ML070440393
| ML070440393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/2007 |
| From: | Rani Franovich NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | Kansler M Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Muir, Jesse, PM, REBB, 415-0491 | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1437 | |
| Download: ML070440393 (18) | |
Text
March 2, 2007 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING
SUMMARY
REPORT ASSOCIATED WITH THE STAFFS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY ENTERGY NUCLEAR FITZPATRICK, LLC, AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., FOR RENEWAL OF THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Dear Mr. Kansler:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a scoping process, from September 20, 2006 through November 14, 2006, to determine the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review of the renewal application for the operating license of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP). As part of the scoping process, the NRC staff held two public environmental scoping meetings in Oswego, New York, on October 12, 2006, to solicit input regarding the scope of the environmental review. The scoping process is the first step in the development of a plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), for JAFNPP.
The NRC staff has prepared the enclosed environmental scoping summary report identifying comments received at the October 12, 2006 license renewal environmental scoping meetings and by mail. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), all participants of the scoping process are being provided a copy of the Scoping Summary Report. The transcripts of the meetings (ML063030195 and ML063030209) can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary (ML062980148). The documents are publicly available and can be found at the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.html or through the NRCs Electronic Reading Room link at http://www.nrc.gov. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov.
M. Kansler The next step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a draft supplement to the GEIS scheduled for June 2007. Notice of the availability of the draft supplement to the GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register Notice. If you have any questions concerning the Scoping Summary Report, please contact Jessie M. Muir, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-0491 or jmm7@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA Jennifer A. Davis for/
Rani Franovich, Branch Chief Environmental Branch B Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-333
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: see next page
M. Kansler The next step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a draft supplement to the GEIS scheduled for June 2007. Notice of the availability of the draft supplement to the GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register Notice. If you have any questions concerning the Scoping Summary Report, please contact Jessie M. Muir, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-0491 or jmm7@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA Jennifer A. Davis for/
Rani Franovich, Branch Chief Environmental Branch B Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-333
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: see next page DISTRIBUTION P.T. Kuo (RidsNrrDlr)
R. Franovich (RidsNrrDlrRebb)
E. Benner (RidsNrrDlrReba)
J. Muir S. Hernandez B. McDowell, LLNL (mcdowell5@llnl.gov)
N. Le J. Boska G. Hunegs, RI D. Dempsey, RI OGC (RidsOGCMailRoom)
M. Zobler, OGC OPA (RidsOpaMail)
D. McIntyre, OPA DLR/REBB DLR/REBA C. Dorsey N. Sheehan, RI ADAMS Accession No.: ML070440393 OFFICE LA:DLR GS:DLR:REBB PM:DLR:REBB OGC BC:DLR:REBB NAME S. Figueroa S. Hernandez J. Muir M. Zobler R. Franovich (NLO) (J. Davis for/)
DATE 02/16/07 02/20/07 02/20/07 03/2/07 03/02/07 OFFICIAL FILE COPY
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Service List cc:
Mr. Gary J. Taylor Resident Inspector's Office Chief Executive Officer James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Entergy Operations, Inc. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1340 Echelon Parkway P.O. Box 136 Jackson, MS 39213 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. John T. Herron Ms. Charlene D. Faison Sr. VP and Chief Operating Officer Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Peter T. Dietrich Mr. Michael J. Colomb Site Vice President Director of Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 440 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 110 White Plains, NY 10601 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. David Wallace Mr. Kevin J. Mulligan Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance General Manager, Plant Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 110 P.O. Box 110 Lycoming, NY 13093 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. James Costedio Mr. Oscar Limpias Manager, Regulatory Compliance Vice President Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 440 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 110 White Plains, NY 10601 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Christopher Schwarz Assistant General Counsel Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire Mr. John F. McCann Assistant Attorney General Director, Licensing New York Department of Law Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 120 Broadway 440 Hamilton Avenue New York, NY 10271 White Plains, NY 10601
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Service List cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. Rick Plasse U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Manager, License Renewal 475 Allendale Road Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 110 Mr. Steven Lyman Lycoming, NY 13093 Oswego County Administrator 46 East Bridge Street Mr. James Ross Oswego, NY 13126 Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, N.W. Suite 400 Mr. Peter R. Smith, President Washington, DC 20006-3708 New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Mr. Randolph Bateman 17 Columbia Circle Mayor of Oswego, NY (Acting)
Albany, NY 12203-6399 13 West Oneida Street Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Dept. of Public Service Mr. Leonard J. Ponzi 3 Empire State Plaza Oswego County Legislator Albany, NY 12223-1350 28 Mitchell Street Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Kenneth E. Burdick, Supervisor Town of Scriba Ms. Mary Bennett Route 8, Box 382 Penfield Library Oswego, NY 13126 SUNY-Oswego 7060 State Route 104 Mr. James H. Sniezek Oswego, NY 13126 BWR SRC Consultant 5486 Nithsdale Drive Ms. Carol Ferlito Salisbury, MD 21801-2490 Oswego Public Library 140-142 East Second Street Mr. Michael D. Lyster Oswego, NY 13126 BWR SRC Consultant 5931 Barclay Lane Ms. Carolyn Patrickson Naples, FL 34110-7306 390 Dry Bridge Rd.
