ML17313A354: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML17313A354
| number = ML17313A354
| issue date = 04/03/1998
| issue date = 04/03/1998
| title = Provides Comments Re Review of EA & Fonsi for Proposed Conversion to Improved Standard TS for Pvngs,Per Nepa,Cea Nepa Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 & Section 309 of Clean Air Act.Nepa Process Related Issues Discussed
| title = Provides Comments Re Review of EA & Fonsi for Proposed Conversion to Improved Standard TS for Pvngs,Per Nepa,Cea NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 & Section 309 of Clean Air Act.Nepa Process Related Issues Discussed
| author name = Kanbergs K
| author name = Kanbergs K
| author affiliation = ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| author affiliation = ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:CATEGORY 1 REGULA'x Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM (RIDS)'CCESSION NBR:9804220015 DOC.DATE: 98/04/03 NOTARIZED:
{{#Wiki_filter:CATEGORY 1 REGULA'x   Y INFORMATION     DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM (RIDS)
NO FACZL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi S=N-5C'-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KANBERGS,K.
'CCESSION NBR:9804220015             DOC.DATE: 98/04/03         NOTARIZED: NO             DOCKET  ¹ FACZL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi                       05000528 S=N-5C'-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi                   05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi                     05000530 AUTH. NAME           AUTHOR AFFILIATION KANBERGS,K.           Environmental Protection Agency RECIP.NAME           RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DONOHEW,J.N.
Environmental Protection Agency RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DONOHEW,J.N.


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Provides comments re review of EA&.FONSI for proposed conversion to improved standard TS for PVNGS,per NEPA,CEA NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 E Section 309 of Clean Air Act.NEPA process related issues discussed.
Provides comments re review of EA &. FONSI for proposed conversion to improved standard TS for PVNGS,per NEPA,CEA NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 E Section 309 of Clean Air Act.NEPA process related issues discussed.
DXSTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE: TITLE: OR Submittal:
DXSTRIBUTION CODE: A001D         COPIES RECEIVED:LTR           ENCL       SIZE:
General Distribution DOCKET¹05000528 05000529 05000530 NOTES: STANDARDIZED PLANT Standardized plant.Standardized plant.REC1PZENT ID CODE/NAME PD4-2 LA FIELDS,M COPIES LTTR ENCL RECZPZENT ID CODE/NAME PD4-2 PD COPIES LTTR ENCL 6 05000528 05000529 p 05000530 R INTERNAL: ACRS NRR/DE/ECGB/A NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SRXB OGC/HDS2 EXTERNAL: NOAC FILE CENTE NR DE EMCB NRR/DSSA/SPLB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT NRC PDR D 0 E NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
TITLE:   OR Submittal: General Distribution 6
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE.TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD)ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 14 ENCL~W-/~
NOTES: STANDARDIZED PLANT                                                               05000528 Standardized plant.                                                             05000529 p Standardized plant.                                                             05000530 R
ty
REC1PZENT           COPIES              RECZPZENT            COPIES ID CODE/NAME         LTTR ENCL         ID CODE/NAME         LTTR ENCL PD4-2 LA                                PD4-2  PD FIELDS,M INTERNAL: ACRS                                       FILE  CENTE NRR/DE/ECGB/A                           NR  DE EMCB NRR/DRCH/HICB                           NRR/DSSA/SPLB                                    D NRR/DSSA/SRXB                           NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS2                                                                                 0 EXTERNAL: NOAC                                       NRC PDR E
+yED Sr~~o-SX~/S>~~/8+>
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 April 3, 1998 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr.Jack N.Donohew, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects-III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.20555-0001
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR               14   ENCL
                                                                                            ~W-/~


==Dear Mr.Donohew:==
ty
The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has reviewed an Environmental Assessment (EA)and finding of no significant impact (FONSI)for the Proposed Conversion to the Improved Standard Technical Specifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units No.1, 2 and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona.Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.Based on our review, we have several NEPA process related issues to discuss.The proposed action is a series of amendments to the Current Technical Specifications (CTS).According to the EA, the need for the proposed action is the recognition that safety in nuclear power plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of the Technical Specification (TS).We presume that the need for the proposed action is to improve and standardize technical specifications to improve safety at nuclear power plants.If that is NRC's intended need, then the EA should state this in"plain language"[40 CFR 1500.4(d)].
    +yED Sr~
The purposes of an EA are outlined at 40 CFR 1508.9.One of the main purposes is determination if a proposed action could result in significant effects on the human environment.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105            ~o-SX~/S>~~/8+>
It should also include a brief discussion of alternatives f40 CFR 1508.9(b)].
April 3, 1998 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jack N. Donohew, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects -III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
The Palo Verde EA does not provide any alternatives to the proposed action and states: "Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any alternatives with equal or greater environment impact need not be evaluated...
 
