NUREG- 1437

Supplement 14

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 14

Regarding

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Final Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001

I
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.cov/readinp-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DlSTRIBUTION~nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http://www.nrc.aov/readina-rm/doc-collections/nureas

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 42"d Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREGICR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).
NUREG-1437

Supplement 14

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 14

Regarding

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: December 2003

Date Published: January 2004

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
NUREG-1437, Supplement 14, has been

reproduced from the best available copy.
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-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. The GEIS (and its Addendum 1)

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

an application submitted to the NRC by the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) to

renew the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) OL for an additional 20 years under

10 CFR Part 54. 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 RG&E nor

NRC staff identified information that is both new and significant for any of these issues that

apply to Ginna. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the Ginna OL will

not be greater than impacts identified for these issues in the GEIS. The GEIS conclusion is that

the impacts are of SMALL(a) significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from

the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single

significance level).

The remaining issues that apply to Ginna are addressed in this SEIS. For each applicable

issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of

renewal of the OL 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 requires site specific

assessment.

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna are not so great that preserving the option of

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

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

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

. January 2004 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Abstract

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

Report submitted by RG&E; (3) consultation and discussions with Federal, state, and local

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

I comments.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 iv January 2004
Contents

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

Executive Summary . ....................................................... xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms ..................................................... xxi

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

1.1 Report Contents .................................................. 1-2

1.2 Background ............................... 1-3

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

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

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action ........................................ 1-8

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .......................... 1-8

1.5 Compliance and Consultations .............. ........................... 1-9

1.6 References . ...................................................... 1-9

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaciion 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 ............................... 2-4

2.1.2 Reactor Systems ............................................. 2-4

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems ............................ 2-6

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

Control Systems ............ ................................ 2-7

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls ...... 2-8

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls ... 2-10

2.1.4.3 Solid-Waste Processing .............................. 2-11

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ................................ 2-13

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance .............................. 2-13

2.1.7 Power Transmission System ......... ......................... 2-14

January 2004 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Contents

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment ................................ 2-16

2.2.1 Land Use ................................................. 2-16

2.2.2 Water Use ................................................ 2-17

2.2.3 Water Quality .............................................. 2-18

2.2.4 Air Quality . ................................................ 2-18

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources ........... .............................. 2-19

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ....................................... 2-23

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts ........................................ 2-25

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ...................................... 2-27

2.2.8.1 Housing ........................................... 2-28

2.2.8.2 Public Services ..................................... 2-30

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use .................................... 2-32

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ........................... 2-34

2.2.8.5 Demography ....................................... 2-35

2.2.8.6 Taxes ............ ................................ 2-38

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................... 2-40

2.2.9.1 Historic and Archaeological Background ..... ............. 2-40

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Ginna Site .... .... 2-43

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ..... ........... 2-45

2.3 References ..................................................... 2-45

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 ..... ........... 4-9

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish .............................. 4-10

4.1.3 Heat Shock .............. ................................. 4-13

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 vi January 2004
Contents

4.2 Transmission Lines ............. ........................ 4-14

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects .......... ................ 4-18

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects .......................... 4-19

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............ ................ 4-19

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License

Renewal Term....................................................... 4-21

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations .............................. 4-23

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations .... ........ 4-25

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations ............................ 4-26

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations .... ...... 4-28

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................... 4-29

4.4.6 Environmental Justice ........... ............................ 4-31

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality ........... ............................ 4-35

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ......... ......................... 4-36

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the Renewal Term ................................. 4-37

4.7.1 Shoreline Erosion ............. ............................. 4-37

4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term ...... ......... 4-39

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant

Cooling System ........................................ .... 4-39

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the

Transmission Lines ........... .............................. 4-41

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts ............................... 4-42

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts ............................ 4-42

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . . ............. 4-43

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species .... ...... 4-43

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term .... .......... 4-44

4.10 References . .................................................... 4-45

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

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

January 2004 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Contents

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents .................. ..................... 5-2

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

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

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

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna ................ ..................... 5-5

5.2.3 Potential Design Improvements ............ ..................... 5-7

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction Potential and Cost of

Design Improvements . ....................................... 5-8

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

5.2.6 Conclusions .............................................. 5-9

5.3 References . .............................................. 5-9

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

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

7.1 References .................................................. 7-4

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ................. ..................... 8-1

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

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

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation ................ ........................ 8-9

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System .......................... 8-10

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System ......................... 8-23

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation .............. ................... 8-25

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ....... ................... 8-26

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System ....... .................. 8-34

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation ........... ......................... 8-34

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 viii January 2004
Contents

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ....... .................... 8-36

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System ....... .................. 8-45

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power .......... ......................... 8-47

8.2.5 Other Alternatives . .......................................... 8-48

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation .8-48

8.2.5.2 Wind Power .8-49

8.2.5.3 Solar Power .8-50

8.2.5.4 Hydropower .8-50

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy .8-51

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste.8-51

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste .8-52

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels .8-52

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells .8-53

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement .................................. 8-53

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation ......................... 8-54

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives ................................... 8-54

8.3 Summary of Alternatives .......................... 8-57

8.4 References ..................................................... 8-58

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

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 . .................................................. 9-7

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ................................ 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

January 2004 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Contents

Appendix C - Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence Related to

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's Application for License

Renewal of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant .......................... C-1

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted ......................................... D-1

Appendix E - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Compliance Status and

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

Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to R.E. Ginna

Nuclear Power Plant .......... ...................... F-1

Appendix G - NRC Staff Safety Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in Support of

License Renewal Application ................................. G-1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 x January 2004
Figures

2-1 Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 80-km (50-mi) Region ......... ...... 2-2

2-2 Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 10-km (6-mi) Region .2-3

2-3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Layout .2-5

2-4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines .2-15

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of the

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on Census Block Group Data . 4-32

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations Within 80 km (50 mi)

of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on Census Block

Group Data .. 4-33

January 2004 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Tables

2-1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines Right-of-Way .... .......... 2-16

2-2 Aquatic Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern Known

to Occur Within Wayne County, New York .2-22

2-3 Terrestrial Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service that Occur or Potentially Occur Within Wayne County, New York ... 2-24

2-4 Terrestrial Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern That Occur

Within Wayne County, New York .2-26

2-5 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Employee and Contractor Employee Residence

by County in New York State .2-28

2-6 Total Occupied and Vacant (Available) Housing Units in Wayne and

Monroe Counties in New York State, 1990 and 2000 .2-29

2-7 Population Growth in Monroe and Wayne Counties in New York State from

1970 to 2020 .2-29

2-8 Major Public Water Supply Systems in Monroe and Wayne Counties in

New York State .2-30

2-9 Land Use in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York State .2-33

2-10 Major Employment Sectors in Wayne and Monroe Counties in

New York State (2000) .2-37

2-11 Property Taxes Paid to the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, and Wayne

Central School District in New York State by RG&E for R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant .2-39

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

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

4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Cooling System During the Renewal Term .4-3

4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Cooling System During the Renewal Term .4-9

4-3 List of the Fish from Lake Ontario Impinged at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

from 1997 Through 2001 .4-11

4-4 Category 1 Issues Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission

Lines During the Renewal Term .4-15

4-5 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term .4-17

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xii January 2004
Contents

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

During the Renewal Term ............ .................................. 4-20

4-7 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term .... ... 4-21

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

Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term ................................ 4-23

4-9 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

Renewal Term ...................................................... 4-35

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

RenewalTerm . ...................................................... 4-36

5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term ..... 5-3

5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term ..... 5-4

5-3 Core Damage Frequency for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ................... 5-6

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

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

Management During the License Renewal Term ............................. 6-2

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

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

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and

Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Operating License . .................................................... 8-7

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using Closed-Cycle

Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and an Alternate Site in

New York State ...................................................... 8-20

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with

Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or an

Alternate Site in New York State ......................................... 8-24

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at an Alternate Site in New York State ................... 8-32

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

Alternate Site in New York State ......................................... 8-35

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and at an

Alternate Site in New York State ......................................... 8-42

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

Alternate Site in New York State ..................... 8-46

January 2004 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Contents

8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of Generating

(Combined-Cycle Natural-Gas-Fired Generation, Wind Power, and DSM) and

Acquisition Alternatives ............. ................................... 8-55

9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation ........................... 9-8

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period ..... .......... A-4

A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS ................................... A-25

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

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

Other Approvals for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ....................... E-2

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ...... F-1

G-1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Core Damage Frequency (Revision 4.2 of PSA) .... G-3

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

G-3 SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis ................................... G-17

G-4 Uncertainty in the Calculated Core Damage Frequency for R.E. Ginna

Nuclear Power Plant .............. .................................... G-24

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xiv January 2004
Executive Summary

By letter dated July 30, 2002, the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) submitted an

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

(OL) for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for an additional 20-year period. If the OL

is renewed, state regulatory agencies and RG&E will ultimately decide whether the plant will

continue to operate based on factors such as the rieed for power or other matters within the

state's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must

be shut down at or before the expiration date of the current OL, which is September 18, 2009.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321), directs that an

environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

in 10 CFR Part 51, which identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

for renewal of a reactor OL; 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 RG&E application, 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 Ginna in November 2002 and held public scoping meetings on

November 6, 2002, in Webster, New York. In preparing this supplemental environmental

impact statement (SEIS) for Ginna, the staff reviewed the RG&E Environmental Report (ER) for

Ginna 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 Renewat; and considered the public comments received during the scoping

process. The public comments received during the scoping process and the staff's response to

the comments are provided in Appendix A, Part I, of this SEIS.

