations at PNP. This letter provides EPAs comments on the proposed Project pursuant to NEPA and EPAs NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

PNP is a single-unit pressurized water reactor that produces 800-Megawatts of power located along the shores of Lake Michigan. The Atomic Energy Commission issued PNP a provisional operating license on March 24, 1971. NRC issued a full-term operating license on February 2, 1992, and the "rst license renewal on January 17, 2007.1 Under previous owners, PNP permanently ceased operations in May 2022. Holtec Decommissioning International (Applicant) acquired PNP to begin decommissioning of the plant. In early 2023, the Applicant expressed interest in returning PNP to operational status.2 In order to resume operational status, the Applicant submitted six licensing and regulatory requests to NRC. If approved, the requests will allow the placement of fuel into the reactor vessel to restart power operations in Unit 1 for the duration of the existing operating license.3 NRC and the Applicant initially considered four action alternatives and the No Action Alternative:

1 The license expires on March 24, 2031.

2 Resuming power operations from a decommissioning state would make PNP the "rst nuclear power plant to do so in the history of nuclear power generation in the United States.

3 The license will expire on March 24, 2031.

2

1. Preferred Alternative: NRC would authorize the resumption of power operations of Unit 1 through the expiration date of March 24, 2031, as stated in PNPs current license. DOE LPO would provide a loan guarantee to fund resumption and refueling activities to resume power operations.

2. Replacing Palisades Reactor with New Onsite Reactor: The Applicant would continue decommissioning Unit 1 and build a new reactor in its place or build a new reactor and associated ancillary buildings using other land within PNPs Project area.

3. Replacing Palisades Reactor with Other Power Generation Technologies: The Applicant would build non-nuclear power generation technologies, such as wind, solar, or natural gas, to provide 800-Megawatts of power. This alternative also considered construction of a new small modular nuclear reactor.

4. Installing System Design Alternatives for Use with the Current Palisades Reactor: The Applicant would "t Unit 1 with alternative system designs for processes such as heat dissipation, circulating water, and transmission systems and continue operations under the current license.

5. No Action Alternative: NRC would not authorize the resumption of power operations and DOE LPO would not provide a loan guarantee to fund the resumption and refueling at PNP. The reactor unit would continue shut down and decommissioning activities.

Alternatives two, three, and four were not carried forward for further analysis in the Draft EA due to the additional time, costs, and greater environmental impacts relative to the Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative. EPA provided scoping comments to NRC on the proposed Project in a letter dated July 29, 2024, on a range of topics including regulatory compliance. EPA appreciates the level of detail and thorough analyses presented in the Draft EA. The enclosed comments focus on regulatory coordination, documentation, and mitigation. EPA recommends that NRC and the Applicant address these comments and recommendations before "nalizing the NEPA documents.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EA/FONSI. Please send an electronic copy of future NEPA documents to R5NEPA@epa.gov. IF you have questions or would like to discuss the contents of this letter further, please contact lead NEPA reviewer, Alauna Keeley, at keeley.alauna@epa.gov or 312-353-1909.

Sincerely, Krystle Z. McClain, P.E.

NEPA Program Supervisor EPA Region 5 Enclosures EPAs Detailed Comments Cc (with enclosures)

Scott Hicks, USFWS Michigan ESFO (scott_hicks@fws.gov)

Zach Harrison, EGLE (harrisonZ2@michigan.gov)

MDNR (DNR-wildlife@michigan.gov KRYSTLE MCCLAIN Digitally signed by KRYSTLE MCCLAIN Date: 2025.04.07 10:34:52 -05'00'

3 EPAs Detailed Comments Draft EA/FONSIPalisades Nuclear Plant Reauthorization of Power Operations Covert Township, Van Buren County, Michigan April 7, 2025

