ML15058A197

Comment (4) of Kenneth A. Westlake on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2

ML15058A197
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	02/12/2015
From:	Environmental Protection Agency
To:	Bladey C K Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
80FR55 00004, CEQ 20140383, E-19J, NI-REG-1437
Download: ML15058A197 (7)

Text

• '.7 RULES; I I1VLbUNITE'D STATFS ENVIRONM10,ENTAL PROT hF' .,Vr.iJCY

_01 E.- VAH.,G.; IL ?OiJ3JI 7l5~ 9 ~ 1 2 1E-19JCindy BladeyRules, Announcements, and Directives BranchOffice of Administration Mail Stop 3WTN-06-44M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental ImpactStatement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units I and 2, Ogle County,Illinois

-NI-REG-1437

-CEQ #20140383

Dear Ms. Bladey:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the above-mentioned project prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Ioplementin Re, glations (40 Ct R1500-1508),

and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.Byron is a two-unit nuclear power plant located in Ogle County, Illinois.

It began operation inFebruary 1985 (Unit 1) and January 1987 (Unit 2). The site is located on approximately 1,782acres, including the main site area and a right-of-way to the Rock River for the circulating watermakeup intake and blowdown discharge pipelines.

The nuclear reactor for each unit is aWestinghouse pressurized-water reactor producing 2,370 megawatts electric (MWe).Byron is owned and operated by Exelon Generation

Company, LLC (the applicant).

Theapplicant applied to NRC for an extension to its operating

license, extending operation for anadditional 20-year period. Based on information provided by the applicant, NRC's preferred alternative is to grant the 20-year extension.

The NRC developed a Generic EIS to streamline the license renewal process based on thepremise that environmental impacts of most nuclear power plant license renewals are similar.NRC develops facility-specific Supplemental EIS documents as the facilities apply for licenserenewal.

EPA acknowledges that mitigation measures that are un-related to nuclear safety andsecurity cannot be included in the NRC license.

This includes, but is not limited to, dieselemissions reduction measures.

However, because we find these measures to be value-added, wecontinue to recomnend them to the applicant for any construction activities and include them inour comment letters.

We encourage the applicant to incorporate mitigation measures into theproject, wherever possible.

SUNSI Review Complete

.....Template

= ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03 , /\

Based on our review of the Draft Supplemental EIS, we have rated the document and project asEC-1, Environmental Concerns

-Adequate Information.

EPA has identified additional potential mitigation measures and some areas in need of clarification.

We have enclosed ourratings definitions and our detailed comments.

EPA commends NRC and the applicant on improved transparency in this document whencontrasted with EISs for some other nuclear power plants that we have reviewed in recent years.We particularly note the improved compliance with plain language writing requirements.

EPAfound this document more easily understood, particularly for those without a technical, nuclear-related background.

Reviewers also required fewer cross-references throughout the document; references often included specific locations within documents (rather than simply citing a fulldocument).

EPA encourages continued improvement by NRC on this matter.EPA also commends NRC for specifying that certain methodologies used for risk determination meet all Federal regulation 1, particularly ones that are related, but covered independently by bothEPA and NRC.Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.

If you have any questions or wishto discuss any aspect of this document, please contact Elizabeth Poole of my staff at 312-353-2087 or poole.elizabeth@epa.gov.

Sincerely,

, -AVKenneth A. Wegtriake, ChiefNEPA Implementation SectionOffice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance cc: Lois James, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Keith Shank, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Kristen Lundh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Enclosure:

Detailed CommentsSummary of Ratings Definitions

'Section 3.1.4. Radioactive Waste Management

Systems, Page 3-9, Lines44-462 JU.S. EPA's Detailed Comments on Byron Station, Units 1 and 2Draft SEIS, NUREG-1437, CEQ #20140383 February 2015Human HealthEPA is encouraged by the inclusion of National Institute of Environmental Safety and Health's(NIESH) conclusion regarding the risks of living near extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields2 (ELF-EMF).