A draft SEIS was published in June 2003. In August 2003 the staff held two public meetings in

Ontario, New York, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, answer

questions, and 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

dispositioned all of the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A,

Part II, of this SEIS.

(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.

January 2004 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Executive Summary

{ 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, even if an OL is renewed, there are other factors 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).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xvi January 2004
Executive Summary

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 Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. The

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

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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 led to 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. The staff relies 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.

January 2004 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Executive Summary

This SEIS documents the staff's evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered 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 OL for Ginna) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on projections

made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, gas- and coalfired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation alternatives if the power from

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

generation plant is located at either the Ginna site or some other unspecified alternate location.

RG&E and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. RG&E

and the staff did not identify information that is both new and significant related to Category 1

issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Neither the scoping process

nor the staff review has identified any new issue applicable to Ginna. Therefore, the staff relies

upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all of the Category 1 issues applicable to Ginna.

RG&E's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues applicable to

Ginna. In addition, the staff has evaluated the two uncategorized issues, environmental justice

and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed the RG&E analysis for

each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Six Category 2 issues are

not applicable because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found

at Ginna. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically

related to refurbishment. RG&E 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 Ginna for the license renewal

period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities within the

bounds of normal plant operation are not expected to affect the environment outside of the

bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation,

issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1973.

Ten Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and one related to 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 11 Category 2

issues and environmental justice, the staff preliminarily 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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xviii January 2004
Executive Summary

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. Based on its review of the SAMAs for Ginna and the plant

improvements already made, the staff concludes that two of the candidate SAMAs are cost

beneficial. However, these SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging

during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of

license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. RG&E stated that it will consider implementation

of these SAMAs through its current plant change process.

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.

Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

impacts on potentially affected resources.

If the Ginna OL is not renewed and the plant ceases operation on or before the expiration of the

current OL, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those

associated with continued operation of Ginna. 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 Ginna are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable at the license

renewal stage. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS;

(2) the ER submitted by RG&E; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies;

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

January 2004 Axi NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Abbreviations/Acronyms

pm micrometer

ac acre(s)

AC alternating current

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AFW auxiliary feedwater

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

AOC averted offsite property damage costs

AOE averted occupational exposure

AOSC averted onsite costs

AOV air-operated valve

APE averted public exposure

ATWS anticipated transient(s) without scram

BACT best available control technology

Bq becquerel(s)

Bq/mL becquerel(s) per milliliter

Btu British thermal unit(s)

degrees Celsius

CM Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended

CDF core damage frequency

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

COE cost of enhancement

CWA Clean Water Act of 1977 (also known as Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

DBA design-basis accident

DC direct current

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DSM demand-side management

January 2004 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Abbreviations/Acronyms

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

OF degrees Fahrenheit

FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FES Final Environmental Statement

FR Federal Register

ft footfeet

ft3 cubic foottfeet

F-V Fussel-Vessely

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of

1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g gram(s)

gal gallon(s)

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

NUREG-1437

Ginna R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

GJ gigajoule(s)

gpd gallon(s) per day

gpm gallon(s) per minute

GWh gigawatt hour(s)

ha hectare(s)

hr hour(s)

Hz hertz

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

in. inch(es)

IPE individual plant examination

IPEEE individual plant examination of external events

ISLOCA interfacing system loss-of-coolant accident

J joule(s)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xxii January 2004
Abbreviations/Acronyms

kg kilogram(s)

kJ kilojoule(s)

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

Ud liter(s) per day

Us liter(s) per second

LAER lowest achievable emissions rate

lb pound(s)

LERF large early release frequency

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

m meter(s)

mA milliampere(s)

MAB maximum attainable benefit

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

MBq megabecquerel(s)

MCWA Monroe County Water Authority

MGD million gallons per day

m/s meter(s) per second

m3/d cubic meter(s) per day

m3/min cubic meter(s) per minute

m3/s cubic meter(s) per second

mi mile(s)

min minute(s)

MJ/M3 megajoule(s) per cubic meter

ml milliliter(s)

MMBtu million British thermal units of heat

MOV motor-operated valve

mrem millirem(s)

msl mean sea level

mSv millisievert(s)

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

MTHM metric ton(s) (or tonne[s]) heavy metal

MTU metric ton(s) uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd megawatt-day(s)

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

January 2004 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Abbreviations/Acronyms

MW(t)

MWh

megawatt(s) thermal

megawatt hour(s)

NA

NAS

NEI

NEPA

NESC

ng

NHPA

NIEHS

NMFS

NOx

NOAA

NPDES

NRC

NRHP

NYS

NYSDEC

NYSERDA

ODCM

OL

PARS

PCB

pCi

PCR

PM10

PORV

PRA

PSA

PSD

psig

PWR

RAI

RAW

RCP

RCRA

not applicable

National Academy of Sciences

Nuclear Energy Institute

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Electrical Safety Code

nanograms

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

National Marine Fisheries Service

nitrogen oxide(s)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Register of Historic Places

New York State

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

operating license

Publicly Available Records portion of ADAMS

polychlorinated biphenyl(s)

picocurie(s)

plant change request

particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <10 gm

power-operated relief valves

probabilistic risk assessment

probabilistic safety assessment

prevention of significant deterioration

pounds per square inch gauge

pressurized water reactor

request for additional information

risk achievement worth

reactor coolant pump

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xxiv January 2004
Abbreviations/Acronyms

RCS reactor coolant system

rem special unit of dose equivalent, equal to 0.01 Sv

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RG&E Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

RHR residual heat removal

RMWT reactor makeup water tank

ROC Greater Rochester Intemational Airport

RPC replacement power cost

RWST refueling water storage tank

s second(s)

SAFW standby auxiliary feedwater

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAR safety analysis report

SBO station blackout

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SEP systematic evaluation program

SER safety evaluation report

SGTR steam generator tube rupture

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SO, sulfur oxides

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SQUG Seismic Qualification Utility Group

STC source term category

Sv sievert, special unit of dose equivalent

SW service water

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

UFSAR updated final safety analysis report

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USI unresolved safety issue

VAC volt(s) alternating current

VCT volume control tank

WEC Westinghouse Electric Company

January 2004 xxv NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
1.0 Introduction

Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) environmental protection regulations

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

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 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 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. The GEIS guides the

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

The Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) operates the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant (Ginna) in northwestern New York, under OL DPR-1 8 issued by the Atomic Energy

Commission.0) The OL was originally issued as a provisional OL and subsequently converted

to a full-term OL following completion of a NEPA evaluation. This evaluation is documented in

the Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit 1 (AEC 1973). This OL will expire on September 18, 2009. On July 30, 2002,

RG&E submitted an application to the NRC to renew the Ginna OL for an additional 20 years

under 10 CFR Part 54. RG&E is a licensee for the purposes of its current OL and an applicant

for the renewal of the OL. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), RG&E submitted an

Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002), in which RG&E 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 (i.e., the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for

the RG&E license renewal application for Ginna. 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.

(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.

(b) By letter dated December 16, 2003, RG&E and Constellation Generation Group, LLC (CGG),

submitted an application for transfer of the Ginna operating license to a new subsidiary of CGG. The

application for transfer of the Ginna license does not affect the staff's conclusions in this supplement

and will not be evaluated further in this supplement.

January 2004 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Introduction

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

action to renew the Ginna OL, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and

(4) present the status of RG&E's compliance with environmental quality standards and

I requirements that have been imposed by Federal, state, regional, and local agencies

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 contains an evaluation of

potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of 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 any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the relationship between

short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity, and any 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

received on the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses. Appendixes B

through G, respectively, list the following:

* contributors to the supplement

* chronology of environmental review correspondence related to RG&E license renewal for

the Ginna OL

* organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

* RG&E's compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of consultation

correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process)

* GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to Ginna

NRC staff's safety evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1 -2 January 2004
Introduction

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 support thorough evaluation of the impacts of

renewal of the OLs.

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 ElSs.

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach 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.

The NRC's standard of significance of impacts was established using Council on Environmental

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

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

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

levels are set forth in a footnote 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.

January 2004 1 -3 JNUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Introduction

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

were then 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:

(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 characteristic.

(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.

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 were not categorized. The

last two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are to be

addressed in a plant-specific analysis. 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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1 -4 January 2004
Introduction

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

* contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicant's plans to modify the

facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accordance with

1 0 CFR 54.21

* describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant

effluents that affect the environment

. discuss the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in

1 0 CFR 51.45

. contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts

-of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal

* describe the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as

Category 2 issues in 1 0 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to discuss

* issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives

* any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic

determination in 51 .23(a) and in accordance with 51.23(b)

* the 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 costs and benefits are either

essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation

* other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the

alternatives

* any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic

determination in 51.23(a) and in accordance with 51.23(b).

