Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 30, 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of Transportation of Nuclear Waste
Document Number: 06-5898
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-06-30
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agencies and Commissions
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level
Document Number: 06-5897
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-06-30
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agencies and Commissions
The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as part of its evaluation of a request by R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC) for a license amendment to increase the maximum steady state power level at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) from 1520 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1775 MWt. This represents a power increase of approximately 16.8 percent, which is considered an extended power uprate (EPU). As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate Program, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU application for Ginna Station or the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental review in an environmental assessment. Also, in accordance with the position paper, the final Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact is being published in the Federal Register. The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the Federal Register on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18779). One set of comments was received on the draft Environmental Assessment from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by letter dated May 12, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061370627). The comments are discussed in the paragraphs below. Some of the comments provided by the NYSDEC were clarifications and corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment (see comment a, b, c, d, and e in the NYSDEC letter). Based on these comments, the NRC revised the appropriate sections of the final Environmental Assessment. In comment ``f,'' NYSDEC indicated ``based on review of historical data, staff would not characterize impingement and entrainment rates as `minimal,' but would describe them as `lower than most similar sized electrical generating facilities in New York State.' '' The NRC only evaluates environmental impacts at the site and surrounding area that could be affected by the proposed EPU at the facility. Rather than comparing the impacts with other perhaps similar facilities, the NRC staff looks at the overall impact of the affected resource, i.e., aquatic species in Lake Ontario. Our conclusion of ``minimal'' should be interpreted as not having a noticeable impact on the long-term sustainment of aquatic species in Lake Ontario due to entrainment and impingement. This action may have no impact to aquatic species in other parts of New York State; therefore, our analysis does not make such comparison. The comment is noted, but no changes were made to the Environmental Assessment based on this comment. The NYSDEC comments ``g and h'' raised concerns regarding possible unknown synergistic effects of physical and thermal stresses to the cold water species alewife and three-spine stickleback impinged in the Ginna fish return system under the proposed EPU conditions. In addition, NYSDEC recommended the discussion on the fish return system include references to the 316(b) Phase II rule developed by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). This regulation established Federal requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling-water intake structures at existing facilities that exceed a threshold value for water withdrawals. The draft Environmental Assessment did include a discussion on how the new performance standards are designed to significantly reduce impingement and entrainment losses resulting from plant operation, and any site- specific mitigation would result in less impact due to continued plant operation. Currently, the Ginna State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit modification application is under technical review by NYSDEC. The SPDES permit modification application incorporated the requirements listed in Subpart J of the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. Also, Ginna LLC has begun some studies required for compliance with the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. The NRC staff agrees that implementation of technologies and/or operational procedures required by the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule, with authority delegated to NYSDEC, would further minimize impingement and entrainment losses of all aquatic species (including alewife and three-spine stickleback) at Ginna, under proposed EPU conditions. The comment did not provide any new information; therefore, no changes were made to the Environmental Assessment. NYSDEC comment ``I'' stated that the draft Environmental Assessment did not address ``potential impacts to early life stages of fish entrained into the discharge plume.'' Entrainment applies specifically to aquatic organisms (i.e. early life stage fish and shellfish) that are small enough to pass through a plant's intake debris screens, travel through the cooling system, and be exposed to heat, mechanical and pressure stresses, and possibly biocidal chemicals before being discharged back to the body of water. Early life stage fish (eggs and larvae) not entrained by the plant, but in the nearby water column of Lake Ontario within or near the discharge plume under the proposed conditions, would not be significantly impacted. Ginna is not adjacent to or near habitat features or spawning/nursery areas preferred by or important to local fish. As indicated by NYSDEC, the temperatures injurious to alewife eggs are limited to a small area of the thermal plume (at the mouth of the discharge canal). Comment ``j'' states NYSDEC has received reports of bald eagle sightings in the Wayne County area over the past 3 to 4 years. The reports include observations of first-year immature birds, which indicate bald eagle nesting sites could be closer to the Ginna site than originally analyzed. In addition, NYSDEC states the closest verified nest is located in the Northern Montezuma Wildlife Management Area, approximately 30 miles away from the Ginna site. The NRC staff spoke with the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge office, who verified there are nesting sites in the southern area of the refuge and possibly in the northern area. Based on this new information, the NRC staff believes bald eagle nesting sites are closer (30 miles) to the Ginna site than originally analyzed (55 miles). However, the staff believes the conclusion that the bald eagle will not likely be impacted by the proposed EPU, is still valid, and no changes to the Environmental Assessment are warranted. NYSDEC also expressed concerns on possible radiological impacts to threatened and endangered species due to the proposed EPU. EPA standards (40 CFR Part 190, 40 FR 23420) concluded that environmental radiation standards developed by the nuclear power industry are adequate to protect the overall ecosystem. At this time, there is no evidence that there is any biological species sensitive enough to warrant a greater level of protection than that which is determined to be adequate for man. As a result of the proposed EPU, the radiation levels in many plant areas are expected to increase up to approximately 17%. The radiological impacts section of the Environmental Assessment provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts related to radiation. The NRC staff concluded all radiological doses were below regulatory limits and found no significant impact due to the proposed EPU.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.