ML110350022

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Letter from John Filippello, Usepa, to David Wrona, NRC, Regarding Final SEIS for Proposed Indian Point License Renewal
ML110350022
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 01/18/2011
From: Filippelli J
Environmental Protection Agency
To: David Wrona
License Renewal Projects Branch 2
References
TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412
Download: ML110350022 (2)


Text

-UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2.

290 BROADWAY NEWYORK, NY 10007-1866 JAN 18 2011 Mr. David J. Wrona, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Wrona:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38 (SGEIS) regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating.Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian, Point), (CEQ. #. 20100465,)...,The proposed Federal aciiin would4enew for an additidnal.20 years thdc e

ri2Tng liopnsed

,f~ran Point Generating. Units:Nos. 2;and,3,..(IP2, IP3)..whlcl expire in Septemberi,201 3,ad December 205 respectively Backaround.

The SGEIS was prepared asa-plant specific supplement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 1996 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the, License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS). 'The GElS was prepared to streamline the license renewal process on the premise that in general, the environmental impacts from relicensing nuclear power plants are similar. That GELS proposed that NRC develop facility-specific SEIS documents for individual plants as the facilities apply for license renewal. EPA provided comments on the GElS during the development process in.1992 and 1996.

Indian Point, is located on approxima'tely.239acres of land inthe Village, of Buchanan in Upp~erWestcheste'r County, New1York., Both iP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam supply systems. Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided-by a once-through cooling water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. IP2 and IP3 are each currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3216.megawatts-,thermal, combining to produce approximately 2158 megawatts'electric.

Both aire refueled on,a 24,pmonth schedule. Indian Point Unit 1, whichis not subject to this lidensing acti6n, is l6cated betw~een IP2!and 1P3, but was shutdown on October 31, 1974 and has.been placed in a safe storage condition awaiting. final decommissioning.

'2 !

Internet Address (URL) e http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 50% Postconsumer content)

EPA notes the NRC's responses to our March 11, 2009 comment letter, but we remain concerned about the aquatic impacts of cooling water intake and discharge at IP2 and IP3. In this vein, collection of new impingement/entrainment and thermal data would have provided NRC and others with the information necessary to determine the level of significance of impacts with more certainty. We also request that Region 2's Radiation and Indoor Air Branch be kept informed concerning the Generic Issue Program Issue 199, "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants" and on any future spent fuel storage facilities proposed at Indian Point under the authority of the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the SGEIS. Please call Lingard Knutson of my staff, at (212) 637-3747 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, John Filippelli, Chief Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch