NUREG-1437 

 Supplement 24 

 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 24

Regarding 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 

Final Report 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
 

 NUREG-1437

 Supplement 24 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 24

Regarding 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: May 2006

Date Published: May 2006 

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

May 2006 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 51. In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and

reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply

to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific

review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included

in a supplement to the GEIS.

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to |

applications submitted to the NRC by the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS), to |

renew the OLs for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point) Units 1 and 2 for an

additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 (NMP) are operated |

exclusively by NMPNS, a subsidiary of Constellation Generation Group, LLC, which in turn is a

member of Constellation Energy Group. This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that |

considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental

impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing

or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the |

proposed action.

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither NMPNS nor

the staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that applies to

NMP. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did |

not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

impacts of renewing the Nine Mile Point OLs will not be greater than impacts identified for these

issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the GEIS is that the

impact is of SMALL significance(a) (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level). 

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to NMP are addressed in this SEIS. For |

each applicable issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental

impacts of renewal of the OLs is SMALL. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The staff determined

that information provided during the scoping process did not identify any new issue that has a

significant environmental impact.

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse |

environmental impacts of license renewal for NMP are not so great that preserving the option of |
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 iv May 2006

license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on the following: (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the

Environmental Report submitted by NMPNS; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local

agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public

| comments.
May 2006 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction 

with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term 2-1

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.2 Reactor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.1.3.1 Unit 1 (Once-Through, No Cooling Tower) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.1.3.2 Unit 2 (Closed-Cycle with Cooling Tower) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems . . . 2-10

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.1.4.3 Solid-Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.2.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 vi May 2006

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

2.2.8.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54

2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55

2.2.8.6 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at and Near Nine Mile Point . . . 2-62

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4.1.3 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Period . 4-27

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Use More Than 100 gpm of 

Groundwater) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

4.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
May 2006 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of Operations

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.8 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from the Operation of the Plant Cooling 

System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of Transmission 

Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

4.8.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.8.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management . . . . 6-1

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to Operating License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 viii May 2006

8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.2.5 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.2.5.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.2.5.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

9.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action—License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and

Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

Appendix A: Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related 

to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC’s Application for License Renewal for Nine 

Mile Point, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
May 2006 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

Appendix E: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F: GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 . . F-1

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2

Appendix G: NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for 

Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2, in Support of the License Renewal Application Review . . . G-1

Figures

Figure 2-1. Location of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, 80-km (50-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

Figure 2-2. Location of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, 10-km (6-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Figure 2-3. Nine Mile Point Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

Figure 2-4. Nine Mile Point Building Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Figure 2-5. Nine Mile Point Site Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (Shown in Shaded Areas) 

Within 80 km (50 mi) of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Based on Census Block 

Group Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (Shown in Shaded 

Areas) Within 80 km (50 mi) of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Based on Census 

Block Group Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

Tables

Table 2-1. Average Annual Liquid Releases from Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Over the 

Years 2000 Through 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

Table 2-2. Average Annual Gaseous Releases from Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Over 

the years 2000 Through 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

Table 2-3. Selected Water Quality Parameters of Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

Table 2-4. Aquatic Species Listed as Endangered or Threatened by New York State 

Potentially Occurring in Oswego and Onondaga Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

Table 2-5. Terrestrial Species Listed as Endangered or Threatened by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and Species that are Candidates for Listing as Threatened or 

Endangered that Occur or Potentially Occur within Oswego and Onondaga Counties . 2-42
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 x May 2006

Table 2-6. Terrestrial Species Listed by the State of New York as Endangered, Threatened, 

or of Special Concern that Have Been Reported to Occur or Potentially to Occur within 

the Nine Mile Point Site or the Associated Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . 2-45

Table 2-7. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Employee Residence Information by County . 2-50

Table 2-8. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During 1990 

and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

Table 2-9. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Oswego County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51

Table 2-10. Land Use in Oswego(1995) and Onondaga (2004) Counties, New York . . . . . 2-54

Table 2-11. Population Growth in Oswego and Onondaga Counties from 1970 to 2020 . . 2-56

| Table 2-12. Major Employers in Oswego County, New York, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

Table 2-13. Property Taxes Paid by NMPNS; Tax Revenues of Oswego County, Town of

Scriba, and the City of Oswego School District, 1995 to 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

Table 3-2. Category 2 issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

| Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 

Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2

Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Table 4-3. List of Fish from Lake Ontario Impinged at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

Power Plant, Unit 1, from 1973 through 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

Table 4-4. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Nine Mile Point Transmission Lines 

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Table 4-5. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the Nine Mile Point

Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . 4-28

Table 4-8. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to 

Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the 

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During 

the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal 

Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal 

Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Table 5-3. Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
May 2006 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and

2 Following the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an Alternate 

Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at the 

Nine Mile Point Site and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at the 

Nine Mile Point Site and an Alternate Site Using Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at the 

Nine Mile Point Site and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant sited at the 

Nine Mile Point Site with Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of an Assumed Combination of 

Generation and Acquisition Alternatives—Does Not Include Impacts from Purchased

Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of Proposed Action, the No-Action

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . 9-8

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-32 |

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and 

Other Approvals for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 . . . F-1

Table G-1: Nine Mile Point Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3 |

Table G-2: Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4 |

Table G-3: SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . G-17 |

Table G-4: SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 . . . . . . . . . . G-19 |
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xii May 2006

Executive Summary

| By letter dated May 26, 2004, the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) submitted

| applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses

(OLs) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20-year period. Nine

| Mile Point Units 1 and 2 (NMP) are operated exclusively by NMPNS, a subsidiary of

Constellation Generation Group, LLC, which in turn is a member of Constellation Energy Group. 

If the OLs are renewed, State regulatory agencies and NMPNS will ultimately decide whether

the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters

within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, then the

plant must be shut down at or before the expiration dates of the current OLs, which are August

22, 2009, for Unit 1, and October 31, 2026, for Unit 2.

The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

USC 4321) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. In 10 CFR

51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that

the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1

and 2.(a)

| Upon acceptance of the NMPNS applications, the NRC began the environmental review

process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and

conduct scoping. The staff visited the Nine Mile Point site in September 2004 and held public

scoping meetings on September 21, 2004, in Oswego, New York. In the preparation of this

| supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for NMP, the staff reviewed the NMPNS

Environmental Report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS; consulted with other agencies;

conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal; and considered the public

comments received during the scoping process. The public comments received during the

scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are

provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.

| A draft SEIS was published in September 2005. The staff held two public meetings in Oswego,

New York, in November 2005, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental

review, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public with information to assist

| them in formulating comments on this SEIS. When the comment period ended, the staff

| considered and addressed all of the comments received. These comments are addressed in

| Appendix A, Part 2 of this SEIS. 
May 2006 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental |

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's

recommendation regarding the proposed action. |

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

(other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The goal of the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of spent

fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no significant

environmental impact"] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92

environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance—SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. 

The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xiv May 2006

SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS reached the following

conclusions:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

| This SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

| renewing the OLs for NMP) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on projections

made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA), gas-

| and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation alternatives if the power

from NMP is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming that the replacement power

generation plant is located at either the Nine Mile Point site or some other unspecified alternate

location.
May 2006 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

NMPNS and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

NMPNS nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither |

the scoping process nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to NMP that has a

significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS |

for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to NMP.

NMPNS's license renewal applications presented an analysis of the Category 2 issues plus |

environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed

the NMPNS analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. 

Five Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at Nine Mile Point. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in

this SEIS, because they are specifically related to refurbishment. NMPNS has stated that its |

evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any

major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued

operation of NMP, for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components |

or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant operation, and are not

expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in

the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's 1972 Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station.

Twelve Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

discussed in detail in this SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply |

to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this

SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 12 Category 2 issues and |

environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL

significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. In addition, the staff

determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the

existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further

evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the

staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate

SAMAs. The staff agrees with NMPNS’s identification of areas in which risk can be further |

reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all or a subset of the

identified, potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk

reduction, the staff agrees that further evaluation of these SAMAs by NMPNS is warranted.

However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the

effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be

implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xvi May 2006

If the Nine Mile Point operating licenses are not renewed and the units cease operation on or

before the expiration of their current operating licenses, then the adverse impacts of likely

| alternatives will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of NMP. The

impacts may, in fact, be greater in some areas.

| The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse

| environmental impacts of license renewal for NMP, are not so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by

NMPNS; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (4) the staff's own

| independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received.
May 2006 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

Abbreviations/Acronyms

° degree

ac acre(s)

ac alternating current |

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs |

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation |

ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System |

ADS automatic depressurization system |

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable |

AOC present value of averted offsite property damage costs

AOE present value of averted occupational exposure

AOSC present value of averted onsite costs

APE present value of averted public exposure OR area of potential effect

AQCR air quality control region

|

Bq becquerel(s)

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling water reactor

BWROG Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group |

C Celsius

CDF core damage frequency

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

cm/s centimeter(s) per second

COE cost of enhancement

CRD control rod drive |

CWA Clean Water Act

CWS circulating water system

DAW dry active waste

DBA design-basis accident

dc direct current |

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DSM demand-side management
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xviii May 2006

| EDG emergency diesel generator

| EFPD effective full power day

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Operating

License Renewal

F Fahrenheit

FES Final Environmental Statement

| FIVE Fire Induced Vulnerability Evaluation

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

ft foot/feet

ft/s feet per second

ft2 square foot/feet

ft3 cubic foot/feet

ft3

/s cubic foot/feet per second

ft3

/yr cubic foot/feet per year

| FV Fussell-Vesely

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

| g gram(s)

gal gallon

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

NUREG-1437

| GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

| gps gallons per second

GWPS gaseous waste processing system

ha hectare(s)

| HCLPF high confidence low probability of failure

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

HLW high-level waste

| hp horsepower

| HPCS high pressure core spray
May 2006 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

hr hour(s)

HVAC heating ventilation air conditioning

Hz Hertz

IGLD International Great Lakes Datum

in. inch(es)

in/sec inch(es) per second |

IPE individual plant examination

IPEEE individual plant examination of external events

ISLOCA interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident

ISLRBC International St. Lawrence River Board of Control

JTU Jackson Turbidity Unit

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

km2 square kilometer(s) |

km3 cubic kilometer(s) |

kV kilovolt(s)

kW(e) kilowatt hour(s) electric |

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

L/day liter(s) per day

L/min liter(s) per minute

L/s liter(s) per second |

LERF large early release frequency

lb pound

LLC limited liability corporation

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level of service

m meter(s)

m/s meter(s) per second

m2 square meter(s)

m3 cubic meter(s)

m3

/d cubic meter(s) per day

m3

/m cubic meter(s) per minute

m3

/s cubic meter(s) per second

m3

/yr cubic meter(s) per year

mA milliampere(s)

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program |
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xx May 2006

MAB maximum attainable benefit

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

MBq megabequerel

mi mile(s)

mg/L milligram(s) per liter

mL milliliter(s)

| mm millimeter(s)

| MOV motor operated valve

mph miles per hour

mrem millirem(s)

mrem/yr millirem(s) per year

MSA metropolitan statistical area

| msl mean sea level

mSv millisievert(s)

mSv/yr millisievert(s) per year

MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

MTHM metric tons of heavy metal (a conventional unit for high-level nuclear waste)

MTU metric ton(s) uranium

MT/yr metric tons of heavy metal per year

MW megawatt(s)

MWB metropolitan water board

| MWd megawatt day(s)

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

N/A not applicable

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESC National Electric Safety Code

NGVD National Geodetic vertical datum

ng/J nanogram per joule

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NMP Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2

| NMPC Niagra Mohawk Power Company 

NMPNS Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC

NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NWI National Wetland Inventory

NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations
May 2006 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

NYISO New York Independent System Operator

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSEG New York State Electric and Gas

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research Development Authority |

OCWA Onondaga County Water Authority

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

OWS Oswego Water System |

PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals

PCB polychlorinated byphenals

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

PV photovoltaic

RAI request for additional information

RCIC reactor core insolation cooling |

RCP reactor coolant pump

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

rem special unit of dose equivalent, equal to 0.01 sievert

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RERR Radioactive Effluent Release Report

RHR residual heat removal |

RIS Representative Important Species |

RPC replacement power cost |

RPV reactor pressure vessel |

RWCU reactor water cleanup |

s second(s)

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SBO station blackout

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SMA seismic margins assessment

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide(s)
NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 xxii May 2006

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Sv Seivert(s) (special unit of dose equivalent)

SWMA State Wildlife Management Area

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Service

| USI Unresolved Safety Issue

VOC volatile organic compound

yr year
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

May 2006 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

1.0 Introduction

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations in

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license |

(OL) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the EIS,

the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public comment, and then

issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the

preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,

1999).(a) The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to

license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that

need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. Use of the GEIS

guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal

process.