However, EPA notes that NRC continues to view assignment of this issue asgenerically "UNCERTAIN,"

and therefore a Category I issue3.Recommendation:

We recommend categorizing this issue as a Category 2, given thatchronic effects continue to be viewed as "UNCERTAIN" by the NRC, and include site-specific analysis in the Final Supplemental EIS.Aquatic ResourceThe Draft Supplemental EIS does not include a discussion of the recently finalized rulerequirements for cooling water intake systems.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(JEPA) is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority inIllinois and will be making Best Technology Available determinations for the cooling waterintake structures, if any, consistent with the Existing Facility Rule for Section 316(b) in 40 CFRPart 125, as finalized in October 2014. This determination will be effective in the first NPDESpermit reissued after July 14, 2018.Recommendation:

The Final EIS should include a discussion of the revised Section316(b) regulations and potential cooling water intake technologies that may be available to the facility and whether modifications to the existing cooling water intake structure areanticipated, to the best of NRC's and the applicant's knowledge.

Threatened and Endan2ered SpeciesEPA notes that no State-listed bird species have been observed at the Byron site during thedevelopment of the wildlife management plan4.We also understand that surveys conducted todevelop the wildlife management plan occurred in 2006. However, surveys conducted in 2006may no longer be relevant.

Recommendation:

Even though actions proposed under license renewal and possiblerefurbishment do not appear to impact species or undisturbed

habitat, EPA recommends NRC verify with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Illinois Department of NaturalResource that the data used to make the determinations of no effect to state- andfederally-listed species is still relevant.

Results of coordination with the two agenciesconcerning NRC's determination of no effect should be included in the FinalSupplemental EIS.2 Section 4.11.1.1, Page 4-59, Lines 4-17NRC categorizes issues into either Category 1 (generic to all license renewal activities) or Category 2 (site-specific).

Only Category 2 issues are analyzed in detail in Supplements to the Generic EIS for License Renewal.I Section 3.6.2.3, Page 3-44, Lines10-13I Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate ChangeOn December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality released revised draft guidancefor public comment that describes how Federal departments and agencies should consider the'effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their NEPA reviews.

The,-revised draft guidance supersedes the draft GHG and climate change guidance released by CEQ -in February 2010. This guidance explains that agencies should consider both the potential effectsof a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its estimated GHG emissions, and theimplications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action.Section 4.15.3 details potential GHG emissions and impacts related to climate change,concluding that GHG emissions would be lower for activities associated with license renewalthan for fossil-fuel based energy production, as analyzed in the Draft Supplemental EIS.Recommendation:

We recommend that the Final Supplemental EIS examineopportunities to minimize GHG emissions associated with operation of the facility to theextent feasible during the license renewal period. For example, clean energy options,such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, can be considered in the purchase ofmaintenance equipment, new equipment and vehicles.

See also, EPA's diesel emissionreduction strategies, below, for options to consider.

In addition, EPA recommends thatthe applicant consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts fromclimate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm andflood events.Air QualityThe Draft Supplemental EIS concludes that the new build alternatives would result in any rangeof SMALL to LARGE5 impacts, based on both construction and operation impacts to air quality.EPA agrees with this methodology and conclusion;

however, we recommend location beincorporated in that conclusion.

We note that a new build alternative could result in siting of afacility in an area with existing air quality concerns, such as non-attainment or maintenance status with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants.

Recommendation:

The Final Supplemental EIS should clarify that based on the locationof the alternative (excluding the preferred alternative of license renewal),

the new buildalternatives could have greater than SMALL impacts based on their locations.

Sitingcould result in selection of alternatives that have existing air quality concerns, such asnon-attainment or maintenance of NAAQS criteria pollutants.

This is inclusive of themagnitude of construction-related air quality impacts.While EPA recognizes that Ogle County is an attainment area for all criteria pollutants.,

weexpect construction equipment used during refurbishment and other onsite activities to emitdiesel emissions.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) hasdetermined that diesel exhaust is a potential occupational carcinogen, based on a combination ofchemical, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity data. In addition, acute exposures to diesel exhausthave been linked to health problems such as eye and nose irritation, headaches, nausea, asthma,and other respiratory system issues.5NRC assigns impact categories either SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.2 Recommendations:

Although every construction site is unique, common actions can reduceexposure to diesel exhaust.

EPA recommends that the applicant commit to the following actions during construction in the Final Supplemental EIS:" Using low-sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) in construction vehicles and equipment.

" Retrofitting engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture diesel particulate matterbefore it enters the construction site.* Positioning the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator andnearby workers, thereby reducing the fume concentration to which personnel areexposed.* Using catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and hydrocarbons indiesel fumes. These devices must be used with low sulfur fuels.* Ventilating wherever diesel equipment operates indoors.

Roof vents, open doors andwindows, roof fans, or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas.As buildings under construction are gradually

enclosed, remember that fumes from dieselequipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous levels without adequateventilation.

• Attaching a hose to the tailpipe of diesel vehicles running indoors and exhaust the fumesoutside, where they cannot re-enter the workplace.

Inspect hoses regularly for defects anddamage.* Using enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce the operators' exposure to diesel fumes.Pressurization ensures that air moves from inside to outside.

HEPA filters ensure that anyincoming air is filtered first." Regularly maintaining diesel engines, which is essential to keep exhaust emissions low.Follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and procedures.

Smokecolor can signal the need for maintenance.

For example, blue/black smoke indicates thatan engine requires servicing or tuning.* Reducing exposure through work practices and training, such as turning off engines whenvehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes, training diesel-equipment operators toperform routine inspection, and maintaining filtration devices." Purchasing new vehicles that are equipped with the most advanced emission controlsystems available.

" Using electric starting aids such as block heaters with older vehicles to warm the enginereduces diesel emissions.

• Using respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure to dieselemissions.

In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate.

Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators.

Depending on work being conducted, and if oil ispresent, concentrations of particulates

'present will determine the efficiency and type ofmask and respirator.

Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of respirators must perform the fit testing.

Respirators must bear a NIOSH approval number. Papermasks or surgical masks should never be used without NIOSH approval numbers.3 Editorial EPA continues to recommend metrics or thresholds be included in Supplemental EISs so thatdifferences among SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE can be better understood; EPA isparticularly interested when impacts are assigned a range (such as SMALL to MODERATE, seeTable 2-2 on pages 2-26 and 2-27 for examples),

what magnitude of impact or metric wouldmove an impact from SMALL to MODERATE, and whether mitigation could be a factor toassigning a lower impact category.

Without such objective thresholds or metrics, relative riskscannot be understood among the alternatives.

For example, impacts to land use or visualresources from the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), natural gas combined cycle(NGCC), or combined alternative (NGCC, wind, and solar) could have SMALL to MODERATEor SMALL to LARGE impacts.

There is little indication of how impacts move from one impactcategory to the next.Recommendation:

The Final Supplemental EIS should include an explanation of thethreshold or metric at which an impact will increase from SMALL to MODERATE toLARGE, and whether mitigation is a factor in assigning a lower impact or range ofimpact categories.

EPA has identified several locations where inclusion of additional citations would improveclarity and understanding of regulatory limits. EPA is particularly interested in the sections onRadioactive Liquid Waste Management 67 and Radioactive Gaseous Waste Management8.

Foreach of these sections, EPA recommends including 40 CFR 141, 40 CFR 142, and 40 CFR 190.In addition to Federal regulations, EPA also recommends referencing any applicable Stateregulatory citations.

Recommendation:

EPA recommends the Final Supplemental EIS include the above-mentioned citations.

Finally, EPA has identified the following minor error in the document:

• Section 3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology, page 3-18, line 33, 86 ft. (139 kin) needs tobe changed to 86 miles (139 km).6 Page 3-10, lines 3 through 57Page 3-I1 i lines23-268 Page 3-12, lines40-434

• SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW UP ACTION*Environmental Impact of the ActionLO-Lack of Obiections The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes tothe proposal.

The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures thatcould be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.

EC-Environmental ConcernsThe EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect theenvironment.

Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application ofmitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impacts.

EPA would like to work with the leadagency to reduce these impacts.EO-Environmental Obiections The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provideadequate protection for the environment.

Corrective measures may require substantial changes to thepreferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative).

EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.EU-Environmentallv Unsatisfactory The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they areunsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality.

EPA intends towork with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS sate, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.Adequacy of the Impact Statement Category I-Adequate The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alterative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or datacollecting is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.

Category 2-Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for the EPA to fully assess the environmental impactsthat should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified newreasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft E1S,which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data,analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.Category 3-Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impactsof the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside ofthe spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce thepotentially significant environmental impacts.

EPA believes that the identified additional information, dataanalyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage.EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental orrevised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be acandidate for referral to the CEQ.'From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of the Federal Actions Impacting the Environment