Mexico, NY 13114 Mr. Garrett D. Edwards 814 Waverly Road Mr. Ed Putnam Kennett Square, PA 19348 P.O. Box 1097 Skaneateles, NY 13152 Mr. Steve Boudreau 264 Stafford Ave Syracuse, NY 13206
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Service List cc:
Mr. Charles McChesney Town Supervisor 18 Canalview Mall New Haven Fulton, NY 13069 P.O. Box 141 New Haven, NY 13121 Alderman Constance M. Cosemento Common Council City Hall Ms. Alyse Peterson Oswego, NY 13126 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Alderman Barbara A. Donahue 17 Columbia Circle Common Council,City Hall Albany, NY 12203 Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Chris Hogan Alderman Edward J. Harrington New York State Department of Common Council, City Hall Environmental Conservation Oswego, NY 13126 Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Alderman Daniel G. Donovan Albany, NY 12233 Common Council, City Hall Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Andrew Kasius New York Department of State Alderman Timothy B. Rice Division of Coastal Resources Common Council, City Hall 41 State Street Oswego, NY 13126 Albany, NY 12231 Alderman Richard L. Atkins Common Council, City Hall Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Russ Johnson, Legislature Chairman 5 Burleigh Terrace Fulton, NY 13069 Mr. Reuel A. Todd, Sheriff 39 Churchill Road Oswego, NY 13126 Ms. Patricia Egan, Director Emergency Management Office 200 North Second St.
Fulton, NY 13069 Mr. Terry E. Grimshaw, Mayor 3236 Main St.,PO Box 309 Mexico, NY 13114
Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant March 2007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland
Introduction On August 1, 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), dated July 31, 2006, for renewal of the operating license of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP). JAFNPP is located in Oswego County, New York. As part of the application, Entergy submitted an environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 which contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation and submittal of environmental reports to the NRC.
Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, was first issued as a draft for public comment. The staff received input from Federal and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens before developing the final document. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to be small and generic to all nuclear power plants. These were designated as Category 1 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts, absent new and significant information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to be evaluated in the applicants ER.
The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision-making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials.
Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power, or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission determined the ER need not discuss any aspect of storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b). This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Commissions Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.
On September 20, 2006, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (71 FR 55032), to notify the public of the staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS related to the renewal application for the JAFNPP operating license. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice.
The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; Indian tribes; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting comments by November 14, 2006. The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Town of Scriba Municipal Building in Oswego, New York, on October 12, 2006. The NRC issued press releases, and distributed flyers locally. Approximately fourteen (14) members of the public attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process. Following the NRCs prepared statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Three (3) attendees provided either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcripts of the meetings (ML063030195 and ML063030209) can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary (ML062980148), which was issued on October 30, 2006. The 1
documents are publicly available, and can be found at the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.html or through the NRCs Electronic Reading Room link at http://www.nrc.gov. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov.
The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:
- Define the proposed action
- Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth
- Identify and eliminate peripheral issues
- Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS
- Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements
- Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS
- Identify any cooperating agencies
- Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff reviewed the transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. Two (2) letters containing comments were also received during the scoping period. All comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier (Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted.
Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS.
Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according to subject area, the NRC staff determined the appropriate action for the comment.
Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated with each person's set(s) of comments. The Commenter ID letter is preceded by FNP (short for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant scoping). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments in ADAMS.