January 2004 1 -5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Introduction

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 Ginna OL, RG&E developed a process to

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

environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna would be properly reviewed before

submitting the ER and that such new and potentially significant information related to renewal of

the licenses for Ginna would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period of NRC

review. RG&E 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

Ginna. This review was performed by personnel from RG&E 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 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (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

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 Ginna. 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, and the staff's analysis and conclusion. Section 4.7 contains a discussion of

shoreline erosion. 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 SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections

that discuss the Category 2 issues are presented immediately following the table.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1 -6 January 2004
Introduction

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 RG&E license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

docketing and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register (NRC 2002a) on September 30,

2002. The staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (NRC

2002b) for Ginna on October 10, 2002. Two public scoping meetings were held on November

6, 2002, in Webster, New York. Comments received during the scoping period were

summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summaly Report - R.E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, New York (NRC 2003a). These comments are presented in Part 1

of Appendix A.

The staff followed the review guidance contained in Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). The staff and its contractors retained to assist the staff visited

Ginna during November 5-7, 2002, to gather information and to become familiar with the site

and its environs.. The staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping and consulted

with Federal, state, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations contacted is

provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to Ginna were reviewed and are referenced.

On July 3, 2003, NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in 68 FR 39986

(NRC 2003b). 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 preliminary results of the NRC staff's review. During this I

comment period, two public meetings were held in Ontario, New York, in August 2003. 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 comments. The comment period for the Ginna draft SEIS ended I

September 16, 2003. Comments made during the 75-day comment period, including those

made at the two public meetings, are presented in Part II 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 Ginna OL, 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. -

January 2004 1 -7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Introduction

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for Ginna, which is located in the town of

Ontario, New York, in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake

Ontario. The plant has a pressurized water reactor with the capability to produce 490 net

megawatts of electric power. Plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling system to

remove waste heat from the reactor steam-electric system. Cooling water is withdrawn from

Lake Ontario. Ginna produces enough electricity to supply the needs of approximately

560,000 residential customers. The current OL expires on September 18, 2009. By letter

dated July 30, 2002, RG&E submitted an application to the NRC (RG&E 2002) to renew this OL

for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until September 18, 2029).

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 OL, 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.

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

need from GEIS Section 1.3 (NRC 1996):

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.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-8 January 2004
Introduction

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

RG&E is required to hold certain Federal, state, and local environmental permits, as well as

meet relevant Federal and state statutory requirements. In its ER, RG&E provided a list of the

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

environmental approvals and consultations associated with Ginna license renewal. A full list of

authorizations and consultations related to the proposed OL renewal action is provided by

RG&E and 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. The New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation submitted comments regarding shoreline erosion. This issue is discussed n

Section 4.7. RG&E states in its ER that it is in compliance with applicable environmental

standards and requirements for Ginna.

1.6 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

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."

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 201 1, et seq.

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

Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Application for

Renewed Operating License, Volume 2, Appendix E- Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

January 2004 1 -9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Introduction

I U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

I Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

I Docket No. 50-244. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.

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. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. "Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the

Application and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of License No. DPR 18

for an Additional 20-Year Period." Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 189, pp. 61354-61355

(September 30, 2002).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. "Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Registen Vol. 67, No. 197, pp. 63171-

63173 (October 10, 2002).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003a. Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Process: Summary Report - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Webster, New York.

Washington, D.C.

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003b. "Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

I R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 14 to Generic

I Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of R.E. Ginna

I Nuclear Power Plant." Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 128, pp. 39986-39987 (July 3,2003).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-10 January 2004
2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

and Plant Interaction with the Environment

The R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) is located 6 km (4 mi) north of Ontario, New York,

in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake Ontario. The Ginna

site is approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of the city of Rochester and 64 km (40 ml)

west-southwest of Oswego, New York. The plant consists of one unit equipped with a nuclear

steam supply system supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation that uses a pressurized

water reactor (PWR) and a once-through cooling system. The plant and its environs are

discussed in Section 2.1, and the plant's interactions with the environment are presented in

Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant

Operation During the Renewal Term

The immediate area around the Ginna site is rural. There are no substantial population

centers, industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a 5-km (3-mi)

radius of the site, and the only recreational facility within this radius is the Bear Creek boat ramp

located about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) east of the site. The largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of

the site is Webster, located in Monroe County. Webster, with a town population of about

38,000, is about 11 km (7 ml) west-southwest of the site (RG&E 2002a). The largest

metropolitan area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius is Rochester, which is approximately 32 km

(20 ml) west of the site and has a population of about 220,000. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the

location of Ginna in relationship to the counties and important cities and towns within an 80-km

(50-mi) and 10-km (6-mi) radius, respectively.

The Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) owns the Ginna site. The site has

increased from 137 ha (338 ac) in 1972 to the present size of 197 ha (488 ac), and

correspondingly, the shoreline extent has increased from about 1.6 km (1 mi) to 2.4 km

(1.5 mi).

There are three occupied farmhouses on the site that are owned by RG&E, and the occupants

have leases that are renewable annually at the option of RG&E. There are a number of

unoccupied buildings on the site. With the exception of some physical security improvements,

there are no plans for additional building onsite. The physical security improvements are not

related to license renewal.

January 2004 2-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Canada iA'

W _;~~~~~~W

7-77; 4 .w~~~~~~' . 4

RecreabonA ~~~'., 4 ' J7a.i e\

3 Cvga~~~~atbnTDS~~A \ / i >W

4~~~~~

03 CWTesl ~ --- 7 Steubcn aV G 0 -o -e

igure Lcation 2-1. f Nucearowerlant 0 10 Rgo

Figur Loction 2-1 f REGinamNcearPwrPln,8-k 5-i)Rgo

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-2 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

. ~ ~ ~ 7

7- ... ,' -, ; ....... 7 t.:-i,- r'S*"..7 ................... . . . . . . ...

L i~ I.,-!

* Substation

Primay Roeds

SfwmanCreeks

W atlerJ

Figure 2-2. Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 10-km (6-mi) Region

January 2004 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

The surface of the terrain at the Ginna site on the south shore of Lake Ontario and to the east

and west is either flat or gently rolling. The elevation of the site increases to the south from

about 78 m (255 ft) above mean sea level (msl) near the edge of Lake Ontario; to 134 m

(440 ft) at New York State (NYS) Route 104, which is 5.5 km (3.5 mi) south of the lake; and

then to about 488 m (1600 ft) at the northern edge of the Appalachian Plateau, which is 48 to

64 km (30 to 40 mi) to the south. Southward from NYS Route 104, the topography gradually

changes to a series of small abrupt hills commencing about 16 km (10 mi) south of the site.

Surface-water features on the site are limited to Mill Creek and Deer Creek, which enter the site

I from the south and west, respectively. These two creeks join southwest of the plant and empty

into Lake Ontario just east of the plant. The general plant area is relatively well drained, with no

topographic basins or swampy areas on the site. All drainage, both surface and subsurface,

ultimately flows toward the lake.

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

The plant is visible from Lake Road (County Route 101), which borders the site in an east-west

direction approximately 518 m (1700 ft) south of the plant. A distinctive design feature of the

plant is a facade that conceals the dome of the reactor containment building, thus minimizing

the aesthetic impact of the plant on the surrounding community. The area around the site is

rural and the agricultural production and undisturbed land onsite enhances this appearance.

Major structures in addition to the reactor building are the auxiliary building, intermediate

building, control building, turbine building, screen house, condensate demineralizer building,

standby auxiliary feedwater pump building, and the service building containing offices, shops,

and laboratories. Figure 2-3 identifies the major buildings on the site.

The Ginna site is located in the lake plain, a slender band of land bordering Lake Ontario that is

about 8 to 48 km (5 to 30 mi) wide. The terrain is flat-to-rolling and contains numerous short

streams that flow northward directly into Lake Ontario (AEC 1973). The surrounding region has

agricultural land and rural communities.

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

The Ginna reactor is a pressurized light-water-moderated and -cooled system designed by

Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The system has two identical heat-transfer closed loops,

each of which includes a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator connected to the reactor

vessel. Ginna began commercial operation in July 1970 at a licensed output of 1300

megawatts thermal power (MW[tj) and at 420 MW net electrical power (MW[e]). On March 1,

1972, on the basis of additional safety and environmental evaluations, the licensed output was

increased to 1520 MW(t) and the net electrical output was increased to 490 MW(e).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-4 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

P Lct~ ~ ~~~~~L

O!e T ; Ad ;-I sA; a =--! @- t!; ............... , - I.-

{~~~~~~~- : o >tB "n 11s 

U * 0 50 IOCMI Ilt0;

;~~~~~Fgr '2-3. R.E. GinaNcla Powe Pant Layou

reinorce sei-eishria dome. The majo copnet of the reato oolant sytm|r

i' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MIN:m, 'A' " -,'I

: I ' s ,,Ka ,,_-'', i'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 2-3. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Layout

The reactor containment is a vertical, cylindrical, reinforced-concrete type with pre-stressed

tendons in the vertical wall; a reinforced-concrete ring anchored to the bedrock; and a

reinforced semi-hemispherical dome. The major components~of the reactor coolant system are

located within the containment structure. The containment structure provides a physical barrier

to protect the equipment from natural disasters and shielding to protect personnel from

radiation emitted from the reactor core while at power. A welded steel liner is attached to the

inside face of the concrete shell to provide leak-tightness. The reactor vessel is located in the

center of the containment structure below ground level. The reactor is licensed to use uranium

dioxide fuel that has a maximum enrichment of 5.0 percent uranium-235 by weight. Typical

average enrichment is 4.2 percent uranium-235 by weight. The approximate maximum average

burnup is less than 55,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU).

