ML24295A108

Comment (7) E-mail Regarding Perry Lr Draft EIS

ML24295A108
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/21/2024
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
89FR72901
Download: ML24295A108 (20)

Text

From: Keeley, Alauna <Keeley.Alauna@epa.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 11:04 AM To: Lance Rakovan Cc: Seymour, Megan; valincia_darby@ios.doi.gov; John_Nelson@ios.doi.gov; Forbes, Andrew R; Rigby, Elizabeth (Beth); eileen.wyza@dnr.ohio.gov; mike.pettegrew@dnr.ohio.gov

Subject:

[External_Sender] EPA NEPA Comments - GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 61, Regarding Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, in Lake County, Ohio Attachments: EPA Comments - Perry Plant Unit 1 License Renewal SEIS (10-21-2024).pdf

Greetings,

Attached to this email are EPA's comments regarding the NRCs Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed license renewal of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, in Lake County.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding our correspondence. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the NEPA process!

Regards, Alauna

Alauna Keeley (she/her/hers)

NEPA Reviewer l EJCHER Division U.S. EPA l Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. l Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-1909 l keeley.alauna@epa.gov

Federal Register Notice: 89FR72901 Comment Number: 7

Mail Envelope Properties (MN2PR09MB5786A0800E2D4F23C2D24553FD432)

Subject:

[External_Sender] EPA NEPA Comments - GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 61, Regarding Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, in Lake County, Ohio Sent Date: 10/21/2024 11:03:42 AM Received Date: 10/21/2024 11:04:02 AM From: Keeley, Alauna

Created By: Keeley.Alauna@epa.gov

Recipients:

"Seymour, Megan" <megan_seymour@fws.gov>

Tracking Status: None "valincia_darby@ios.doi.gov" <valincia_darby@ios.doi.gov>

Tracking Status: None "John_Nelson@ios.doi.gov" <John_Nelson@ios.doi.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Forbes, Andrew R" <Andrew_Forbes@fws.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Rigby, Elizabeth (Beth)" <elizabeth_rigby@fws.gov>

Tracking Status: None "eileen.wyza@dnr.ohio.gov" <eileen.wyza@dnr.ohio.gov>

Tracking Status: None "mike.pettegrew@dnr.ohio.gov" <mike.pettegrew@dnr.ohio.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Lance Rakovan" <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

Post Office: MN2PR09MB5786.namprd09.prod.outlook.com

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 622 10/21/2024 11:04:02 AM EPA Comments - Perry Plant Unit 1 License Renewal SEIS (10-21-2024).pdf 456932

Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

October 21, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

Lance Rakovan, Chief Office of Nuclear Material, Safety, and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001

Re: EPA Comments: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 61, Regarding Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Draft Report (NUREG-1437); Perry Township, Lake County, Ohio; CEQ No. 20240161

Dear Mr. Rakovan:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact State ment (hereafter: Draft SEIS) dated August 30, 2024, concerning the license renewal (LR) of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Perry Plant). This letter provides EPAs comments on the proposed project, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Qualitys NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 -1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The CAA Section 309 role is unique to EPA. It requires EPA to review and comment on the environmental impact on any proposed federal action subject to NEPAs environmental impact statement requirements and to make its comments public.

Perry Plant is a single-unit, boiler water reactor (BWR) facility 1 and is located 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, Ohio along the shores of Lake Erie (Lake). 2 NRC issued the original operating license for Perry Plant on November 11, 1986. 3 On July 3, 2023, Energy Harbor Nuclear Corporation applied to NRC for LR of Operating License NPF-58 at Perry Plant. Since submittal of the license application, the direct and indirect control of Perry Plant was transferred to Vistra Operations Company, LLC (Applicant). NRC gathered information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement 4 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). 5

1 Perry Plant was originally a two-unit installation, but construction of Unit 2 was suspended and ultimately cancelled in 1994. Unit 1 has a generating capacity of 3,758 megawatts thermal (MWt) after an approved five percent uprate in 2000.

2 Perry Plant uses a closed-cycle cooling system with a natural draft cooling tower and relies on the Lake for makeup water intake.

3 The current facility operating license for Unit 1 will expire November 7, 2026. The LR application seeks to extend the operating license for Unit 1 to November 7, 2046.

4 NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2) and 10 CFR 51.95(c) to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license.

5 The purpose of the Generic EIS is to streamline the license renewal and subsequent license renewal processes based on the premise that environmental effects of most nuclear power plant license renewals are similar, dated May 2013: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/index.html.

The Draft SEIS evaluated the following three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative:

1. License Renewal: NRC would approve an LR of Perry Plants operating license for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license.

2. Natural Gas-Fired Combined Cycle: In lieu of LR, the Applicant would construct and install multiple natural gas-fired turbines and steam generators and use an additional 60 acres of land to support a design capacity of 1,350 megawatts electric (MWe).

3. Renewable and Natural Gas Combination: In lieu of LR, the Applicant would construct and install one 764 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle, six 125 MW s olar installations, and three 540 MW wind installations. The natural gas -fired would require 60 acres of additional land, and the solar and wind installations would be located offsite.

4. No Action Alternative: NRC would not renew Perry Plants operating license, and the reactor unit would shut down on or before the current license expiration date of November 7, 2026.

After permanent reactor shutdown, plant operators would initiate decommissioning.