2
TABLE 1 - Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Commenters Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source and ID ADAMS Accession Number(a)
FNP-A Ed Putnam Candidate, New York State Assembly Afternoon Scoping Meeting FNP-B Tim Judson Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) Evening Scoping Meeting FNP-C Tom Dellwo CAN Evening Scoping Meeting FNP-D Joseph J. Heath General Counsel, Onondaga Nation Letter (ML063240283)
FNP-E Christopher M. Project Manager, New York State Letter (ML063240331)
Hogan Department of Environmental Conservation (a) The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found under accession numbers ML063030195 and ML063030209, respectively.
The subject areas the comments were grouped into are as follows:
- 1. Opposition to License Renewal at JAFNPP
- 2. Comments Related to License Renewal and Its Processes
- 3. Aquatic Ecology Issues
- 4. Socioeconomic Issues
- 5. Postulated Accidents
- 6. Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues
- 7. Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal: Operational Safety, Security & Emergency Preparedness; Safeguards and Security; Aging Management; Cost of Power; and Waste Confidence For reference, the unique identifier for each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table 1 plus the comment number) is provided. In those cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation will be performed.
The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (SEIS) will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The draft SEIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Indian tribes; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the NRCs environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will provide the basis for the NRCs decision on the JAFNNP license renewal application.
3
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP)
Scoping Comment and Responses
- 1. Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at JAFNPP Comment: I may not be a structural engineer, but I dont think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that a leak from a nuclear reactor is bad news. If, indeed, this building is not capable of the level of safety required to assure the nearby residents that they need not worry, but I would ask that you reject the license application and begin the process of disassembling the plant. As I said, I am not qualified to make that decision. I can only ask that you re-affirm your intent to be objective about the findings of your research over the next couple of years. And I have heard a good amount of that already.
(FNP-A-3)
Comment: The Onondaga Nation opposes the renewal of this license. Since the beginning of operations at this 825 MW facility in July of 1975, the Nation has been concerned about the numerous threats posed to the environment, human health, and national security.
(FNP-D-1)
Comment: Especially now, as environmental problems and geo-political conflicts continue to escalate, the Nation opposes the continued operation of this facility and use of this technology.
Our communities and our environment have been put at risk long enough. We urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny the License Renewal Application of Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(FNP-D-5)
Response: The comments oppose license renewal at JAFNPP. These comments are general in nature and provide no new and significant information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.
- 2. General Comments Regarding License Renewal and Its Processes Comment: Finally, before this plant is relicensed, the people of this county and this region deserve the assurances that a due diligence will be in place by your agency and by related agencies charged with safety, efficiency, reliability, and good employment practices which will benefit the well-being of our people. Nuclear power is not a same-old industry. It carries with it the potential of disaster, but it also carries with it the potential of being a good neighbor.
(FNP-A-11)
Comment: My hope is that you will take the comments you hear today to heart and approach the relicensing of FitzPatrick with objectivity and concern, not only for the profit benefit concerned, but for the human and economic needs of the people of Oswego County and the central New York region. (FNP-A-12) 4
Comment: Well, it's a little bit hard to know necessarily what to say at these meetings for a number of reasons. One is that you know the NRC in passing its regulations on license extensions like that has basically ruled out almost any issue that the public would care about for mattering what decision the NRC makes about a relicensing application.
(FNP-B-1)
Comment: So that doesnt leave us with a whole lot. And you know basically whats been laid out is a process by which the NRC is going to make a decision about whether this power plant should operate for an extra 20 years, even though no nuclear power plant has ever run to this point in history for more than 40 years on the basis of paper pushing and on the basis of bureaucracy.
(FNP-B-5)
Comment: So there's really very little the public can contribute to this process, unless of course, the Federal Courts step in which may happen very soon because the Federal Court branch out in California has ruled that the NRC has to consider terrorism and security issues as part of any kind of licensing process. And the NRC is now appealing that to the Supreme Court. So we may or may not be able to raise any issues that matter in this process.
(FNP-B-6)
Comment: So I guess mostly what I wanted to talk about is reality in terms of what happens here. And basically NRC's entire regulatory process at this point is based on whether or not the companies that own the power plants tell the truth. And so the question is why should we believe that Entergy says? What basis do we have to believe that they're telling us the truth about the inspections they're going to undertake, about the current status of all of these aging components inside the reactor, about their policies for ensuring that workers can report safety problems. And the truth of the matter is there isnt a whole lot of ground to stand on there.
(FNP-B-7)
Comment: ... and in terms of granting a company blanket permission to operate a reactor for an extra 20 years, what basis do we have to know that theyre going to follow through on their promises and in fact, that the things that theyre telling us about the plant are true?