January 2004 2-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

Lake Ontario is the source of water for the turbine condenser cooling and most auxiliary water

systems at Ginna. Water from Lake Ontario reaches Ginna through a submerged offshore

intake. Water returns to Lake Ontario through a surface shoreline discharge. The total nominal

flow of water for these systems is about 22,370 Us (354,600 gpm). A flow of approximately

21,245 Us (340,000 gpm) is used to cool the turbine condenser, and the rest of the water is

available for auxiliary systems such as service water and fire protection.

The turbine condenser cooling system removes heat via the main condensers. The system

consists of an offshore intake structure designed specifically to minimize the possibility of

clogging, an inlet tunnel, four traveling screens, two circulating water pumps, and shoreline

discharge via a short discharge canal. The intake structure is located 945 m (3100 ft) from

shore at a depth of about 10 m (33 ft) water at mean lake level. Even an occurrence of a

historical low water level will result in no less than 4.6 m (15 ft) of water covering the intake

structure. Screen racks with bars spaced 25 to 35 cm (10 to 14 in.) apart prevent large objects

from entering the system. At full-flow conditions (22,370 Us [354,600 gpmj), the velocity at the

intake screen racks is about 0.2 m (0.8 ft) per second. A 3-m (10-ft) diameter, reinforcedconcrete-lined tunnel cut through bedrock extends 945 m (3100 ft) in a northerly direction from

the shoreline. Before the intake water reaches the two circulating water pumps that send it

through the plant, the water passes through one of four parallel traveling screens. Some of this

water is used to flush the debris off the screens into the discharge canal. All fish and debris,

excluding collections taken during impingement studies, are returned to Lake Ontario via this

discharge canal.

Water used to cool the turbine condenser is discharged into the discharge canal. The water

discharged into the canal enters Lake Ontario at the shoreline. The normal temperature

increase over the ambient water temperature at the point of discharge is about 11 0C (20 0F),

and the size of the thermal plume is normally about 71 ha (175 ac).

I The auxiliary system includes service water, fire protection, and other uses. The total water

I volume pumped by these systems is about 1125 Us (14,600 gpm). The service water system

consists of four service water pumps located in the screen house. The service water system

circulates lake water from the screen house to various heat exchangers and systems inside the

containment and the auxiliary, intermediate, turbine, and diesel generator buildings. The

service water system supplies cooling water for various plant needs. It provides multiple water

source flow paths to ensure the availability of the ultimate heat sink, which is the lake.

The treated water system, one of the auxiliary systems, is used in the following secondary plant

subsystems: demineralized water production, secondary water chemical treatment, and

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-6 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

non-radioactive liquid waste disposal (floor drains, secondary sample effluents, etc.). The

treated water subsystems are non-safety-related auxiliary systems that support the functionality

of other process systems.

Domestic-quality potable water, at a flow of about 378,000 Ud (100,000 gpd), is purchased by

RG&E from the Ontario Water District for drinking, sanitary purposes, auxiliary boiler feed, and

condensate makeup and polishing. Sanitary waste from Ginna is discharged into the

wastewater treatment system operated by the town of Ontario.

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

Ginna uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and

process the wastes that are by-products of reactor operation. These systems reduce the

radioactive effluents before they are released to the environment. Discharge streams are

appropriately monitored, and safety features are incorporated to preclude releases in excess of

the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and to maintain radioactive discharges to levels as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA) according to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

Waste disposal facilities are designed so that discharge of effluents and offsite shipments are in

accordance with applicable U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'(NRC) regulations and

guidelines. Radioactive fluids entering the waste disposal system are collected in sumps and

tanks until a determination of subsequent treatment can be made. The waste is sampled and

analyzed to determine the quantity of radioactivity, and an isotopic breakdown is determined if

necessary. Before any attempt is made to discharge this waste, it is processed as required and

then released under controlled conditions. The system design and operation are directed

toward minimizing releases to unrestricted areas.

Radioactive gases are pumped by compressors through a manifold to one of the gas decay

tanks where the gases are held for a suitable period of time for decay. Cover gases in the

nitrogen blanketing system are reused to minimize gaseous wastes. During normal operation,

gases are discharged intermittently at a controlled rate from these tanks through the monitored

plant vent. The system is provided with discharge controls so that environmental conditions do

not restrict the release of radioactive effluents to the atmosphere.

The waste disposal system is designed to package all solid waste in' standard liners and other

approved packages for removal to burial or processing facilities. The types of solid waste that

are produced at Ginna, in addition to dry active waste, are sludge, oily waste, bead resin, and

filters.

January 2004 2-7;~ NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and then removed from the

reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. Spent fuel is stored onsite in the spent fuel pool.

As a result of the Phase-1 rerack and after allowing for a full core discharge capability,

sufficient positions remain in the spent fuel pool (based upon projected discharges of 44 fuel

assemblies per cycle) to store the projected spent fuel discharge resulting from operation

through the spring of 2010 (if Ginna were to continue operating beyond its current license

period, which ends in September 2009) (RG&E 2001 a).

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (RG&E 2002b), which is subject to NRC

inspection, describes the methods and parameters used for calculating offsite doses resulting

from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents. It provides monitoring alarm/trip points for

release of effluents, and operational limits for releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are

specified to ensure compliance with NRC regulations.

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

Liquid wastes are generated primarily by plant maintenance and service operations. Source

term influents to the waste disposal system have changed considerably since the original

I system design. However, the current influent quantities into the system are smaller than the

quantities for which the system was originally designed. Actual liquid waste discharge quantity

I figures are provided in the 2001 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report required by the

plant technical specifications (RG&E 2001b).

Radioactive fluids entering the waste disposal system are collected in sumps and tanks until a

determination regarding subsequent treatment can be made. The fluids are sampled and

analyzed to determine the quantity of radioactivity, and an isotopic breakdown is determined if

necessary. Before any attempt is made to discharge, the waste is processed as required and

then released under controlled conditions. The system design and operation are directed

toward minimizing releases to unrestricted areas. Discharge streams are monitored and safety

features are incorporated to preclude releases in excess of the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and to

maintain radioactive discharges to ALARA levels according to the requirements of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I.

The waste holdup tank (about 79,500 L [21,000 gal]) is the collection point for most primary

liquid wastes, via gravity drain where possible. Other drains, such as basement-level drains,

drain to a 141 9-L (375-gal)-capacity sump tank that is then pumped to the waste holdup tank.

The bulk of the radioactive liquids discharged from the reactor coolant system are processed

and retained inside the plant by the chemical and volume control system recycle train. This

recycle approach minimizes liquid input to the waste disposal system, which processes

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-8 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

relatively small quantities of generally low-activity wastes. The processed water from waste

disposal, from which most of the radioactive material has been removed, is discharged through

a monitored line into the circulating water discharge. Liquid wastes are processed to remove

most of the radioactive materials.

From the waste holdup tank, the wastewater can be processed through a demineralization

system to one of two monitor tanks and then either released to the circulating water discharge

canal or recycled to the reactor makeup water tank. The waste holdup tank vent line is routed

through the auxiliary building charcoal filters. The spent resin is sluiced to a shipping container

for disposal.

The 141 9-L (375-gal)-capacity auxiliary building sump tank serves as a collecting point for

equipment drain water discharged to the basement-level drain header. The drain header

receives equipment drains from the refueling water storage tank, residual heat exchangers,

chemical and volume control system holdup tanks and recirculation pump, gas stripper feed

pumps, boric acid evaporator, spent resin storage tanks, seal water filter, charging pump seal

leakoff tank, charging pumps, spray additive tank, seal water heat exchanger, and

nonregenerative heat exchanger.

The 189,200 L (50,000 gal), carbon-steel, high-conductivity waste tank is the collection point for

condensate polisher regenerant and high-conductivity wastes. These wastes are retained in

the tank prior to release into the circulating water system.

The retention tank is the collection point for the various building floor and equipment drains.

The tank retains this waste prior to discharging it into the circulating water discharge. The

tank's contents are continuously monitored for pH and radioactivity.

The neutralizing tank collects regenerant wastes from the primary makeup water demineralizer

system. The tank retains the waste for neutralization prior to discharge to the retention tank.

The monitor tanks are part of the chemical and volume control system. These tanks retain the

waste until it is discharged to the circulating water discharge or recycled through the

demineralization system to the reactor makeup water tank. The contents of the tanks are

sampled for radioactivity prior to discharge.

Liquid batch releases are controlled individually, and each batch release is authorized based on

sample analysis and the existing dilution flow in the discharge canal. Plant procedures

establish the methods for sampling and analysis of each batch prior to release. A release rate

limit is calculated for each batch based on analysis, dilution flow, and all procedural conditions

being met before it is authorized for release. The waste stream entering the discharge canal is

January 2004 2-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

continuously monitored, and the release would be automatically terminated if the preselected

I monitor set point is exceeded (RG&E 2001a).

If gross beta analysis is performed for each batch release in lieu of gamma isotopic analysis, a

weekly composite for principal gamma emitters and iodine-131 is performed. Additional

monthly and quarterly composite analyses are performed as specified. The methodology and

equations used to calculate activity are included in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b).