NRC preliminarily selected License Renewal as the Preferred Alternative. EPAs enclosed comments focus on environmental justice; climate change and greenhouse gases; tritium; air resources and noise; wildlife and habitat; new and significant information; environmental best practices; mitigation commitments; document corrections; and NRCs database. EPA recommends NRC and the Applicant address these comments and recommendations before releasing the Final SEIS.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft SEIS. Please send an electronic copy of future NEPA documents to R5NEPA@epa.gov. If you have questions or would like to discuss the content 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 Environmental Justice, Community Health, and Environmental Review Division

Enclosures EPAs Detailed Comments Construction Emission Control Checklist

cc (with enclosures)

Megan Seymour, USFWS - Ohio ESFO (megan_seymour@fws.gov)

Valincia Darby, DOI (valincia_darby@ios.doi.gov)

John Nelson, DOI (john_nelson@ios.doi.gov)

Andy Forbes, USFWS Migratory Bird Management Program (andrew_forbes@fws.gov)

Elizabeth Rigby, USFWS Eagle Management Program (elizabeth_rigby@fws.gov)

Eileen Wyza, ODNR ( eileen.wyza@dnr.ohio.gov)

Mike Pettegrew, ODNR (mike.pettegrew@dnr.ohio.gov) 2 EPAS Detailed Comments Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 61, Regarding Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Perry Township, Lake County, Ohio

October 21, 2024

1. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE A. Outreach and meaningful engagement are underlying pillars of environmental justice. It is imperative that NRC determine if the LR for Perry Plant will affect communities with EJ concerns and/or Tribes. 6 Under NEPA, CEQ requires the l ead Federal agency to analyze the disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects of a proposed action in communities with EJ concerns. If significant human health and environmental effects disproportionately and adversely affect communities with EJ concerns, CEQ regulations direct lead Federal agencies to consider incorporating mitigation measures that address or reduce those effects. 7

Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nations Commitment to Environmental Justice for All supplements EO 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low -

Income Populations. EO 14096 directs Federal agencies, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to identify, analyze, and address disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards of Federal activities, including those related to climate change and cumulative effects of environmental and other burdens on communities with EJ concerns.

Section 3(b)(i) of EO 14096 also directs EPA to assess whether each agency analyzes and avoids or mitigates disproportionate human health and environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns when carrying out responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

7609. EPAs recommendations below suggest opportunities to further analyze, disclose, and reduce effects to communities with EJ concerns. 8

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Section 3.12 of the Draft SEIS stated, EO 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of agency actions on minority and low-income populations. 9 The Draft SEIS inconsistently referenced human health and environmental effects as either disproportionate and adverse or disproportionately high and adverse throughout

6 Communities with environmental justice concerns are those that may not experience the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision making so that the people are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barrier, and have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment. See 40 CFR § 1508.1(f) and (m).

7 40 CFR § 1505.3(b) 8 For purposes of NEPA review, EPA considers a project to be in an area of potential EJ concern when the area shows one or more of the thirteen EJ indices at or above 80th percentile in the nation/state on EJScreen. However, scores under the 80th percentile should not be interpreted to mean there are definitively no EJ concerns present.

9 Page 3-136.

3 the EJ analysis. Under CEQs NEPA Implementing Regulations 10 and EO 14096, environmental justice is now evaluated based simply on disproportionate and adverse effects. The Fact Sheet 11 accompanying EO 14096 states, The Executive Order [EO 14096] uses the term disproportionate and adverse as a simple, modernized version of the phrase disproportionately high and adverse used in Executive Order 12898. Those phrases have the same meaning but removing the word high eliminates potential misunderstanding that agencies should only be considering large disproportionate effects. EPA recommends NRC consistently reference and evaluate environmental justice based on the adjusted language, disproportionate and adverse, as outlined in CEQ regulations and EO 14096.

2. The EJ analyses from the Draft SEIS and the Applicants Environmental Report were both limited to data on low-income and minority populations using only demographic characteristics. 12 The EJ analyses concluded that minority and low-income populations near Perry Plant could experience human health and environmental effects (emphasis added) from the continued operation of Perry Plant but did not explore additional factors (e.g., pollution exposure, health vulnerabilities, climate change ) that could further support this conclusion. EJ analyses should no longer be limited to only the effects on low-income and minority communities.13 Federal agencies should analyze all human health and environmental effects based on the best available science and information on disparate effects arising from exposure to pollution and other environmental hazards, using information on race, national origin, age, and disability status, among others.

EPA encourages the use of EJScreen when conducting an EJ analysis. 14 This tool provides information on environmental and socioeconomic indicators as well as pollution sources, health disparities, critical service gaps, and climate change data. EPAs review of EJScreen for the proposed project identified the potential presence of communities with EJ concerns within Perry Plants r egion and vicinity, defined as the area within a 50 -

mile and a 6-mile radius from the established station center point, respectively.

Specifically, the tool identified block groups scoring above the 80 th percentiles for environmental burdens, socioeconomic indicators, EJ and s upplemental indices, and health disparities when compared to state scores. 15 Additionally, there are census tracts

10 40 CFR § 1502.16(a)(13) 11 FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order to Revitalize Our Nations Commitment to Environmental Justice for All. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/21/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-to-revitalize-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all/.

12 Draft SEIS pages 3-136 141; Applicants Environmental Report pages 3 -235 270.

13 EO 14096, CEQs NEPA Implementing Regulations, and EPA all use an updated definition of environmental justice (EJ) that considers disproportionate and adverse human health and environment effects for all communities, not just those classified as low-income and minority. For more information on EPA and EJ, see https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn -about-environmental-justice.