(FNP-B-8)
Comment: And we believe that this whole process needs to stop until three things happen.
One is that NRC investigates these statements that Entergy management is making; and two, that NRC investigates FitzPatrick and makes sure that workers are not threatened and retaliated against for reporting safety problems and not only that, but the workers don't feel as though they're going to be afraid to report safety problems. And lastly, Entergy needs to put Carl Patrickson back to work because what has happened since his case, he won his case by the way with the Department of Labor, even though the management at Entergy claimed that they didn't know that he had reported a safety problem.
(FNP-B-9)
Response: The comments relate to license renewal and its processes in general. The Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be conducted to review a license renewal application. The development of the Commissions regulations governing the license renewal process was subject to public review and comment.
The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.
5
- 3. Aquatic Ecology Issues Comment: [Environmental Report] Appendix E; Section 4.2: Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages, and Section 4.3: Impingement of Fish and Shellfish Statements regarding previous Departmental Best Technology Available (BTA) decisions for FitzPatrick are overstated. While in 1996 and 2001 the Department determined that the high frequency/high amplitude acoustic fish deterrent system (FDS) was BTA for reducing impingement, the Department did not state that the FDS was BTA for reducing entrainment. In fact, the letter Entergy used as a reference specifically states, Moreover, the fish deterrent system has not been evaluated as an entrainment mitigative device... In addition, while the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Fact Sheet that accompanied the 1996 and 2001 SPDES permits discussed the potential benefit of the FDS for reducing alewife entrainment, it referenced the need for studies to determine the effectiveness of the FDS system on larval life stages of alewives. Requirements for these studies were made part of the SPDES permit, but Department records indicate that the study was never conducted.
Even if the study had been completed and the Department had made a BTA determination regarding entrainment, documented changes in the fish community in Lake Ontario (as described in Appendix E, Section 2.2.4 of the license renewal application) compel a review of previous determinations to determine if changes are warranted. To that end, Entergy is currently conducting biological sampling at FitzPatrick to determine the extent of current impacts. Data from this sampling will be included in a Comprehensive Demonstration Study that Entergy must submit to the Department in early 2008. A new BTA decision will be based, in part, on the Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Thus, conclusory statements that entrainment impacts do not warrant mitigation are premature. Decisions regarding the need for mitigation will be addressed via the SPDES permit process.
(FNP-E-1)
Comment: [Environmental Report] Section 6.2 Mitigation.
Entergys contention that the current permits, practices, and programs that mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operations are adequate (page 6-1) are not necessarily accurate. For example, the decision regarding adequacy of mitigative measures for addressing impacts from impingement and entrainment will be addressed via the SPDES permit process.
That permit process will address the adequacy of current practices and, if necessary, will result in requirements for additional measures to reduce impacts. In addition and as explained above, statements in Table 6-1 regarding past BTA determinations are overstated.
(FNP-E-2)
Comment: Counter to statements contained in Section 4.2.6, Section 4.3.6, and Table 6-1, federal regulations do not require limiting the focus of mitigation requirements to impacts on fish populations (see 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 51.45(c)). In fact, the federal regulations dealing with impingement and entrainment at power plants focus on the reduction in the numbers of individual organisms (see 40 CFR 125-Subparts I and J).
(FNP-E-3)
Response: These comments are related to information regarding entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish, as provided in the applicants Environmental Report. Aquatic ecology will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
6
- 4. Socioeconomic Issues Comment: One of the economic factors which affects the retention of current industry in central New York and which also affects the attraction of new industry to this region is the provision of inexpensive, trustworthy, and accessible power. We need this company to be a player in this attempt to bolster the economy of central New York. The Oswego County Public Utility Service offers "low cost electrical energy" to new and expanding business in Oswego County, in the hope that it will inspire new jobs and retain existing jobs through the low-cost electricity provided by Entergy at the FitzPatrick plant. This is a positive initiative which has begun to be shared with the local economic community.
A similar form of utility incentive for domestic usage would be a welcome message to the residents of this region. It seems inconsistent that this community which houses nuclear power plants does not experience significant benefit from the presence. The economic down-turn in this region is desperately in need of signs of recovery, and thus nuclear power industry has the capability of leading the way.
(FNP-A-10)
Response: The comments are related to the socioeconomic impacts specific to JAFNPP.