The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) operates Nine Mile Point nuclear reactor

Units 1 and 2 in northern New York under OLs DPR-63 and NPF-69, which were issued by the

NRC. These OLs will expire in August 22, 2009 for Unit 1 and October 31, 2026 for Unit 2. On

May 26, 2004, NMPNS submitted applications to the NRC to renew the Nine Mile Point Units 1 |

and 2 (NMP) OLs for an additional 20 years in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54; the application |

was supplemented by letters dated March 3, 2005, and July 14, 2005. NMPNS is the licensee

for the purpose of its current OLs and the applicant for the renewal of the OLs. Pursuant to

10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), NMPNS submitted an Environmental Report (ER) (NMPNS 2004)

in which NMPNS analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed license

renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated mitigation

measures for reducing adverse environmental effects.

This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental environmental impact |

statement [SEIS]) for the NMPNS license renewal applications. This SEIS is a supplement to |

the GEIS because it relies, in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare a

separate safety evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

1.1 Report Contents

The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of this

SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the staff to assess the

environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 1-2 May 2006

| action to renew the NMP OLs, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and

(4) present the status of NMPNS's compliance with environmental quality standards and

requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are

responsible for environmental protection.

The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GEIS. 

Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. 

Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant

refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 evaluates potential

environmental impacts of plant accidents and considers severe accident mitigation alternatives. 

Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management. Chapter 7 discusses

decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9

summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse

impacts that cannot be avoided; the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and the irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources. Chapter 9 also presents the staff's recommendation with

respect to the proposed license renewal action.

Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments related

to the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those comments. 

Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following:

C The preparers of the supplement

C The organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

C The chronology of NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this SEIS

C NMPNS's compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of consultation

| correspondence sent and received during the evaluation process)

| C GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to NMP

C Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs).

1.2 Background

Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the

established license renewal evaluation process supports the thorough evaluation of the impacts

of renewal of OLs.
Introduction

May 2006 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the

license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This

assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear

power plant license renewal EISs.

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the

environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and

operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS

(1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource

that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population

or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse

effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers

whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the

same significance level for all plants.

NRC’s standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of

both "context" and "intensity"). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three

significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance

levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as

follows:

SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

The GEIS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing

mitigation measures would continue.

The GEIS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be

applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues

are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 1-4 May 2006

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues (environmental justice and

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields) were not categorized. Environmental justice was not

evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the

GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the

time the GEIS was prepared. 

Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning,

67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and

operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is

codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking to renew its OLs is required to submit an ER as part of its application. The

license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's ER and assurance

that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or available during

the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the environmental impacts of

the proposed license renewal.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must

C Provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii).
Introduction

May 2006 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

C Discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3)(iii) and (iv), the ER does not need to |

C Consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the

proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for making

a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives

considered, or (2) relevant to mitigation.

C Consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of the

proposed action and the alternatives.

C Discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic determination

in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b).

C Contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is new and significant information

on a specific issue. |

New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental

issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS

and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and

codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

In preparing to submit its application to renew the NMP OLs, NMPNS developed a process to |

ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation regarding the

environmental impacts of license renewal for NMP would be properly reviewed before |

submitting the ER, and to ensure that such new and potentially significant information related to

renewal of the licenses for Units 1 and 2 would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the

period of NRC review. NMPNS reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10

CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid

with respect to NMP. This review was performed by personnel from NMPNS and its support |

organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the

preparation of a license renewal ER.

The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

is described in detail in NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP) (NRC 2000). The

search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process for

discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public

comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with

Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and (5) review of the

technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 1-6 May 2006

the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information

is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the

assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does

not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

| applicable to NMP. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, a table identifies

the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is discussed. 

Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for which

there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of short paragraphs

that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of

GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the final SEIS sections where the

| analysis is presented. The SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2 issues are presented

immediately following the table.

The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal

and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of

the NMPNS license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

docketing in the Federal Register (NRC 2004b) on July 21, 2004. The staff published a notice

of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (NRC 2004c) on August 11, 2004. Two public

scoping meetings were held on September 21, 2004, in Oswego, New York. Comments

received during the scoping period were summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Process: Summary Report—Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, New York (NRC 2004a)

dated November 4, 2004. Comments that are applicable to this environmental review are

presented in Part 1 of Appendix A.