14 Access EPAs EJScreen here: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.

15 Environmental burdens and EJ/ supplemental indices scoring above the 80th percentiles: ozone; wastewater di scharge; and drinking water on-compliance. Socioeconomic i ndicators scoring above the 80th percentiles: demographic; people of c olor; low-income; limited English speaking; l ess than h igh s chool; under the a ge of 5; and above the age of 64. Health d isparities scoring above the 80th percentiles:

heart disease; l ow-life expectancy; cancer; asthma; and p ersons with d isabilities. For more information on EJScreens layers, data, and indices, see https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/ejscreen-map-descriptions#ejin.

4 classified as disadvantaged. 16 EPA recommends that NRC consider the following, consistent with CEQs NEPA Implementing Regulations 17 and EO 14096.

a. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis

1. Disclose demographic information and identify the presence of communities with EJ concerns in and/or near the project area that could experience environmental effects from the proposed project.

2. Include an analysis and conclusion regarding whether the proposed project or any action alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, may have disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns, as specified in CEQs NEPA Implementing Regulations. 18

3. Consider any disproportionate, non -project-related pollution exposures that communities of EJ concern may already be experiencing, as well as any disproportionate non-pollution stressors that may make communities more susceptible to pollution, such as health conditions, other social health determinants, and disproportionate vulnerability to climate change.

4. Identify and commit to measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects identified above.

3. EJScreen can inform EJ and community outreach to identify potential meeting locations and any language barriers by providing information on linguistic isolation, languages spoken, and places of community cohesion (e.g., schools, places of worship, etc. ).

EJScreen identified the presence of block groups that are limited English-speaking scoring above the 80th percentile as well as communities experiencing significant broadband gaps. 19 The data indicate that some populations may not be able to meaningfully engage and participate 20 in the NEPA process for the proposed project.

EPA recommends NRC consider the following:

a. Meaningful Engagement and Public Participation

1. Discuss the meaningful involvement and targeted outreach to communities with EJ concerns to be undertaken by NRC in plain language and languages other than English spoken by residents in and/or near the project area.

2. Utilize resources such as the Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews Practices21 and the Community Guide to EJ and NEPA Methods 22 to conduct an EJ analysis that appropriately engages in meaningful, targeted

16 EJScreen includes layers on the Justice40 Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and the EPA Inflation Reduction Act Disadvantaged Communities map.

17 For CEQs updated regulations on environmental justice and EJ analyses, see: 40 CFR § 1500.2(d -e) and 40 CFR § 1501.3(d)(vii).

18 40 CFR § 1502.16(a)(13).

19 EJScreen includes a layer on Critical Service Gaps that highlights areas with the lowest rate of households with access to a critical service such as broadband internet. Data for this layer comes from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey 5-year summary estimates.

20 NRC cancelled the scheduled public meeting to discuss the Draft SEIS and has not provided any updates on rescheduling before the public comment period ends on Monday, October 21, 2024. T ypically, NRC posts public meeting materials that explain and discuss the project, NRCs NEPA process, and status, but there are no materials provided for the public.

21 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf.

22 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/05/f63/NEPA%20Community%20Guide%202019.pdf.

5 community outreach, analyzes effects, and advances EJ principles through NEPA implementation.

2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES A. Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad states, The United States and the world face a profound climate crisis. We have a narrow moment to pursue actionto avoid the most catastrophic impacts of that crisis and to seize the opportunity that tackling climate change presents. EPA commends NRC for including a discussion on the U.S.

Global Change Research Programs National Climate Assessment in the Draft SEIS, which is a tool that provides data and scenarios that may be helpful in assessing trends in temperature, precipitation, and frequency and severity of storm events. 23

Federal courts have consistently upheld that NEPA requires agencies to disclose and consider climate effects in their reviews, including effects from greenhouse gas emissions. On January 9, 2023, the Federal Register published CEQs National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. 24 CEQ issued this interim guidance to assist Federal agencies in assessing and disclosing climate effects during environmental reviews. The guidance responds to EO 13990: Protecting Public Health and the Environment, and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which directed CEQ to review, revise, and update CEQs 2016 emissions guidance. The 2023 emissions guidance is effective immediately and should be used to inform the reviews of new proposed actions.

It is important for NRC to fully quantify and adequately disclose the effects of GHG emissions from the No Action Alternative and the action alternatives and discuss the implications of those emissions considering the science-based policies established to avoid the worsening effects of climate change. It is recommended that NRC review EPAs final technical document, Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, 25 which explains the methodology underlying the most recent set of SC -GHG estimates. To better assist lead Federal agencies with the utilization of these updated estimates, EPA released a Microsoft Excel Workbook for Applying SC-GHG Estimates v.1.0.1 spreadsheet designed by EPAs National Center for Environmental Economics to help analysts calculate the monetized net social costs of increases in GHG emissions using the estimates of the SC-GHGs.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. EPA acknowledges NRCs quantifi cation of the direct GHG emissions from the three action alternatives. 26 However, CEQ r egulations state that the No Action Alternative should serve as the baseline against which the proposed action and other alternatives are compared. 27 NRC should quantify and disclose the estimated direct and indirect 28 GHG emissions from all alternatives, including the N o Action Alternative. The decommissioning of Perry Plant is a reasonably-foreseeable indirect effect of the N o

23 Information on changing climate conditions is available through the National Climate Assessment at https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/

24 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-00158 25 To view EPAs report on the social costs of greenhouse gas estimates, see https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.

26 Section 3.15.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission and Climate Change, pages 3-156 163.

27 40 CFR § 1502.16(a) 28 Indirect effects are defined as those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects include effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land-use (e.g., decommissioning).