Socioeconomic impacts such as taxes are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
- 5. Postulated Accidents Comment: The operation of nuclear power plants is not without the potential for accidents, with serious consequences for both short and long term health in surrounding communities.
(FNP-D-3)
Response: The GEIS evaluated severe accidents and design basis accidents, and concluded the impact was small. During the environmental review of JAFNPP, the NRC will determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analyses in the GEIS. Section 5.1.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for JAFNPP will address this issue. In addition, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered on a plant-specific basis for all plants that have not previously considered such alternatives. The applicant provided a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis as part of the license renewal application for JAFNPP. The NRC staffs review of the SAMA analysis will discussed in Section 5.2 and Appendix G of the SEIS for JAFNPP.
- 6. Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues Comment: From start to finish, the production of nuclear energy is fraught with hazards. The mining and enrichment of uranium produces radioactive isotopes that contaminate and degrade the surrounding environment.
(FNP-D-2)
Comment: Finally, creation of nuclear energy leads to the accumulation of extremely hazardous, radioactive material that persists in the environment for tens of thousands of years.
Additionally, this process creates byproducts, which, in a worst-case scenario, could be obtained and used to create dangerous weapons.
(FNP-D-4) 7
Response: Environmental impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle were addressed in the GEIS. The GEIS concluded those impacts including the off-site radiological impact of storage, transportation, and disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive waste are Category 1 issues. The impact of these Category 1 issues was judged to be small in the GEIS. During the environmental review of JAFNPP, the NRC determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analysis.
- 7. Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal Operational Safety, Security, & Emergency Preparedness Comment: It would be important that the relicensing carried with it an assurance that appropriate evaluation plans and response plans have been instituted and meet the criteria for an immediate and effective response to a potential nuclear accident.
(FNP-A-9)
Comment: Not allowed to raise generic questions about nuclear safety and how you feel about having a nuclear power plant in your community, that if it did melt down, would basically cause the evacuation or permanent resettlement of the entire population of your community.
(FNP-B-4)
Response: The comments relate to operational safety, security, and emergency preparedness. These issues are outside the scope of this review. Although a topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, any matter potentially affecting safety will be addressed under processes currently available for an existing operating license.
Emergency preparedness is an ongoing process at all plants, including JAFNPP. Each nuclear plant must have an approved emergency plan, as required by 10 CFR Part 50. Licensees are required to test the effectiveness of the plans by conducting regular emergency response exercises. Emergency planning is part of the current operating license and is outside the scope of the environmental analysis for license renewal. The comments do not fall within the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.
Comment: My purpose in standing before you today is to bring several concerns which I believe deserve consideration as you consider the possibility of re-licensing the FitzPatrick plant for another two decades. Not the least of these concerns is the question of the safety of the current facility, and your ability to guarantee the people of this region that re-licensing is something which will assure them that they need not be concerned about the possibility of a nuclear accident in this aging behemoth.
(FNP-A-1)
Comment: But I'd like to highlight something that he didn't mention, focusing on Carl Patrickson once more. The issue that Carl raised and this is something that you do want to take into consideration in the scope of your investigation into the environmental impact of Entergy. Carl Patrickson raised an issue, before he was fired, with the emergency service water pumps. I don't know that much about the technical details of it. He does. He's an 8
engineer. From what he says, essentially if a certain problem isn't fixed there, that they will - -
that they could, it could result in the emergency service water being shut off and not being able to -- not being able to be used in the event of a meltdown. So there wouldn't be enough water to cool the plant down in the event there was a problem there.
He raised this concern and to my knowledge nothing has been done about it, according to what I've been able to find out, according to what Tim has been able to find out. That has obvious impacts in the environment. If there's something -- it may be more in the safety. I'm just going to add it in now because I'm not going to get the opportunity to talk about it in the safety portion, but that's something that you should really look into. It's the emergency service water pump rooms. Check that out. Find out if the problem that Carl raised and documentation should be there. He definitely sent the documentation to NRC. He raised the concern with NRC.
So you guys have the documentation. You can check into that. That would have an impact on the environment if there was a meltdown, if there wasn't any cooling water that could get to the plant to cool it down. That would definitely have an impact on the environment. So that's something that should be taken into account and to my knowledge, nothing has been done about that to this date.
(FNP-C-1)
Response: The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Operational safety is outside the scope of the environmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal is conducted separately. The safety review for license renewal will determine whether aging effects will be adequately managed so that the original design assumptions will continue to be valid throughout the period of extended operation; or verify that any aging effects will be adequately managed. For all aspects of operation, there are existing regulatory requirements governing a plant that offer reasonable assurance of adequate protection if its license were renewed.