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar." Yet, the premise of the EA is that the proposed amendments would result in greater nuclear 98042200i5 980403 PDR ADOCK 05000528 I I P PDR r ,V e 4 i~
==Dear Mr. Donohew:==
safety;therefore, the presented information could be interpreted as contradictory.
 
EPA suggests that it would be more appropriate to contrast the proposed action against a no action alternative.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed an Environmental Assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Conversion to the Improved Standard Technical Specifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units No. 1, 2 and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona. Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean AirAct. Based on our review, we have several NEPA process related issues to discuss.
In this way;NEPA requirements are met and the audience is provided a mechanism to gage the relative impacts of the two alternatives.
The proposed action is a series of amendments to the Current Technical Specifications (CTS). According to the EA, the need for the proposed action is the recognition that safety in nuclear power plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of the Technical Specification (TS). We presume that the need for the proposed action is to improve and standardize technical specifications to improve safety at nuclear power plants. Ifthat is NRC's intended need, then the EA should state this in "plain language" [40 CFR 1500.4(d)].
It would appear that the proposed action provides potentially positive environmental impacts, but this is not effectively emphasized in the EA, or contrasted against a no action alternative.
The purposes of an EA are outlined at 40 CFR 1508.9. One of the main purposes is determination ifa proposed action could result in significant effects on the human environment.
An EA should briefly explain why a proposed action would not have significant impacts.While we do not question the basis of your judgements, item two on page five of the EA serves as an example.The need for an"emergency action shutdown requirement" during a routine shutdown is proposed for elimination.
It should also include a brief discussion of alternatives f40 CFR 1508.9(b)]. The Palo Verde EA does not provide any alternatives to the proposed action and states:
NRC's statement could be interpreted by the public that, during routine shutdowns, the ability to respond to emergency situations would be lessened.This serves as a concrete example to illustrate the need for inclusion of concise statements stating why no significant impacts could result.EPA also notes that the FONSI does not conform to CEQ regulations-at 40 CFR 1508.13.A FONSI must include an explanation of why an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
    "Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any alternatives with equal or greater environment impact need not be evaluated... The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar."
In conclusion, some procedural-related changes, as suggested in this letter, could result in a better NEPA process.EPA has also noticed that the NRC has written a number of EA's regarding minor changes in operation or procedures at regulated nuclear facilities, within EPA's Region IX area.I would appreciate discussing with you how your agency determines when to prepare an EA and your NEPA related policies regarding operations at Nuclear Power Plants.The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4 provide a range of options to agencies, allowing potential streamlining of the NEPA process.We appreciate the opportunity to review the documents.
Yet, the premise of the EA is that the proposed   amendments would result in greater nuclear 98042200i5 980403 PDR       ADOCK   05000528                   I P                       PDR   I
For questions and further discussion, please contact me at (415)744-1483, or at the letterhead address (code: CMD-2).Sincerely, arl Kanbergs, Environmental Scientist Federal Activities Office MI: 002836/98-072 O.f 4 0 l}}
 
r
      ,V e
4 i~
 
safety; therefore, the presented information could be interpreted as contradictory. EPA suggests that it would be more appropriate to contrast the proposed action against a no action alternative.
In this way; NEPA requirements are met and the audience is provided a mechanism to gage the relative impacts of the two alternatives. It would appear that the proposed action provides potentially positive environmental impacts, but this is not effectively emphasized in the EA, or contrasted against a no action alternative.
An EA should briefly explain why a proposed action would not have significant impacts.
While we do not question the basis of your judgements, item two on page five of the EA serves as an example. The need for an "emergency action shutdown requirement" during a routine shutdown is proposed for elimination. NRC's statement could be interpreted by the public that, during routine shutdowns, the ability to respond to emergency situations would be lessened. This serves as a concrete example to illustrate the need for inclusion of concise statements stating why no significant impacts could result.
EPA also notes that the FONSI does not conform to CEQ regulations-at 40 CFR 1508.13. A FONSI must include an explanation of why an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
In conclusion, some procedural-related changes, as suggested in this letter, could result in a better NEPA process. EPA has also noticed that the NRC has written a number of EA's regarding minor changes in operation or procedures at regulated nuclear facilities, within EPA's Region IX area. I would appreciate discussing with you how your agency determines when to prepare an EA and your NEPA related policies regarding operations at Nuclear Power Plants.
The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4 provide a range of options to agencies, allowing potential streamlining of the NEPA process.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the documents. For questions and further discussion, please contact me at (415) 744-1483, or at the letterhead address (code: CMD-2).
Sincerely, arl Kanbergs, Environmental Scientist Federal Activities Office MI: 002836/98-072
 
f O.
4 0
l}}

Latest revision as of 20:42, 2 December 2019

Provides Comments Re Review of EA & Fonsi for Proposed Conversion to Improved Standard TS for Pvngs,Per Nepa,Cea NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 & Section 309 of Clean Air Act.Nepa Process Related Issues Discussed
ML17313A354
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 04/03/1998
From: Kanbergs K
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To: Donohew J
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9804220015
Download: ML17313A354 (6)