6 Action Alternative (e.g., Perry Plant does not receive an LR) and should be included in the analysis of estimated GHG emissions. 29

Table 3-35 reported the direct GHG emissions for all three action alternatives. 30 However, the analysis only reported the indirect GHG emissions for the proposed project, rather than for all the alternatives, including the N o Action Alternative.

Additionally, GHG emissions values were reported as CO2-equivalent (CO2e) rather than broken down by GHG type. EPA recommends NRC consider the following :

a. Emissions and SC-GHG Disclosure and Analysis:

1. Provide the GHG emissions calculations used to create Table 3-34 and Table 3 -35 as an appendix to the Final SEIS to enhance replicability and transparency.

Include the emissions calculations by GHG type (e.g., CO 2, CH4, etc.).

2. Quantify estimates of all reasonably-foreseeable direct (e.g., construction) and indirect (e.g., off-site material hauling and disposal, employee daily travel, decommissioning) GHG emissions from the proposed project over its anticipated lifetime for all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, broken out by GHG type. Include and analyze potential upstream and downstream GHG emissions.

3. Use SC-GHG to consider the climate damages from net changes in direct and indirect emissions of CO2 and other GHGs from the proposed project. To do so, EPA recommends a breakdown of estimated net GHG emissions changes by individual gas, rather than relying on CO2e estimates, and then monetize the climate effects associated with each GHG using the corresponding social cost estimate (e.g., monetize CH4 emissions changes expected to occur with the social cost of methane (SC -CH4) estimated for emissions). 31

4. When applying SC-GHG estimates, just as with tools to quantify emissions, NRC should disclose the assumptions (e.g., discount rates) and uncertainties associated with such analysis and the need for updates over time to reflect the evolving science and economics of climate effects. Use comparison of GHG emissions and SC-GHG across alternatives, including the No Action Alternative,

to inform project decision-making.

5. Avoid expressing the overall project-level GHG emissions as a percentage of the state or national GHG emissions. The U.S. must reduce GHG emissions from a multitude of sources, each making relatively small individual contributions to overall GHG emission, to meet national climate targets.

29 CEQs NEPA Implementing Regulations require consideration of reasonably foreseeable effects, see 40 CFR § 1502.14 and 40 CFR § 1502.16(a).

30 Page 3-159 31 Transforming gases into CO2e using Global Warming Potential (GWP) metrics, and then multiplying the CO2e tons by the SC-CO2, is not as accurate as a direct calculation of the social costs of non-CO2 GHGs. This is because GHGs differ not just in their potential to absorb infrared radiation over a given time frame, but also in the temporal pathway of their impact on radiative forcing and in their impacts on physical endpoints other than temperature change, both of which are relevant for estimating their social cost but not reflected in the GWP. See the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases February 2021 Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 for more discussion and the range of annual SC -

CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O estimates currently used in Federal benefit-costs analyses.

7

b. Consistency with Climate Policy

1. Provide an analysis of GHG emissions in the context of state GHG reduction targets and policies, which includes GHG emission reduction goals for the state of Ohio. 32 This should inform the NRCs consideration of GHG mitigation measures.

2. EPA appreciates NRCs discussion on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes models of representative concentration scenarios 33 that project future climate conditions. EPA further recommends that NRC include a detailed discussion of the projects GHG emissions in the context of national and international emission reductions goals, including the U.S. 2030 Paris GHG reduction target and 2050 net-zero policy.

c. GHG Emissions Reduction and Mitigation

1. Identify practices to reduce and mitigate the expected GHG emissions from the proposed project (e.g., delivery of fuel rods, routine operation and maintenance activities). Mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated; include commitments to do in the Final SEIS and NEPA decision document. EPA recommends the Applicant commit to practices enclosed in the Construction Emission Control Checklist.

2. The Midwest has experienced a 45 percent increase in the number of extreme precipitation days, as stated in the Draft SEIS. 34 Page 3-28 reported that Perry Plants onsite drainage is designed for peak rainfall to reduce the effects of flooding, but some onsite floodwater accumulation is possible. To remedy flooding concerns at the site, the previous owners constructed a new stream channel that diverted water from an existing stream. 35 The Applicants Environmental Review disclosed that Perry Plant historically experienced issues with drainage limitations, stating that floodwater depths had the potential to affect plant structures. The Draft SEIS stated, there is high confidence that increases in frequency, intensity, severity, duration, and damages from floods are likely. 36

EPA acknowledges that the effects of climate change on Perry Plant structures, systems, and components are outside of the scope of the proposed project, however, the impacts of climate change on environmental resources (e.g., air, land, water) can be incrementally affected by the proposed project. EPA recommends NRC and the Applicant consider the following:

32 Including, but not limited to, the Ohio Priority Resilience Plan. See:

https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/epa.ohio.gov/Portals/33/documents/OhioPRP 2024.pdf.

33 Representative concentration pathways are scenarios that include time series of emissions and concentrations of the full suite of GHGs and aerosols and chemically active gases, as well as land use/land cover. For more information on IPCCs work, see https://www.ipcc.ch/.

34 Page 3-160 35 Applicants Environmental Report, page 3-126 36 Page 3-163 8

a. Resiliency and Adaptation

1. Assess how changing climate conditions (e.g., increasing frequency and severity of storm events, such as flooding) could affect the proposed project. Consider the environmental effects of the proposed project, along with all alternatives.