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

The gaseous waste management system is designed to collect waste gases from various tanks

and sampling systems throughout the plant. The primary source of gas received by the waste

disposal system is cover gas displaced from the chemical and volume control system holdup

tanks as they fill with liquid. Gaseous wastes consist primarily of (1) hydrogen stripped from

coolant discharged to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks during boron

dilution, (2) nitrogen and hydrogen gases purged from the chemical and volume control system

volume control tank when degassing the reactor coolant, and (3) nitrogen from the closed gas

blanketing system. The gas decay tank capacity allows a 45-day decay period before the

waste gas is discharged.

Radioactive gases are pumped to one of the gas decay tanks where they are held for a suitable

I period. Cover gases in the nitrogen blanketing system are reused to minimize gaseous wastes.

During normal operation, gases are discharged intermittently at a controlled rate from these

tanks through the monitored plant vent. The system is provided with discharge controls so that

environmental conditions do not restrict the release of radioactive effluents to the atmosphere.

Because the chemical and volume control system holdup tank cover gases must be replaced

when they are emptied during processing, provisions are made to return the gas from the gas

decay tanks to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks via a reuse header.

The gas decay tanks are about 13,300 L (470 ft3) each, with a design pressure of 1.4 kPa

(200 psig), and normally operate between 0 and 750 kPa (0 and 110 psig). They can be lined

up for draining, gas analyzer sampling, or pressurization with nitrogen. Gas held in the decay

tanks can either be returned to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks via the

reuse header, or it can be discharged to the atmosphere if it has decayed sufficiently for

release. Before a tank can be emptied to the environment, it is sampled and analyzed to

determine and record the activity to be released, and only then discharged to the plant vent at a

controlled rate through a radiation monitor. Samples are taken manually from the gas

analyzers. During release (through charcoal filters), a trip valve in the discharge line is closed

automatically by a high activity level indication in the plant vent.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-10 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

The waste disposal panel contains pressure gauges for the tanks' using cover gas and also for

the gas decay tanks and the vent header. A local plant stack radiation monitor is also provided

for the operator's use during releases. The operator controls all gas system manual operations

and releases at the waste disposal panel. The alarm conditions that are associated with the

gaseous waste management system are (1) moisture separator level, (2) vent header pressure,

(3) gas analyzer oxygen, (4) plant stack monitor radiation, (5) gas decay tank pressure, and

(6) gas decay tank new standby selection. High-pressure alarms are installed on the tanks that

vent to the vent header. An alarm on the waste disposal panel will light an annunciator on the

main control board.

An automatic gas analyzer is provided to monitor the concentrations of oxygen and hydrogen in

the cover gas of the waste disposal system and the chemical and volume control system tanks.

The gas analyzer system sequentially selects samples from vessels of the waste disposal

system, analyzes the samples for oxygen and hydrogen, records the results of the analysis, and

provides alarms when a hazardous operating condition exists. Upon indication'of a high oxygen

level, provisions are made to purge the systems to the gaseous waste system with an inert gas.

Gaseous effluent monitor set points are established at concentrations that permit some margin

for corrective action to be taken before exceeding offsite dose rates corresponding to 10 CFR

Part 20 limitations. The ODCM (RG&E 2002b) establishes the methods for sampling and

analysis for continuous ventilation releases and for containment purge releases, as well as the

methods for sampling and analysis prior to gas decay tank releases. The dose rates are

determined using methodology included in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b). Calculations were

performed in 1976 to demonstrate conformity with numerical guides on design objectives

presented in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 for gaseous effluents.

2.1.4.3 Solid-Waste Processing

The waste disposal system is designed to package solid waste in standard liners and other

approved packages for removal to burial or'processing facilities. In addition to dry active waste,

solid waste produced at Ginna includes sludge, oily waste, bead resin, and filters.

There are two onsite solid waste storage facilities with a combined capacity sufficient to

accommodate approximately 5 years of operation. The upper radioactive waste storage facility

typically provides temporary storage for plant solid waste. The'high-integrity container storage

facility is a concrete-walled, open-topped structure designed as a shadow shield for the storage

of spent resin. The resin is stored in shielded casks that are ready for shipment. Additionally, a

reinforced concrete structure houses the old steam generators and is designed for long-term

storage.

January 2004 2-11V NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

I Suspended solids and other sludge occasionally require processing. Oily waste is processed at

an offsite facility. An alternative method of disposal is to solidify and bury the waste at a

licensed burial site.

Bead resin is used to remove chemical impurities and radioactive contamination from the

reactor coolant, the chemical and volume control system, the spent fuel pool, and the liquid

waste processing system. When the resin is exhausted or reaches a radiation limit, the spent

resin is sluiced to one of two 4247-L (1122-gal) spent resin storage tanks. After sufficient resin

has been collected, a transport cask sufficient for the radioactivity present is ordered. Spent

resin is slurried from the spent resin storage tank into a liner with water used for sparging and

mixing the resin, and nitrogen gas pressure is used to move the resin. A representative sample

of the resin is obtained and the concentration of each radioisotope is calculated. After the resin

is dewatered, the liner is capped and sealed and the top is put on the transport cask. The cask

is surveyed for radiation and contamination and properly labeled and marked. The resin is then

transported to a licensed disposal facility.

When filters become saturated or have a high dose rate, they are dewatered and then replaced.

The spent filters are placed in a high-integrity container or solidified in an approved media and

shipped in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, 10 CFR Part 61, and burial site licenses. Dry

active waste is shipped in bulk form to a vendor for volume reduction and packaging for delivery

to the disposal site (RG&E 2001 a).

The Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b) controls the establishment of a program that outlines the

method for processing wet solid wastes and solidifying liquid wastes. It includes applicable

process parameters and evaluation methods used at Ginna to ensure compliance with the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 prior to shipment of containers of radioactive waste from the

site.

A radioactive waste sampling and analysis program has been instituted to ensure compliance

with 10 CFR Part 61. Scaling factors have been developed to calculate concentrations of

hard-to-measure isotopes from more easily determined isotopes. The scaling factors will

enable concentrations of all required isotopes to be determined for each radioactive waste

shipment.

All radioactive waste is shipped to a licensed burial site in accordance with applicable NRC,

U.S. Department of Transportation, and State regulations, including burial site regulation

requirements. To ensure that personnel exposure is minimized, ALARA considerations are

addressed in all phases of the solidification process. The quantities shipped offsite for

I processing and burial are reported to the NRC in the 2001 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report (RG&E 2001 b).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-12 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Hazardous, non-radioactive waste is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC), which classifies Ginna as a "small quantity generator and a treater, storer and/or

disposer of hazardous waste." Following its annual inspection in January 2001, NYSDEC I

concluded that Ginna was in compliance with all New York State hazardous waste regulations

(NYSDEC 2001). This conclusion was consistent with its findings during prior annual

inspections.

The most common types of hazardous waste generated at Ginna are chemical degreasers,

acids, and caustics used to clean parts and rags and paper products contaminated with

chemicals regulated under RCRA. There are also chemical products that are discarded due to

procedural changes, and minor amounts of asbestos and equipment contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) due to asbestos and PCB abatement efforts. RG&E's 2001

Hazardous Waste Regulatory Fee form estimated that 1570 kg (1.73 tons) of hazardous waste

was produced at Ginna in 2000 (RG&E 2001c).

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

Maintenance activities conducted at Ginna include inspection, testing, and surveillance to

maintain the current licensing basis of the plant and ensure compliance with environmental and

safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed while the reactor is operating, but

some activities require that the plant be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for

refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such as replacement of a major

component. RG&E refuels the Ginna nuclear unit on an 18-month schedule, generally resulting

in a refueling every other year. During refueling outages, site employment increases by as

many as 700 workers for temporary duty (typically lasting from 28 to 35 days) (RG&E 2002a).

An updated final safety analysis report supplement (RG&E 2002c) regarding the effects of

aging on systems, structures, and components was included as Appendix A of the Application

for Renewed Operating License, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. Chapter 3 and Appendix

B of the Ginna license renewal application describe the programs and activities that will manage

the effects of aging during the license renewal period. RG&E expects to conduct activities

related to the management of aging effects during plant operation or normal refueling and other

outages, but plans no outages specifically for the purpose of refurbishment. RG&E has no

plans to add additional full-time staff (non-outage workers) at the plant during the period of the

renewed license.

January 2004 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

The Final Environmental Statement for the R.E. Ginna Plant, Unit 1. Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (AEC 1973) describes four transmission lines, running in the same right-of-way, that

connect the plant with the transmission system. RG&E has not made any modifications to either

the right-of-way or the transmission lines since original installation (RG&E 2002a). Ginna

generates electricity at 19 kilovolts (kV). This voltage is stepped up to 115 kV at the plant and is

transmitted 1.0 km (0.6 mi) by four 1 15-kV underground cables to Substation 13A, which is

located south of Ginna on the south side of Lake Road (Figure 2-4). Four 11 5-kV overhead

transmission lines were installed as a direct result of the construction, startup, and operation of

Ginna. These lines emanate from Substation 13A and run approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) in the

same right-of-way in a southerly direction to connect to the transmission grid at Substation 204

(Fruitland), which is on the south side of NYS Route 104 (Table 2-1). These lines are supported

by wooden structures with two lines per structure. There is a fifth 1 15-kV line emanating from

Substation 13A that serves as a distribution line and is located on its own structures on the east

side of the transmission lines right-of-way between Substations 13A and 204. This fifth line was

not installed as a direct result of construction, startup, or operation of Ginna.