Text

CATEGORY 1 REGULA'x Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM (RIDS)

'CCESSION NBR:9804220015 DOC.DATE: 98/04/03 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET ¹ FACZL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 S=N-5C'-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi 05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KANBERGS,K. Environmental Protection Agency RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DONOHEW,J.N.

SUBJECT:

Provides comments re review of EA &. FONSI for proposed conversion to improved standard TS for PVNGS,per NEPA,CEA NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40CFR1500-1508 E Section 309 of Clean Air Act.NEPA process related issues discussed.

DXSTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution 6

NOTES: STANDARDIZED PLANT 05000528 Standardized plant. 05000529 p Standardized plant. 05000530 R

REC1PZENT COPIES RECZPZENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD4-2 LA PD4-2 PD FIELDS,M INTERNAL: ACRS FILE CENTE NRR/DE/ECGB/A NR DE EMCB NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SPLB D NRR/DSSA/SRXB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS2 0 EXTERNAL: NOAC NRC PDR E

NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 14 ENCL

~W-/~

ty

+yED Sr~

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 ~o-SX~/S>~~/8+>

April 3, 1998 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jack N. Donohew, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects -III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Donohew:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed an Environmental Assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Conversion to the Improved Standard Technical Specifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units No. 1, 2 and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona. Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean AirAct. Based on our review, we have several NEPA process related issues to discuss.

The proposed action is a series of amendments to the Current Technical Specifications (CTS). According to the EA, the need for the proposed action is the recognition that safety in nuclear power plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of the Technical Specification (TS). We presume that the need for the proposed action is to improve and standardize technical specifications to improve safety at nuclear power plants. Ifthat is NRC's intended need, then the EA should state this in "plain language" [40 CFR 1500.4(d)].

The purposes of an EA are outlined at 40 CFR 1508.9. One of the main purposes is determination ifa proposed action could result in significant effects on the human environment.

It should also include a brief discussion of alternatives f40 CFR 1508.9(b)]. The Palo Verde EA does not provide any alternatives to the proposed action and states:

"Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any alternatives with equal or greater environment impact need not be evaluated... The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar."

Yet, the premise of the EA is that the proposed amendments would result in greater nuclear 98042200i5 980403 PDR ADOCK 05000528 I P PDR I

r

,V e

4 i~

safety; therefore, the presented information could be interpreted as contradictory. EPA suggests that it would be more appropriate to contrast the proposed action against a no action alternative.

In this way; NEPA requirements are met and the audience is provided a mechanism to gage the relative impacts of the two alternatives. It would appear that the proposed action provides potentially positive environmental impacts, but this is not effectively emphasized in the EA, or contrasted against a no action alternative.

An EA should briefly explain why a proposed action would not have significant impacts.

While we do not question the basis of your judgements, item two on page five of the EA serves as an example. The need for an "emergency action shutdown requirement" during a routine shutdown is proposed for elimination. NRC's statement could be interpreted by the public that, during routine shutdowns, the ability to respond to emergency situations would be lessened. This serves as a concrete example to illustrate the need for inclusion of concise statements stating why no significant impacts could result.

EPA also notes that the FONSI does not conform to CEQ regulations-at 40 CFR 1508.13. A FONSI must include an explanation of why an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

In conclusion, some procedural-related changes, as suggested in this letter, could result in a better NEPA process. EPA has also noticed that the NRC has written a number of EA's regarding minor changes in operation or procedures at regulated nuclear facilities, within EPA's Region IX area. I would appreciate discussing with you how your agency determines when to prepare an EA and your NEPA related policies regarding operations at Nuclear Power Plants.

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4 provide a range of options to agencies, allowing potential streamlining of the NEPA process.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the documents. For questions and further discussion, please contact me at (415) 744-1483, or at the letterhead address (code: CMD-2).

Sincerely, arl Kanbergs, Environmental Scientist Federal Activities Office MI: 002836/98-072

f O.

4 0

l