2. Incorporate robust climate resilience and adaptation considerations into (1) operational and maintenance activities; (2) construction oversight for refurbishment, if applicable; (3) commitments for protective measures related to stormwater and erosion; and (4) routine monitoring during operations.

3. Discuss how climate change could worsen long -term effects and risks from the project to communities with EJ concerns. For any such effects, consider mitigation and adaptation measures.

3. TRITIUM A. Monitoring wells at Perry Plant detected tritium leaks above the regulatory threshold beginning in 2020. 37 In 2021, Perry Plant activated a Tritium Action Plan, but did not identify the source(s) of the radiological releases. The regulatory threshold for tritium was exceeded twice more with a release in 2023 measuring at 56,000 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) and a release in 2024 measuring at 938,000 pCi/L and 88,500 pCi/L. The Draft SEIS reported that the source (s) of the leaks were still under investigation, and that the Applicant implemented corrective measures. 38 NRC concluded that the groundwater quality e ffects, due to the release of radionuclides, would be small from the proposed project and stated, the NRC staff finds no apparent increasing trend in concentration or pattern indicating persistently high tritium concentrations that might indicate an ongoing inadvertent release from Perry Plant. 39

EPA acknowledges the Applicants corrective action steps, including reducing the amount of contaminated material pumped into groundwater and the re -routing of contaminated water to the radioactive waste treatment building. However, the Draft SEIS did not indicate if the investigation into the source (s) of tritium leaks would continue during the proposed project and that the source(s) of tritium leaks would be addressed. Based on the 2023 and 2024 reported incidents, it appears that the volume of tritium leaks is increasing. EPA recommends NRC and the Applicant consider the following:

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Commit to continuing the investigation to identify the source(s) of the inadvertent tritium leaks. Identify and implement measures to prevent future contamination of groundwater from tritium leaks.

2. Discuss how water that might be contaminated with tritium would not be used for drinking water consumption, livestock, or irrigation if levels remain above regulatory thresholds.

37 EPAs regulatory threshold (also known as the Maximum Contaminant Level) of tritium in drinking water is 20,000 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For more information about tritium in drinking water, see https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175261.pdf.

38 Pages 3-42 through 3-49 39 Page 3-150 9

4. AIR RESOURCES AND NOISE A. Lake County is designated as a maintenance area for ozone, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide. 40 Air emissions from construction and operation have the potential to effect human health, especially in sensitive populations (e.g., the elderly, children, and those with impaired respiratory systems). In 2002, EPA classified diesel emissions as a likely human carcinogen, and in 2012 the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded diesel exhaust is carcinogenic to humans. 41 Diesel exhaust can worsen heart and lung disease, especially in vulnerable and sensitive populations. Consistent with Comment 1.A.2, there are sensitive receptors (e.g., children, elderly, impaired respiratory systems) located within Perry Plants region and vicinity. Additionally, EJScreen identified communities with lower -life expectancy, and higher rates of cancer, heart disease, and asthma.

EPA acknowledges that no refurbishment activities are currently planned for the proposed project, as stated throughout the Draft SEIS. 42 However, the Applicant indicated that Perry Plant will undergo facility operational and maintenance activities over the lifetime of the license renewal, including routine vegetative and stormwater management, piping installation projects, and site -boundary fencing. EPA finds that mitigation measures taken to reduce construction diesel emissions are value-added, and recommends NRC and the Applicant consider the following:

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Commit to including applicable measures identified in the enclosed Construction Emission Control Checklist to reduce air impacts and minimize exposure to workers and sensitive receptors.

2. Establish routes for facility operational and maintenance activities away from places where children live, learn, and play to the extent feasible. Consider homes, schools, daycares, and playgrounds. In addition to air quality benefits, careful routing may protect children from vehicle -pedestrian accidents.

B. Page 3-15 of the Draft SEIS stated that no noise impacts from the proposed project would occur. However, neither the previous owners nor the Applicant have conducted onsite or offsite noise surveys. Without baseline information from noise surveys, it is incorrect to assume there would be no noise impacts at Perry Plant from the proposed project.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Complete a noise survey to provide baseline information about noise at Perry Plant and to substantiate the finding of no noise impacts.

40 EPA designates areas of attainment and nonattainment with respect to meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act. Areas that were once in nonattainment but are now in attainment are called maintenance areas; these areas are under a ten-year monitoring plan to maintain their attainment designation status.

41 For more information on EPAs classification, see https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/&substance_nmbr=642. For more information on the International Agency for Research on Cancers findings and report, see https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr213_E.pdf.

42 Pages 2-9, 3-8, 3-63 10

5. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT A. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Ohio Department of Natural Resource have identified Federally-and State-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species that have the potential to occur within Perry Plant boundaries, which include protected bat species. 43 In correspondence with the Applicant about the proposed project, ODNR recommended coordination with USFWS due to the potential impacts to Federally -listed species. 44 Neither the Draft SEIS nor the Applicants Environmental Report provide d documentation of coordination with USFWS.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. The Draft SEIS concluded that the proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Federally - and State-listed species. However, the Applicant has not conducted ecological surveys to assess species presence or suitability of onsite habitat at Perry Plant. 45 The Draft SEIS stated that USFWS concurred that the proposed project would not affect the northern long -eared bat or tricolored bat. However, USFWS did not review or provide concurrence regarding potential i mpacts to the Indiana bat or piping plover, which are Federally-endangered species.

a. Consultation and Concurrence for Federally-listed species

1. Include USFWSs review and concurrence for the northern long -eared bat and tricolored bat.

2. Discuss consultation with USFWS concerning the Indiana bat and piping plover.

3. Provide the consultation and concurrence documents in the Final SEIS and NEPA decision document as an appendix.

2. The Draft SEIS reported that Perry Plant site personnel may occasionally remove select trees around the margins of existing forested areas. These trees may have the potential to roost bats, which could result in the direct injury of bats during clearing. Page 3-95 stated, if suitable trees must be cut, then cutting must occur between September 30 and April 1i f suitable trees must be cut during the summer (April 2 to September 9),

then a net survey must be conducted in May or June before cutting, but did not include commitments to consult with USFWS and ODNR regarding tree clearing activities.

a. Consultation and Tree Clearing

1. Provide rationale for removing trees along the project boundary for routine maintenance. Based on past experience, quantify the number of trees removed for routine vegetation management.