The staff and contractors, retained to assist the staff, visited the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station

site on September 22, 2004, to gather information and become familiar with the site and its

environs. The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Standard Review

Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License

Renewal (ESRP) (NRC 2000). The staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping,

and consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations

| consulted is provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to NMP were reviewed and are

referenced in this report.

| On October 6, 2005, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft in 70 FR 58489

| (NRC 2005). A 75-day comment period began on the date of publication of the U.S.

| Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS to allow members of the

| public to comment on the results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, two

| public meetings were held in Oswego, New York, in November 2005. During these meetings,

| the staff described the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answered

| questions to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their
Introduction

May 2006 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

comments. The comment period for the Nine Mile Point draft SEIS ended on |

December 22, 2005. Comments made during the 75-day comment period, including those |

made at the two public meetings, are presented in Part 2 of Appendix A of this SEIS. The NRC |

responses to those comments are also provided. |

This SEIS presents the staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of |

the proposed renewal of the OLs for NMP, the environmental impacts of alternatives to license |

renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

Chapter 9, “Summary and Conclusions,” provides the NRC staff's recommendation to the

Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so

great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would

be unreasonable.

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OLs for NMP. The Nine Mile Point Nuclear |

Station is located in northern New York on the shore of Lake Ontario, approximately 

8 kilometers (km) (5 miles [mi]) northeast of Oswego, New York, 60 km (36 mi) north-northwest

of Syracuse, New York, and 105 km (65 mi) east of Rochester, New York. The plant has two

General Electric-designed light-water reactors; Unit 1 with a design power level of 1850

megawatts thermal (MW[t]) and a net power output of 615 megawatts electric (MW[e]); and

Unit 2 with an original design power level of 3323 MW(t) and a net power output of 1100 MW(e). 

In 1995, Unit 2 underwent a power uprate authorized by Amendment No. 66 to Operating

License No. NPF-69. Unit 2 currently has a power rating of 3467 MW(t) and a net power output

of 1144 MW(e). Unit 1 uses once-through cooling with dissipation of heat to the air and to Lake

Ontario. Plant cooling for Unit 2 is provided by a natural-draft cooling tower that dissipates heat

primarily to the air. Units 1 and 2 produce electricity to supply the needs of more than 2 million |

homes. The current OL for Unit 1 expires on August 22, 2009, and for Unit 2 on October 31,

2026. By letter dated May 26, 2004, NMPNS submitted an application to NRC (NMPNS 2004) |

to renew these OLs for an additional 20 years of operation (until August 22, 2029, for Unit 1 and |

October 31, 2046, for Unit 2). Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 are operated exclusively by Nine

Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, a subsidiary of Constellation Generation Group, LLC, which in

turn is a member of Constellation Energy Group.

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

existing OLs, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be

met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once

an OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide

whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other

matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 24 1-8 May 2006

Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

need (GEIS Section 1.3):

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other

than NRC) decisionmakers.

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or findings in the NEPA

environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the

NRC does not have a role in the energy planning decisions of State regulators and utility

officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the

perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is

to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the

current term of the plant's license.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

NMPNS is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as

meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, NMPNS provided a list of the

authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as

| environmental approvals and consultations associated with NMP license renewal. 

Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed renewal action are included in

Appendix E.

The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant

environmental issues. The ER states that NMPNS is in compliance with applicable

| environmental standards and requirements for NMP. The staff has not identified any

environmental issues that are both new and significant.

1.6 References

| 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

| 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
Introduction

May 2006 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 24

40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, |

Part 1508, "Terminology and Index."

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 USC 4321, et seq.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS). 2004. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station

Application for License Renewal, Appendix E—Applicant’s Environmental Report. Lycoming,

New York. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3—Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP). 

NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

Process: Summary Report—Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, Oswego, New York. Washington,

D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. “Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of

the Application Regarding Renewal of License Nos. DPR-63 and DPR-69 for an Additional

Twenty-Year Period.” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 139, pp. 43631–43633. Washington, D.C. 

July 21, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. “Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register, Vol. 69,

No. 154, pp. 48900–48901. Washington, D.C. August 11, 2004. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. “Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 |

and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact |

Statement and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, |

Units 1 and 2.” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 195, pp. 58489-58490. Washington, D.C. October |

6, 2005. |