1. WATER RESOURCES A. PNP has been decommissioning since 2022, meaning the plant has only been inoperative for less than three years. Following cessation of operations, cooling water discharge decreased with associated reductions in heat and pollutant loads. Resumption of power operations after three years may constitute a new, direct or indirect eect to the aquatic environment. EPA notes that PNP went from a once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle cooling system, resulting in a decrease in thermal plume discharge impacts; however, the "eld survey analyzing thermal discharge impacts may be out of date (e.g., 20 years old).4 The Draft EA referenced a "nding that the characteristics and makeup of Lake Michigan are changing.5 Community composition may have changed from the time when the "rst "eld surveys for thermal plume impacts were conducted in 2000-2003 to the current request for reauthorization.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. The Applicant should consider conducting a new study to analyze thermal discharge impacts. The results of the study could aid in coordinating with Michigans Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to determine allowable discharge parameters as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

B. The Draft EA indicated that sediment removal from the mixing basin may occur as part of Project activities.6 If sediment removal occurs, the "nal NEPA documents should indicate where dredged material would be placed.7 Depending on the location of the placement site, NRC and the Applicant may need to provide a wetland delineation. The discharge of dredged material into regulated adjacent wetlands or waterways may trigger the need for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certi"cation, and/or isolated wetlands permit from EGLE under Michigan law.8 Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Clarify where dredged sediment will be placed. Placing dredged materials in wetlands may trigger additional requirements. If placement in wetlands cannot be avoided, a 4 Page 2-23. NRC. 2006. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Nuclear Plants, Supplement 27, Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 27, October 2006. ADAMS Accession No.: ML062710300.

5 The Draft EA stated on page 3-35, using a 30-year dataset, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the winter cooling season in deep waters of the lake is shortening, and the summer warming season is lengthening which could lead to permanent changes in the seasonal mixing patterns and disrupt the food web.

6 Page 3-60 7 Source: Enclosure 6 RAI-SW-4, Holtec Response to Request for Additional Information ADAMS Accession No. ML24278A027.

8 Michigan, EGLE, administers the CWA Section 404 Permit Program, approved by EPA. For Michigan law requirements, see Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994; Part 301 of MNREPA Act oversees permitting activities taking place on inland lakes and streams. See https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-451-1994-III-1-INLAND-WATERS-301.

4 wetland delineation should be completed and submitted to EGLE for review and jurisdictional determination.

2. SEDIMENT TESTING AND PLACEMENT A. Lake Michigan is listed as an impaired waterbody9 for "sh and shell"sh consumption. Identi"ed issues causing these impairments include dioxins, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, and Per-and poly"uoroalkyl substances. Dredging of sediments within the Project area could disturb sediments potentially laden with pollutants.

The Draft EA indicated that maintenance dredging and placement already occurs at PNP; however, no information was provided regarding sediment testing and dredged material placement from the mixing basin. Without characterization of existing Lake sediments, it is unclear if dredged material would be considered inert and suitable for unrestricted upland placement and/or for bene"cial reuse.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. The Applicant should consider conducting sediment sampling to determine the nature of sediments proposed for dredging.10 Tables and/or summaries of sediment sampling would be helpful. The "nalized NEPA documents could then include a discussion of how contaminated material will be handled, if applicable.

B. The Draft EA indicated that the Applicant has a permit from EGLE for maintenance dredging along security fences, infrastructure, and stormwater outfall structures. This permit allows placement of the material along the shores of Lake Michigan.11 The Project proposed to dredge sediment from the mixing basin, which is an activity not covered by the current EGLE permit.

Neither the Draft EA nor Applicants environmental documents indicated which dredging method(s) are used for routine dredging maintenance and the method(s) and plans for testing and disposal of dredged materials that would be removed from the mixing basin.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Explain why dredging the mixing basin is proposed for resuming facility operation but was not necessary during previous facility operation.

2. Clarify the planned method of dredging (e.g., mechanical or hydraulic), impacts, and proposed disposal locations for dredged materials (e.g., con"ned disposal, bene"cial reuse, etc.). Explain why the preferred method was selected.

3. Provide information regarding dewatering procedures and how return water will be handled, if applicable, including a map of dewatering areas.

3. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 9 Not meeting water quality standards, listed on the 2024 CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. See EPAs Tool, Hows My Waterway: https://mywaterway.epa.gov/community/palisades%20nuclear%20generating%20plant/overview.