2. Discuss consultation with USFWS regarding date restrictions for tree clearing at Perry Plant. Commit to adhering to USFWS date restrictions.

3. Ensure the Applicant deve lops a disposal management plan to address trees removed from the landscape. Rather than burning trees, consider offering the

43 Federally Endangered species: northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, piping plover; Federally Threatened species: red knot; Proposed Endangered: tricolored bat; and Candidate species: m onarch butterfly. Information on Federally listed species retrieved from USFWSs Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), see https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. There are 76 State-listed threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur at Perry Plant, see pages 3-57 through 3-61 for a complete listing.

44 Applicants Environmental Report, Attachment C 45 Section 3.6 (pages 3-54 through 3-105) 11 trees to the community as winter fuel, chip the trees for community use, etc.

EPA recommends trees should not be burned due to negative air impacts. If trees must be burned, investigate whether state and/or local permit for open burning are required.

3. Page 3-63 of the Draft SEIS stated that there are no designated or proposed critical habitats onsite at Perry Plant. However, the Applicants Environmental Report asserted that Perry Plants in-scope transmission lines overlap with the critical habitat for piping plover, a Federally-endangered species, and stated the risk of collisionposes a potential threat. 46 The Applicant concluded that the proposed project would have no effect on the critical habitat of the species. Consistent with Comment 5.A.1, USFWS did not provide concurrence on NRCs and the Applicants determination that the proposed project may affect but not likely to adversely affect the piping plover.

a. Inconsistency and Need for Concurrence

1. Consult with USFWS and provide documentation of the review and concurrence with the determination of may affect but not likely to adversely affect the piping plover and its critical habitat.

2. Clarify the discrepancy between the SEIS and the Applicants Environmental Report regarding the presence of critical habitat onsite.

4. Consistent with Comment 5.A, ODNR provided the Applicant with recommendations for tree clearing and in-water work, contacting USFWS and the local floodplain administrator, and conducting additional field assessments. The Draft SEIS did n ot include a comprehensive list of wildlife and habitat commitments from ODNR recommendations.

a. Commitments

1. Commit to adhere to all USFWS and ODNR recommendations to protect species, including, but not limited to, seasonal restrictions on tree clearing, mowing, and other vegetative management practices, as well as any in-water work that may occur. 47

2. Include the commitments in the Final SEIS and NEPA decision document.

B. Perry Plant is located within the Mississippi flyway. The Draft SEIS stated that there are 339 protected birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) that may be found within Perry Plant boundaries; 16 of those species are either protected eagles or listed as Birds of Conservation Concern by U SFWS. 48 Between 2013-2023, Perry Plant documented 20 bird incidents, including the injury of a peregrine falcon and at least 85 dead birds. In 2021, 60

46 Applicants Environmental Report, page 3-127.

47 The Applicant indicated that a potential shoreline protection project is underway, which will involve in-water work and require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio resource agencies, see Applicants Environmental Report pages 3-4, 4-20, and 4 -35.

48 Page 3-62. Birds of Conservation Concern are migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. See https://www.fws.gov/media/birds-conservation-concern-2021.

12 skeletonized birds were impinged on one of Perry Plants water screens within the span of one week, and staff were unable to identify the cause of the incident. 49

Perry Plant does not have a site-specific avian protection plan or mitigation measures; the Applicant initiates corrective actions following an incident, but the Draft SEIS provided no indication of what those corrective actions may be or if they are recommended by USFWS. The Draft SEIS concluded that the proposed project would have no effect on migratory birds and other wildlife species.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Consult with USFWS for guidance on how to determine the cause of the 2021 incident where 60 skeletonized birds were found impinged on Perry Plants water screens within the span of one week. Include results of consultation with USFWS in the Final SEIS as an appendix.

2. Explain the incidents documented for 20 birds, how the peregrine falcon was injured, and the cause of death for at least 85 birds. Discuss whether the problems that caused these impacts to birds have been rectified.

3. Develop a site -specific avian protection plan designed to avoid the take of migratory birds. Consult with USFWS to ensure the draft avian protection plan will avoid impacts to migratory birds and other protected avian species (e.g., bald eagles). 50 Include documentation of the consultation and any suggested provisions to protect avian species provided by USFWS.

C. Perry Plant hosts suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly, which is a Federal candidate species, whose primary biological threats are loss and degradation of habitat from agricultural land conversion and widespread use of herbicides. The Draft SEIS indicated the presence of both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species in and near Perry Plant boundaries. 51 Currently, there are no procedures for monitoring or controlling terrestrial and aquatic non -native and invasive species. 52 Therefore, it is unclear how pervasive non-native and invasive plants are at the project site, and how these plant populations have responded to routine maintenance (e.g.,

mowing and applying herbicides and pesticides).