I The 152-m (500-ft)-wide transmission line right-of-way from Ginna to Substation 204 is owned by

RG&E. The portion of the right-of-way between Substation 13A and Substation 204 is in the town

of Ontario and Wayne County and has road crossings at Brick Church Road, Kenyon Road, North

Slocum Road, and NYS Route 104 (Figure 2-2). Locked gates limit access to the right-of-way

from roadways. Land use in this area is predominantly agricultural with only a few homes adjacent

to the right-of-way.

The transmission lines right-of-way is characterized by low- to medium-sized shrubs with an

understory of grasses and forbs, and with trees at the edge of the right-of-way. RG&E manages

the right-of-way in accordance with a New York State Public Service Commission-approved longrange vegetation management plan (RG&E 1995). This plan uses selected management

techniques with the goal of maintaining a low-growing vegetative community. A relatively thick

shrub layer is maintained, with the intention of discouraging the sprouting and growth of larger

trees within the right-of-way. Mowing or brush cutting is rare and, when done, is typically

performed only in small areas as needed to clear access to towers. Trees that may interfere with

the electrical conductors are either trimmed or are cut at the base. Herbicides are generally only

used as spot applications to prevent tree or shrub regrowth. RG&E uses only non-restricted-use

herbicides, and all applications are performed under the supervision of licensed applicators.

RG&E maintains a vegetative buffer along stream crossings and does not mow or treat vegetation

with herbicides within wetland areas or stream crossings unless specific, individual trees need to

be trimmed or removed to maintain safe operation of the right-of-way.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-14 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