10 In accordance with the joint U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USACE Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual (1998) and Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S.Testing Manual (1998).

11 Page 3-27

5 A. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally-threatened or endangered species and/or to proposed or designated critical habitat for an identi"ed species. Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act12 requires that agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and state wildlife agencies concerning the conservation of wildlife resources where water, stream, or waterbody is proposed to be controlled or modi"ed by a federal agency or any public or private agency operating under a federal permit.

NRC accessed USFWSs tool, Information for Planning and Consultation,13 and received a list of 11 federally-protected species that have the potential to occur in the PNP area. NRC conducted an ecological assessment at PNP to determine habitat suitability and species presence.

Federally-threatened Pitchers thistle and the proposed federally-threatened Monarch butter"y are both present at PNP. The Draft EA concluded the proposed Project may aect but is not likely to adversely aect federally-protected species. However, USFWS has not provided concurrence on NRCs determination "ndings.

Michigans Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act14 speci"es the states responsibility for conserving, protecting, restoring, and propagating endangered and threatened species. The Draft EA identi"ed 58 state-protected species with the potential to occur in the Project area, including the endangered prairie vole and threatened eastern box turtle. However, the Draft EA did not provide documentation of consultation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources regarding state-protected species.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Discuss coordination regarding NRCs compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

2. Document coordination and formal consultation with both USFWS and MDNR in the "nal NEPA documents, with the goal of aligning NEPA and ESA Section 7 consultation processes. Include results on coordination, concurrences, and stipulations from USFWS and MDNR regarding federally-and state-protected species.

B. The Draft EA stated that resumed water intake at PNP would impinge and entrain aquatic organisms from Lake Michigan. Determination of the magnitude of impact to the aquatic environment depends on plant-speci"c characteristics, the cooling system, as well as the local aquatic community.15 NRCs determination of impacts relied on the 1972 "ndings16 in the Final Environmental Statement for PNP and an impingement and entrainment study last conducted in 2000. In 2014, EGLE authorized a NPDES permit that is under current administrative extension until a "nal permit is issued. As required by the NDPES permit, EGLE reviewed the 12 16 U.S.C. § 661-666(e); PL 85-624. See https://www.fws.gov/law/"sh-and-wildlife-coordination-act.

13 The USFWS hosts the IPaC tool as a planning project tool to assist with the environmental review process, https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.

14 NREPA, Act 451 of 1994 Part 365. See https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-III-1-ENDANGERED-SPECIES-365.pdf 15 Page 3-38 16 1972 Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant, prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. See: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1834/ML18346A120.pdf.

6 cooling-water intake structures and determined that PNP complies with the best available technology standards for impingement mortality and entrainment to minimize adverse environmental impacts. EPA acknowledges the Applicants compliance with best available technology standards; however, EPA notes that the impingement and entrainment study may be out of date (e.g., more than 25 years old).

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. The Applicant should partner with USFWS, MDNR, and/or other agencies with relevant expertise to explain why the existing study remains relevant and representative of the current conditions of the aquatic environment of Lake Michigan.

4. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICES A. The Applicant indicated that PNP will undergo facility and maintenance activities to resume power operations, including:

• Building a new access road,

• Removing and constructing a new security fence,

• Installing new cables between the Unit 1 reactor facility and the cooling towers,

• Demolishing two radioactive waste storage facilities,

• Constructing new radioactive waste storage facility, and

• Constricting a new Digital Testing Storage facility.

Additionally, the Applicant estimated 3,000 truck deliveries will take place over a span of 18 months during the preparations for resuming power operations.17 Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Discuss whether recycling of any demolition material is possible. Applicable practices from EPAs Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials recommendations may be helpful in this regard.18 Best practices may also be applicable from EPAs Large-Scale Residential Demolition webpage. Consider using these resources to identify environmentally-sensitive activities associated with pavement removal and develop contract language for bid packages with speci"c technical requirements to improve environmental results from demolition.

2. Discuss how NRC and the Applicant plans to keep surrounding communities, businesses, and residents informed of the Projects schedules, plans, any detours, and protective measures that construction contractors will be required to follow.

3. Create a construction trac management plan that ensures trucks hauling materials and heavy machinery avoid area where children congregate within adjacent neighborhoods, when possible. Route construction trac away from schools, daycare facilities, and parks, if applicable, and use crossing guards when such areas cannot be avoided. In addition to air quality bene"ts, careful routing may protect children from vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

17 Page 3-11 and 3-12.

18 https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials.

7 B. Consistent with Comment 4.A, the Applicant intends to construct various new buildings, including a new radioactive material storage building, Digital Staging Testing building, and blast resistant enclosures. The Feedwater Purity building would be updated with new windows, siding, doors, and a skyway. Other proposed Project actions include replacement of stormwater outfall pipes and riprap placement.19 Construction of a new access road would increase onsite impervious surfaces.

Energy ecient design and material selection could reduce operation costs and promote a high-quality work environment, while also better protecting the environment. Best practices for energy eciency and sustainable building design can include the use of energy-ecient building materials, such as south-facing skylights and windows, motion sensor lighting, and Energy certi"ed windows and doors. In addition to reducing the overall environmental footprint, green building certi"cation programs promote health by encouraging practices that protect indoor air quality. At a minimum, EPA encourages the Applicant to analyze the strengths and feasibility of these strategies.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Consider reasonable options and alternatives, including, if appropriate, the use of recycled materials and achieving environmental certi"cations for new proposed buildings.

C. The Draft EA indicated the Applicant would design and construct a new radioactive material storage building,20 but did not explain the purpose of this proposed action (e.g.,

accommodation of additional radioactive and hazardous waste on-site versus consolidation of existing radioactive and hazardous waste).21 Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Clarify the purpose of this proposed action in the "nal NEPA documents.

5. COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN A. The Draft EA references DOEs Community Bene"ts Plan22 in Table 1-2 and on page 3-50.

However, the only copy available for review is in draft form located within the Applicants Response to Request for Additional Information.23 Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Clarify whether a more recent version of DOEs Community Bene"ts Plan is available.

2. Include the most recent version of the Community Bene"ts Plan as an appendix.

19 Table 3-1, page 3-2.

20 Page 3-2 21 In response to an NRC request for con"rmatory information, the Applicant stated that the [The] new structure is to be rated for storage of Category 2 waste (consolidating radwaste storage from the East Radwaste Storage Building to within the Protected Area is a security and safeguard measure intended to provide added assurance of compliance). Source: Enclosure 1, RAI-GEN-1, Attachment 1, Holtec Response to Request for Additional Information ADAMS Accession No. ML24278A027.

22 The Department of Energy requires that funding applicants create a Community Bene"ts Plan. The document outline how a project funded by DOE will engage and bene"t the surrounding communities. DOE tracks reported milestones and metrics resulting from a plan.

23 Source: Enclosure 18 RAI-EJ-1, Holtec Response to Request for Additional Information ADAMS Accession No. ML24278A027

8

6. MITIGATION COMMITMENTS A. Potential and/or proposed mitigation measures and best management practices were scattered throughout the Draft EA24 and the Applicants Environmental Review. However, the environmental documents did not provide a comprehensive list of mitigation commitments and best management practices.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Include a matrix listing all best management practices and mitigation commitments.

Include requirements from USFWS and MDNR regarding seasonal work restrictions and other commitments to avoid and minimize impacts, if any.

7. PLAIN LANGUAGE AND ACCESSIBILITY A. Table 1-2 cited the related environmental documents that were incorporated by reference into the Draft EA, and Appendix E provided the chronology of environmental review correspondence. These two sections listed NRCs database accession numbers to view documents such as agency consultation and concurrence determinations.

Recommendations for the "nal NEPA documents:

1. Consider including the environmental review documents and letters related to consultation and determination concurrences (e.g., SHPO, EGLE, USFWS, and MDNR) in the appendices of the "nal NEPA documents to enhance ease of accessibility as a reviewer.

24 Table 4-1 (pages 4-1 through 4-6); Table J-5 (pages J-14 through J-20); Section 3, pages 11, 17, 24, 25, 31, 33, and 37.