Safeguards & Security Comment: Youre not allowed to raise issues of security or terrorism because the NRCs official stance on security and terrorism is that terrorism is too speculative a risk to calculate what the actual possibility of it is. And so their security regulations as they stand are sufficient to protect the nations reactor communities.
(FNP-B-3)
Response: The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists. The NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided to them by other Federal agencies and sources. The NRC also directed that licensees implement additional measures to enhance their ability to address the current threat environmentally. The NRC, as part of its mission to protect public health and safety and provide for the common defense and security, will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities. The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is not unique to facilities that are renewing their licenses. These matter will continue to be addressed through the ongoing regulatory oversight 9
process as current and generic regulatory issues that affect all nuclear facilities. The comment is not within the scope of license renewal under 10 CFR Part 54; therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.
Aging Management Comment: When I pulled up the information about the FitzPatrick plant on the computer and looked at the license agreement carefully, I found myself reading a laundry list of cracks, fissures, weaknesses and "needed repairs" which began to make me a little more than nervous.
I have no doubt that the skilled and committed workers of this plant can make the needed repairs and reconstructions are simply holding a crumbling shell together.
(FNP-A-2)
Response: The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging are outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the NRCs safety review of the license renewal application focuses on programs for the management of aging of long-lived, passive safety systems, structures, and components. The comment provides no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental review.
Cost of Power Comment: Secondly, though, I want to address a related issue of families struggling under the heavy cost of carrying out their lives in this county. One of the costly features they mention frequently is the high cost of energy to heat their homes and provide them with the utilities they require. For some, their utility bills are as great as their monthly rent or their mortgage payment.
(FNP-A-4)
Comment: This county, Oswego County, produces more energy in a day than any other county east of the Mississippi. Despite that massive production, the cost of electric power in this county exceeds most of the other counties in New York State. How do you figure? Is there something wrong with this picture?
(FNP-A-5)
Comment: We must seize the opportunity and help our families and our economy by ensuring that our families have access to low cost power. It is a moment to demand that the owners of the plant agree to assist the people of Oswego County in surviving the economic crisis many of them find themselves. It is an ideal moment to demand of the owners of the plant that they distribute the exorbitant profits emerging from the operations involved. This is not a time to be timid. Rather, the people need to seek assurances from the owners of benefits which will come to them by the continuing presence of this plant.
(FNP-A-6)
Comment: The risks that they have taken to make room for nuclear power production in this community deserve some greater benefits than the minimal Payments in Lieu of Taxes which have been forthcoming from the owners of this plant to date. Before you agree to re-license this plant and set it free for another generation, I'd ask you to require a new contract with the people of Oswego County. It is time for the producers of power in this community to extend 10
greater benefits to the domestic consumers of power who live here which will dramatically reduce their monthly utility bills. It is appropriate for the owners of this plant and the legislators of this county to negotiate a new contract which will assure the income from taxes which will lift the economic capabilities of this county and allow it to provide much-needed services for the residents.
(FNP-A-7)
Comment: It is timely for the nuclear power industry to take its rightful place in a cooperative and blended collaboration with other power systems to provide the people of New York State and central New York with a safe, inexpensive, and easily accessible power product.
(FNP-A-8)
Response: The economic costs and benefits of renewing an operating license are specifically directed to be outside the scope of license renewal in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2); therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.
Waste Confidence Comment: You cant raise issues of nuclear waste because they have what they call the Waste Confidence Rule which means that because the Federal Government has a law that says theyre going to make a nuclear waste dump, that the public doesnt need to be concerned about how much waste is being generated and stored in their communities, even though were already 20 years behind on a waste dump as it is and it doesnt look like its going to happen any time in the near future, unless Congress overrides many, many laws to jam this thing through.
(FNP-B-2)
Response: The Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23, generically determined spent fuel generated by any reactor can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life of operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of nuclear power plants safely and with minimal environmental impact. The determination also provided that a discussion of the environmental impacts of storage during the additional 20 year of operation after license renewal is not required. However, an environmental assessment was performed for the Commissions Waste Confidence Decision. In addition, numerous environmental assessments have been conducted for the two methods of spent fuel storage: storage in spent fuel pools or dry cask storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation.
11