i~ ~ ~ ~ - ,iv r .a ......... 

~~~~~~

d.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n

CS~~ k. 2 o.).stt_-j ................... 2 . h........... ekt

e. r il

tsetwod Substation | ', fekt &uses~

- Paived Roads , J,

Pr ogzery Bounidary .: ; j!ii ,

Exclusion Zone j ;; D

-- Intake Pipe - ; « Ii -

--nf iTransmission . Lne iiii 

D 401 AOMeters ., jit ,j

o 600 t200 Feet ;, R /i 

I )=Id

Figure 2-4. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines

200

600

January 2004 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-1. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines Right-of-Way

Approximate Corridor

Distance Width Corridor Area Number Corridor

Substation of Lines kV km ml Direction m ft hectares (acres)

204 (Fruitland) 4 115 5.6 3.5 South 152 500 85 212

Source: RG&E 2002a

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near Ginna.

Detailed descriptions also are provided, where needed, to support the analysis of potential

environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal term, as discussed in

Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological resources in the

area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts of other Federal project activities.

2.2.1 Land Use

Ginna is in the town of Ontario, New York, in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the

south shore of Lake Ontario. Surface-water features onsite are limited to Mill Creek, which

enters the site from the south, and Deer Creek, which enters the site from the west. These two

creeks join southwest of the plant and empty into Lake Ontario just east of the plant.

Ginna is about 32 km (20 mi) east of the center of Rochester and 64 km (40 mi) westsouthwest of Oswego. The immediate area around the site is rural. There are no substantial

population centers, industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a

4.8-km (3.0-mi) radius. The largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is Webster,

located in Monroe County approximately 11.2 km (7.0 mi) west-southwest, with a town

population of about 38,000 (RG&E 2002a). The largest metropolitan area within 80 km (50 mi)

is Rochester, with a population of about 220,000. Approximately, 48 percent of the workforce

at Ginna live in Wayne County and 44 percent live in Monroe County. The remaining 8 percent

live elsewhere.

The 197-ha (488-ac) Ginna site is owned by RG&E. The land at the site and along the

transmission line right-of-way is zoned by the town of Ontario for limited industrial uses, while

adjacent lands are zoned for large lot residential uses (exceeding 1858 m2 [20,000 ft2). The

original site area was 134 ha (338 ac) at the time of preparation of the 1972 Environmental

Report for Ginna (RG&E 1972). During July 1976, approximately 49 ha (122 ac) of additional

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-16 January2OO4
Plant and the Environment

land was acquired from an adjoining farm, and another 6.7 ha (16.0 ac) was purchased during

1988 on the western side of the site. Correspondingly, the shoreline extent has increased from

about 1.6 to 2.4 km (1.0 to 1.5 mi). Approximately half of the site is leased and currently is

used for agricultural production, primarily apple orchards and, to a lesser degree, corn and hay

fields. Another quarter of the site has been left relatively undisturbed, having a combination of

open fields, shrub brush, and trees. The remaining quarter of the site has been developed for

the power station and ancillary facilities, with about 10 ha (25 ac) enclosed within the security

fences.

There are three occupied farm houses on the Ginna site, one of which has an occupied

out-building. These houses are owned by RG&E, and the occupants have leases that are

renewable annually at the option of the RG&E. Two of the houses are located 1250 m (4100 ft)

and 884 m (2900 ft), respectively, southwest of the plant, while the third house and its

associated out-building are about 701 m (2300 ft) and 579 m (1900 ft) southeast of the plant,

respectively. All are located beyond the exclusion area boundary.

Unoccupied buildings owned by RG&E include the Brookwood Estate Manor House (used as an

employee meeting facility) and garage, located about 274 m (900 ft) east of the plant and

fronting the lake; horse barns (used for storage), located about 457 m (1500 ft) south of the

plant; and a house (used as a fitness-for-duty center), located about 488 m (1600 ft) south of

the plant. While there are currently no plans for further development on the site, additional

security features have been added, primarily along the perimeter of the plant area. The

addition of these security features are unrelated to and independent of license renewal.

Webster Park, a 223-ha (550-ac) Monroe County park on the south shore of Lake Ontario, is

approximately 9.6 km (6.0 mi) west of the site. Facilities include a fishing pier, campground,

day-use shelters, lodges and cabins, picnic areas, tennis courts, baseball and soccer fields,

hiking, and cross-country ski trails. Approximately 56 km (35 mi) from Ginna, in southeastern

Wayne County along the border with Cayuga and Seneca counties, is the Montezuma

Wetlands Complex. The 14,569-ha (36,000-ac) complex includes the Federally owned

Montezuma Wildlife Preserve, state-owned Northern Montezuma Wildlife Management Area,

lands owned by conservation groups, and private property. The area contains marshes and

impoundments, forested wetlands, old fields, meadows, farm fields, and woodlands

(RG&E 2002a).

2.2.2 Water Use

Lake Ontario is the source of water for cooling and most auxiliary water systems. Ginna uses a

once-through condenser cooling system with a submerged offshore intake and a surface

January 2004 2-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

shoreline discharge. The average daily withdrawal from and return to the lake for the cooling

water and other service water systems is about 22,370 Us (354,600 gpm).

In addition, potable water, at a flow of about 378,000 Ud (100,000 gpd), is purchased by RG&E

from the Ontario Water District for drinking, sanitary purposes, auxiliary boiler feed, and

condensate makeup and polishing. Sanitary waste from Ginna is discharged to the wastewater

treatment system operated by the town of Ontario.

2.2.3 Water Quality

Lake Ontario provides water of a quality sufficient to serve a variety of needs, including

propagation of fish and wildlife and contact recreation. However, the lake is listed on the New

York State 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as impaired due to fish consumption

advisories as a result of contamination by PCBs, mirex, and dioxin.

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the water quality of the plant effluents is regulated through the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Division of Environmental

Permits within the NYSDEC is delegated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

issue NPDES permits, which it refers to as State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

I (SPDES) permits. The current permit (NY0000493) was issued February 1, 2003; modified on

I July 1, 2003; and is due to expire February 1, 2008. Any new regulations promulgated by the

EPA or the State of New York would be reflected in future permits.

The current permit requires monitoring of discharges from the circulating cooling water system,

house service boiler blowdown system, the high-conductivity water tank discharge system

(including steam generator blowdown), and the radiation waste holdup and treatment system.

Discharge limitations exist on flow, maximum discharge temperature, incremental temperature

difference, chlorine, boron, oil and grease, suspended solids, pH, iron, copper, zinc, arsenic,

and chromium.

2.2.4 Air Quality

I Ginna has a typical northeastern-U.S. humid climate moderated by the influence of Lake

Ontario. The nearest national weather station is at the Greater Rochester International Airport

(ROC) located about 32 km (20 mi) southwest and inland from the site. The ROC data define

the regional climate. The local climate shows lake-effect influences on temperature, moisture,

and precipitation.

Climatological records from 1971 to 2000 at ROC indicate that the normal daily maximum

temperatures for the region range from -0.60C (31.0 0F) in January to a high of 27.20C (81.0 0F)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-18 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

in July (NOAA 2002). Normal minimum temperatures range from -8.5oC (17.00F) in January to

15.60C (60.00F) in July.

The regional prevailing winds are from the west-southwest. Based on monitoring data for the

period 1992 to 1994 at Ginna, local winds are predominantly from south to west-northwest with

the peak direction from the south-southwest. The average annual precipitation measured at

ROC is 86.31 cm (33.98 in.). Based on statistics for the 30 years from 1954 through 1983, the

probability of a tornado striking the site is expected to be about 2 x 10 5 per year (Ramsdell and

Andrews 1986).

Locally, weather systems coming from Canada tend to pick up moisture as they cross Lake

Ontario and deposit it within 24 to 32 km (15 to 20 mi) of the shoreline. Regional snowfall, as

recorded at ROC, averages approximately 236 cm (93 in.) per year. Locations closer to the

lake, such as the Ginna site, tend to experience many lake-effect snow showers and may

have more snowfall than recorded at ROC.

Wind energy potential along the shore of Lake Ontario in the vicinity of Ginna is rated as 3 to 4

on a scale of 1 to 7, with a rating of 5 estimated to exist offshore (Elliott et al. 1986). These

ratings indicate that wind is a viable energy resource in the area.

The air quality in the region is designated as better than national standards, in attainment, or

unclassified for all criteria pollutants in 40 CFR 81.316 and 40 CFR 81.328. The nearest area

of nonattainment is Niagara County, New York, which is classified as marginal for ozone

(EPA 2003a). There are no mandatory Class I Federal areas in which visibility is an important

value designated in 40 CFR Part 81 within 160 km (100 mi) of Ginna. According to the 1991 to

2000 data from the EPA, the number of days when the air quality index was greater than 100

for ozone in the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e., "Poor Air Quality") ranged from a

low of 0 in 1993 and 1996 to a high of 16 in 1991 (EPA 2003b). The EPA reports 1 day in 2001

when the air quality index for ozone was higher than 100 for this area.

Emissions from diesel generators, boilers, and other activities and facilities associated with

Ginna operations are regulated under New York State and Federal regulations. Emissions from

these Ginna sources are lower than the thresholds specified in the applicable New York State

and Federal air quality regulations. Therefore, RG&E is not required to have air quality permits

for Ginna.

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources in the vicinity of Ginna are associated with Lake Ontario, which is the

smallest of the Great Lakes and the eleventh largest lake in the world in terms of volume. The

January 2004 2-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

lake is approximately 306 km (190 mi) long by 80 km (50 mi) wide, with a surface area of about

19,000 km2 (7340 mi2). The maximum depth is 244 m (802 ft) and the mean depth is 86 m

(283 ft), which is greater than the other Great Lakes, except Lake Superior. Depths of 12 to 30 m

(40 to 100 ft) are within 0.6 to 1.2 km (1.0 to 2.0 mi) off the southern shore in the area of Ginna.

The major source of water for the lake is from Lake Erie via the Niagara River. Water flows from

Lake Ontario via the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean. The predominant surface currents

in front of the station are west to east, and the flows tend to swing towards the southern shoreline

(RG&E 2002a).

There are also two creeks that cross the property of the station and the southern shore of Lake

Ontario. Mill Creek crosses the site from the south and flows into Deer Creek. Deer Creek enters

the site from the west, joins with Mill Creek, and then flows into Lake Ontario. Deer Creek is a

wet-weather stream that dries up in the summer months so there is no direct flow into Lake

Ontario during that time of the year (RG&E 2002a). Mill Creek, while flowing year-round, does not

have sufficient flow to cross over a rise in the land around the mouth of the creek during the

I summer months. Flow from Mill Creek is possible through the subsurface; however, aquatic

organisms could not easily swim in and out of Mill Creek to Lake Ontario during the summer.

I These creeks do not receive water from Ginna on a routine basis except for occasional storm

water runoff. There is an onsite surface impoundment for emergency use that could discharge

into Deer Creek.

The aquatic resources associated with Ginna, especially those in Lake Ontario, are an important

resource for fishing, recreation, navigation, tourism, and conservation. Currently, the principal fish

in Lake Ontario's offshore pelagic fish community are alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and

I Atlantic rainbow smelt (Osmerus m. mordax), and their salmonid predators, including Chinook

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo sala), lake trout

I (Salvelinus namaycush), rainbow trout (0. mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Other less

abundant pelagic species include threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), emerald

shiner (Notropis atherinoides), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) (Schaner et al. 2002).

The principal fish in the offshore benthic community include lake trout, lake whitefish (Coregonus

clupeaformis), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Additional species include burbot (Lota Iota),

round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and deepwater sculpin (Triglopsis thompsonil) (Hoyle

and Schaner 2002). The salmon and trout populations are maintained chiefly by stocking

programs conducted by the NYSDEC and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. While these

stocking programs were initially designed to control non-native fish overpopulation, the salmon

and trout are now an important commercial and recreational resource resulting in annual

expenditures of over $70 million (Kraft and Carothers 2002).

The Lake Ontario fish community that existed when Ginna began operations during the early

1970s reflected the changes to the fishery over the previous 150 years. The Lake Ontario fishery

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-20 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

has been significantly altered over the past 150 years due to frequent introductions of non-native

species. Non-native species such as the alewife, rainbow smelt, burbot, threespine stickleback,

and several salmon species have profoundly altered the Lake Ontario fishery over the past 100

years. Between the mid-1 800s and the early 1970s, populations of important species such as

lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), Atlantic salmon, lake trout, lake herring (Coregonus artedi),

burbot, and deepwater ciscoes (C. johannae) had all collapsed. This collapse has been attributed

to such factors as overfishing, invasion of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), habitat loss, and

degraded water quality or eutrophication. The open lake fish community in 1970 was dominated

by planktivores such as alewife and smelt due to the lack of large predatory species. Annual

alewife die-offs were common at that time, which contributed to the impaired conditions of the lake

and shoreline. During the mid-1 970s, New York State and the Province of Ontario instituted a

salmonid stocking program of up to 8 million fish per year aimed at using the extensive forage

base of alewife and smelt. For the next 20 years, this program was very successful in both

developing a world-class sport fishery on Lake Ontario as well as controlling the forage fish

population (RG&E 2002a).

Water quality in Lake Ontario has changed since the initial plans for Ginna during 1972. There

has been a substantial decrease in nutrient loading (particularly phosphorus) and a decline of

persistent toxic chemicals. As the water quality has improved, the aquatic community has

responded. Other factors in the change of the aquatic resources within the lake over time include