An effective management plan can lessen the adverse effects of non-native and invasive species within Perry Plants boundaries, reduce the expansive use of herbicides that contribute to Lake Erie runoff, and limit non-native and invasive species expansion to adjacent propertie s (e.g.,

surrounding conservation site located on the eastern part of Perry Plant ).

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Acknowledging non -native and invasive species treatment would not be a provision of NRCs relicensing, EPA encourages the Applican t to develop and commit to an effective

49 Page 3-62 50 Reference USFWSs Nationwide Avoidance and Minimize Measures. The USFWS developed this document with the goal that these effective measures should be employment at all project development sites nationwide as appliable and practicable. The measures are grouped into three categories: General, Habitat Protection, and Stressor Management. To access the document, see https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/nationwide_avoidance_minimization_measures_birds_0.pdf.

51 Pages 3-62 through 3-64 52 Page 3-63 13 non-native and invasive species monitoring plan that contains a description of the proposed monitoring methods and the proposed frequency of monitoring.

2. Incorporate Ohios guidelines for invasive species 53 into the non-native and invasive species monitoring plan.

3. Coordinate with ODNR regarding the draft non-native and invasive species management plan for both aquatic and terrestrial species.

6. NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION A. The Applicant stores radioactive silt and sediment from the essential service water pumphouse and forebay in Perry Plants chemical cleaning lagoon and Unit 2 circulating water pumphouse flume space. NRCs Summary Report 54 from the scoping process identified the storage of this radioactive silt and sediment 55 as a significant issue to be explored in the Draft SEIS. Although identified as new and significant during the scoping process, the Draft SEIS provided limited details regarding radioactive silt and sediment storage, briefly mentioned potential corrective actions, and referenced an NRC audit that was not documented in the Applicants Environmental Report nor other NEPA -related documents. 56

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Provide more context regarding NRCs audit as it relates to this issue.

2. Discuss the potential environmental and human health effects from storing radioactive silt and sediment onsite.

3. Discuss the capacity of Perry Plant to handle contaminated silt and sediment and provide additional information on plans to either increase storage capacity onsite or ship the low-level waste to a disposal facility.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICES A. The Draft SEIS indicated that routine operational and maintenance activities at Perry Plant include a vegetative management strategy of mowing early successional vegetation and applying herbicides and pesticides. 57 Other activities resulting from the proposed project would include stormwater management, piping installations, and fencing. Maintenance staff at Perry Plant are provided an opportunity to utilize environmental best practices that would reduce maintenance costs, as well as improve the quality of vegetation for pollinators. EPA recommends NRC and the Applicant consider the following:

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Develop integrated vegetation management techniques, including soil erosion control using native plants, pruning, and mowing that occurs twice a year to align with wildflower life cycles (e.g., post-spring bloom season and post-fall bloom season).

53 Ohios State Wildlife Action Plan, see https://ohiodnr.gov/discover-and-learn/safety-conservation/wildlife-management/state-wildlife-action-plan.

54 Access the Summary Report here: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2415/ML24150A203.pdf 55 Radioactive silt and sediment are classified as a low-level waste (LLW). LLW is typically stored on-site by licensees, either until it has decayed away and can be disposed of as ordinary trash, or until amounts are large enough for shipment to a LLW disposal site in containers approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation. For more information, see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/low-level-waste.html.

56 Page 3-149 57 Pages 3-63 and 3-95 14

2. Include a summary of current pollinator-friendly practices the Applicant currently employs. Commit to revegetating disturbed areas with native species, prioritizing pollinator-friendly plant species.

3. Commit to conducting a survey for milkweed plants. Avoid effects to milkweed by posting signs to restrict mowing from June through September when monarch butterflies are breeding or laying eggs, or when caterpillars are present. 58

4. Identify and implement opportunities for additional green stormwater management practices, including, but not limited to, bioswales and rain gardens.

8. MITIGATION COMMITMENTS A. Potential and/or proposed mitigation measures were scattered throughout the Draft SEIS (e.g.,

environmental and best management practices written into permits). 59 However, the Draft SEIS did not include a comprehensive list of mitigation commitments.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Ensure the Final SEIS includes a Mitigation Commitments section where all identified mitigation, conservation, and adaptation commitments are listed. Include requirements to be undertaken from the USFWS and ODNR regarding seasonal work restrictions and other commitments to avoid and minimize impacts.

2. Incorporate the final Mitigation Commitments table or section into the NEPA decision document.

9. DOCUMENT CORRECTIONS A. Table 3-8 60 illustrated the annual air emissions (e.g., particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide) from Perry Plant and Lake County, Ohio but did not include a unit of measurement (e.g., parts per million, tons per year, pounds per hour). For example, in 2021 Perry Plant emitted 0.39x of particulate matter, 10.6x of nitrogen oxides, and 2.76 x of carbon monoxide,

with x representing the missing unit of measurement.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Revise Table 3-8 to include standard units of measurement to enhance reader clarity and comprehension of the data.

B. Pages 3-17 and 3-19 referenced the estimated air emissions, in tons, that would be produced by the alternatives to the proposed project. For example, carbon monoxide emissions under the Natural Gas -Fired Combined Cycle alternative would total 40 tons per year, and in parentheses, included 36 MT. The Draft SEIS did not define MT in relation to the air emission estimates.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Revise pages 3-17 and 3-19 to define MT or include its definition in the Abbreviations and Acronyms section of the SEIS to enhance reader clarity and comprehension of the data.

58 Perry Plant hosts suitable habitat for monarch butterfly.

59 Page 3-64 60 Page 3-14 15 C. Page 3-32 stated that the Applicants National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit was re-issued on August 31, 2023, and is effective from October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2028. However, Table B-2 61 illustrated that the Applicants NPDES permit expir ed on February 28, 2023, and did not provide information on the re -issued and current permit. Table B-2 also reported expired permits for the following: (1) U.S. Department of Transportations registration to ship hazardous material (expiration date of June 30, 2022); (2) Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservations permit to ship radioactive material to a licensed facility (expiration date of December 31, 2022); and (3) Ohio Environmental Protection Agencys permit to operate two auxiliary boilers (expiration date of June 18, 2024).

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Revise Table B-2 to reflect the status of the above-mentioned permits.

D. Page 3-13 stated that Lake County, Ohio is designated as a maintenance area for ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide, but page 3-162 stated that Lake County is designated as an attainment area.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Correct the discrepancy of the designation status for Lake County.

10. OTHER COMMENTS A. Appendix D listed NRCs database accession numbers to view environmental correspondence, public comments, and consultations. However, the accession numbers were not easily accessible using the database, and oftentimes did not bring up the correct documents. For example, finding documentation of concurrence from USFWS and Ohios State Historic Preservation Office required a private log-in.

Recommendations for the Final SEIS:

1. Include all environmental review correspondence, public comment s, and consultation documents as an appendix to the Final SEIS to enhance transparency, accessibility, and meaningful involvement.

61 Appendix B 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Construction Emission Control Checklist

Diesel emissions and fugitive dust from project construction may pose environmental and human health risks and should be minimized. In 2002, EPA classified diesel emissions as a likely human carcinogen, and in 2012 the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic to humans. Acute exposures can lead to other health problems, such as eye and nose irritation, headaches, nausea, asthma, and other respiratory system issues. Longer term exposure may worsen heart and lung disease. 1 EPA recommends NRC and the Applicant consider the following protective measures and commit to applicable measures in the Final SEIS.

Mobile and Stationary Source Diesel Controls Purchase or solicit bids that require the use of vehicles that are equipped with zero-emission technologies or the most advanced emission control systems available. Commit to the best available emissions control technologies for project equipment in order to meet the following standards.

• On-Highway Vehicles: On-highway vehicles should meet, or exceed, the EPA exhaust emissions standards for model year 2010 and newer heavy-duty, on-highway compression-ignition engines (e.g.,

long-haul trucks, refuse haulers, shuttle buses, etc.). 2

• Non-road Vehicles and Equipment: Non-road vehicles and equipment should meet, or exceed, the EPA Tier 4 exhaust emissions standards for heavy -duty, non-road compression-ignition engines (e.g.,

construction equipment, non-road trucks, etc.). 3

• Low Emission Equipment Exemptions: The equipment specifications outlined above should be met unless: 1) a piece of specialized equipment is not available for purchase or lease within the United States; or 2) the relevant project contractor has been awarded funds to retrofit existing equipment, or purchase/lease new equipment, but the funds are not yet available.

Consider requiring the following best practices through the construction contracting or oversight process:

• Establish and enforce a clear anti-idling policy for the construction site.

• Use onsite renewable electricity generation and/or grid-based electricity rather than diesel-powered generators or other equipment.

• Use electric starting aids such as block heaters with older vehicles to warm the engine.

• Regularly maintain diesel engines to keep exhaust emissions low. Follow the manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule and procedures. Smoke color can signal the need for maintenance (e.g., blue/black smoke indicates that an engine requires servicing or tuning).

• Where possible, retrofit older-tier or Tier 0 nonroad engines with an exhaust filtration device before it enters the construction site to capture diesel particulate matter.

• Replace the engines of older vehicles and/or equipment with diesel-or alternatively-fueled engines certified to meet newer, more stringent emissions standards (e.g., plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, battery-electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, advanced technology locomotives, etc.), or with zero emissions electric systems. Retire older vehicles, given the significant contribution of vehicle emissions to the poor air quality conditions. Implement programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre-2010 model year on-highway vehicles (e.g., scrappage rebates) and replace them with newer vehicles that meet or exceed the latest EPA exhaust emissions standards, or with zero emissions electric vehicles and/or equipment.

1 Benbrahim-Tallaa, L, Baan, RA, Grosse, Y, Lauby-Secretan, B, El Ghissassi, F, Bouvard, V, Guha, N, Loomis, D, Straif, K & International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group (2012). Carcinogenicity of diesel-engine and gasoline-engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. The Lancet. Oncology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 663-4. Accessed online from:

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/6492297/coverBenbrahim_Tallaa_2012_Lancet_Oncology.pdf 2 https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-heavy-duty-highway-engines-and-vehicles 3 https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroad-engines-and-vehicles 1

Fugitive Dust Source Controls

• Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative, where appropriate. This applies to both inactive and active sites, during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions.

• Install wind fencing and phase grading operations where appropriate and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions.

• When hauling material and operating non-earthmoving equipment, prevent spillage and limit speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph). Limit speed of earth-moving equipment to 10 mph.

Occupational Health

• Reduce exposure through work practices and training, such as maintaining filtration devices and training diesel-equipment operators to perform routine inspections.

• Position the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator and nearby workers, reducing the fume concentration to which personnel are exposed.

• Use 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 any incoming air is filtered first.

• Use respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure to diesel emissions. In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate. Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators.

Depending on the type of work being conducted, and if oil is present, concentrations of particulates present will determine the efficiency and type of mask and respirator. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health approval number.

2