control measures for alewife (including the salmonid stocking program), the introduction of nonnative aquatic species, ongoing anthropogenic impacts, and natural climate variability

(RG&E 2002a).

Evidence of the recent changes in aquatic resources can be seen in the dramatic drop of fish

abundance, increases in Cladophora sp. (algae), and increases in non-native mollusks of the

genus Dreissena (zebra and quagga mussels). Fish abundance decreased substantially around

1977 when controls for alewife started to take effect. While numbers of fish have decreased

based on data collected by RG&E and by the NYSDEC, the diversity of aquatic species has not

changed as much and even appears in the last 4 years to be increasing around Ginna.

Cladophora sp. have been noted to be growing at greater depths in Lake Ontario as the water

clarity has improved over the last decade. Mollusks have also been found to be increasing in

numbers based on studies by RG&E and by the NYSDEC (RG&E 2002a).

Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) studies conducted at the Ginna site during 1977 and 1978

characterize the site with respect to utilization of the Lake Ontario shoreline adjacent to the Ginna

site for fish spawning and as a nursery area. More than 90 percent of the fish larvae found during

both years were alewives. Also found both years, in the 1-5 percent range, were carp/goldfish

(Cyprinus carpilo/Carassius auratus), smelt, and Johnny darters (Etheostoma nigrum). All of

these species are common components of the local fish community, and typical of the fish

January 2004 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

communities found along the near shore areas of Lake Ontario's southern shoreline. Conversely,

there were no indications that the Ginna site area was unique to, or preferred by, any species as a

spawning or nursery area.

Ginna is not adjacent to any significant bays or other habitat features that may provide unique or

important spawning or nursery areas. Studies conducted within Lake Ontario near Chaumont,

Sodus, and Irondequoit Bays during 1997 and 1998, show that alewife continues to dominate the

ichthyoplankton population and that alewife-spawning locations are ubiquitous. Of particular

interest, given the dramatic reduction in productivity within the lake, is the fact that alewife larval

densities found during both the late 1970s and the late 1990s were within the same order of

magnitude. This indicates the density of alewife larvae available for recruitment have remained

fairly constant over time. Further, these recent studies found similar species to those collected at

the Ginna intake during the 1970s, and generally support the previously stated conclusions

concerning the spawning, nursery, and habitat conditions of the Ginna site (RG&E 2002a).

There are no aquatic species Federally listed as threatened or endangered under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the vicinity of Ginna. Through consultation with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), no aquatic species (fish, mollusks, or plants) were identified in Wayne

County or any counties near Wayne County (FWS 2002).

There are two State-listed aquatic species known to occur within Wayne County (Table 2-2).

Through discussions with NYSDEC, one endangered fish was determined to be near Wayne

County (NYSDEC 2003a). The pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus) was reported from Sodus

Bay of Lake Ontario, approximately 32 km (20 mi) west of Ginna. However, the pugnose shiner

has not been reported near Ginna, nor has it ever been captured during studies conducted by

RG&E (RG&E 2002a). The lake sturgeon is a threatened species within New York state and

might be found near Ginna (NYSDEC 2003a). One sturgeon was netted several years ago by

NYSDEC at Pultneyville, a village approximately 9.6 km (6 mi) east of Ginna. No sturgeon has

ever been reported from the vicinity of Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

Table 2-2. Aquatic Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern Known to Occur

Within Wayne County, New York

Scientific Name Common Name State Status

Fish

Notropis anogenus pugnose shiner Endangered

Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon Threatened

Source: (NYSDEC 2003a).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-22 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

The Ginna site lies within the eastern great lakes/Hudson lowlands ecoregion (Omernik 1987).

Prior to European settlement, the area was dominated by beech-maple forest that was typical of

the region. Throughout the region, much of this forest type has been converted to other

vegetation types, primarily various forms of farmland such as orchards, pastures, or crop land

(AEC 1973).

The site and its associated transmission line right-of-way are surrounded by a variety of very

typical habitat types found in central and western New York state: mature woodlands,

meadows, and early- and late-stage old fields. In addition, significant acreage is farmed for

grains or is in use for apple production. Portions of the property and the transmission line

right-of-way are currently farmed under a lease arrangement with local residents. The other

"natural" areas within the boundaries of the site are left to go through the natural succession

process and are not actively managed by the applicant (RG&E 2002a). There are no State or

Federally regulated wetlands found either at the Ginna site or on the transmission line

right-of-way.

The wildlife species that occur at the Ginna site and transmission line right-of-way are also very

typical of those found in similar habitats throughout central and western New York state.

Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel (Sciurus

carolinensis), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus flordanus), raccoon (Procyon loto4, grey (Urocyon

cinereoargenteus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and

meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) are commonly'found mammals. Numerous bird

species, including the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), American kestrel (Falco

sparverius), screech owl (Otus asio), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), bluebird (Sialia sialis),

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), are common.

Amphibians common to the site include American toad (Bufo americanus), leopard frog

(Rana pipiens), green frog (R. clamitans), and wood frog (R. sylvatica). Reptiles include the

eastern garter snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) and ribbon snake (T. sauritus) (Dames and

Moore 1971).

No Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species are known to occur in the

vicinity of Ginna or its associated transmission line right-of-way. Table 2-3 lists species known

to occur or potentially occur in Wayne County. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) will

occasionally be observed in the vicinity, but the nearest known nesting site is approximately

88 km (55 mi) southeast near Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge (NYSDEC 2003a).

January 2004 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-3. Terrestrial Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service That Occur or Potentially Occur Within Wayne County,

New York

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status'8)

Reptiles

Clemmys muhienbergii bog turtle T

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T

Charadrius melodus piping plover E

Mammals

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E

Plants

Isottia medeoloides small-whorled pogonia T

Plantanthera (eucophaea prairie fringed orchid T

(a) E = endangered, T = threatened

Source: FWS 2002.

The Piping plover (Charadfius melodus) could potentially forage on the shoreline near the

Ginna site, but it has never been reported in the vicinity and is not known to nest in the area.

The nearest designated critical habitat for piping plover is approximately 145 km (90 mi) from

the Ginna site on the eastern shore of Lake Ontario (FWS 2001).

I The Ginna site is within the historic range of the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi,), but there

are very few known populations remaining along the south coast of Lake Ontario. The nearest

known populations are in northern Seneca and in western Oswego Counties (NYSDEC 2003c).

Suitable bog turtle habitat is not known to occur on the Ginna Site or its associated

transmission line right-of-way (FWS 2000).

The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalls) is thought to potentially occur in almost all of New York state,

although firm knowledge of the distribution is primarily limited to eight known wintering sites, all

located well east of the Ginna site (NYSDEC 1998). Some studies indicate that, although the

Indiana bat range extends from the west and south across Pennsylvania to eastern New York,

western New York is clearly excluded from the distribution maps (Humphrey 1982; Cope 1999).

Relatively little is known about the summer range or habitat requirements of this species.

I Neither of the two plant species listed in Table 2-3, the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria

medeoloides) and eastern prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera leucophaea), has been observed

I recently in New York state, nor are they likely to be present in the vicinity of the Ginna site. The

I FWS officially lists the small-whorled pogonia as potentially occurring in New York state

(FWS 2002), but the listing documentation for this species indicates only historic records in

I New York state (FWS 1994). The NYSDEC does not list Wayne County in its list of potential

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-24 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

counties of occurrence for the small-whorled pogonia (NYSDEC 2002). The NYSDEC does list

Wayne County as a potential county of occurrence for the eastern prairie fringed orchid, but

also indicates that there are no confirmed occurrences of this species anywhere in New York

state (NYSDEC 2002). The FWS listing documentation for the eastern prairie fringed orchid

also indicates that this species has not been recently observed in New York state (FWS 1989).

Additional species listed by NYSDEC as threatened, endangered, rare, or otherwise of concern

in New York state that are known to occur in Wayne County are listed in Table 2-4. None of

these species is known to occur at Ginna or within the transmission lines right-of-way. The

NYSDEC has also listed numerous additional species that it considers as potentially occurring

in Wayne County (NYSDEC 2002). Because there are no recent records of any of these

additional species from Wayne County, the staff did not consider these further.

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

RG&E conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) at the Ginna site.

Through this program, radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment are

monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards. The objectives of the

REMP are to

. provide representative measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in the

exposure pathways and of the radionuclides that have the highest potential for radiation

exposures to the public

* supplement the radiological effluent monitoring program by verifying that the

measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation are not higher

than expected on the basis of effluent measurements and the modeling of the

environmental exposure pathways.

Radiological releases are summarized in the 2001 Annual Radiological Environmental

Operating Report (RG&E 2001d) and the 2001 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report

(RG&E 2001 b). The limits for all radiological releases are specified in the Ginna ODCM

(RG&E 2002b), and these limits are designed to meet Federal standards and requirements.

The REMP includes monitoring of the aquatic environment (fish, invertebrates, and shoreline

sediment), atmospheric environment (airborne radioiodine, gross beta, and gamma), terrestrial

environment (vegetation), and direct radiation.

January 2004 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-4.

I

Terrestrial Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern That Occur

Within Wayne County, New York

Scientific Name Common Name State Status(')

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata

Clemmys muhlenbergil

Apalone s. spinifera

Birds

Accipiter cooperfi

Accipiter striatus

Botaurus lentiginosus

Caprimulgus vociferus

Charadrius melodus

Childonias niger

Chordeiles minor

Circus cyaneus

Dendroica cerulea

Eremophila alpestris

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Vermivora chrysoptera

spotted turtle

bog turtle

eastern spiny softshell turtle

Cooper's hawk

sharp-shinned hawk

American bittern

whip-poor-will

piping plover

black tern

common nighthawk

northern harrier

cerulean warbler

homed lark

bald eagle

red-headed woodpecker

golden-winged warbler

SC

E

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

E

E

SC

T

SC

SC

T

SC

SC

Mammals

Myotis leibil eastern small-footed myotis SC

Myotis sodafis Indiana bat E

Neotoma magister Allegheny woodrat E

Syvilagus transitionalis New England cottontail SC

Plants

Aster borealis rush aster T

Carex frankil Frank's sedge E

Diplachne maritima salt-meadow grass E

Isotria medeoloides small-whorled pogonia E

Listera australis southern twayblade E

Plantanthera leucophoea eastern prarie fringed orchid E

Sacheuchzeria palustris pod grass R

Scirpus maritimus seaside bulrush E

(a) State status: E = endangered, T = threatened, SC = species of special concern, R = rare.

Source: NYSDEC 2002, 2003b, 2003c.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-26 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

RG&E's review of historical data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that

the doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Ginna have been a small fraction of

the limits specified in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b) to meet EPA radiation standards in

40 CFR Part 190 as required by 10 CFR 20.1301 (d). For 2001, dose estimates were calculated

based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data (RG&E 2001 b). Calculations were

performed by RG&E using the plant effluent release data, onsite meteorological data, and

appropriate pathways identified in the ODCM (RG&E 2002b).

During 2001, Ginna did not release any strontium-90 or strontium-89 in either its gaseous or

liquid effluents. In 1999 and 2000, there were minor gaseous releases of strontium-89

(1.3 x 10- MBq [3.42 x 10-.1 Ci] during 1999 and 6.3 x 104 MBq [1.69 x 10 7 Ci] during 2000).

An assessment of doses to the maximally exposed individual from gaseous and liquid effluents

was performed by RG&E for locations representing the maximum dose. In all cases, doses

were well below the technical specification limits as defined in the ODCM (RG&E 2002b).

During 1999 and 2000, doses had been elevated above 1998 levels due to gaseous effluent

activity from a fuel cladding defect in cycle 28 (May 1999 to October 2000). Following the

repair of the fuel cladding defect in cycle 29, dose levels during 2001 were more consistent with

those in 1998.

The RG&E assessment of radiation dose to the general public from radioactive effluents

assumed a person is located in the vicinity of the National Guard outpost for 10 hours/day,

5 days/week, and 50 weeks/year. Although the National Guard post is just within the site

boundary, it houses non-RG&E employees who are considered "members of the public."

Doses were assessed based on the noble gas exposure, inhalation, ground-plane, and

ingestion pathways.- For 2001, the total body dose was estimated to be 0.048 mSv (4.8 mrem)

total body (0.048 mSv [4.8 mrem] direct radiation plus 1.4 x 10- mSv [1.4 x 10'2 mrem] all other

pathways) and 2.3 x 104 mSv (2.3 x 102 mrem) thyroid (maximum organ dose). The ODCM

(RG&E 2002b) and 40 CFR Part 190 limits for the total dose to members of the public due to

radiation and radioactivity from uranium fuel cycle sources are <0.25 mSv (<25 mrem) total

body or any organ and <0.75 mSv (<75 mrem) thyroid for a calendar year. Therefore, doses

from Ginna are only a fraction of the regulatory limit.

The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the'radioactive effluent releases or

exposures from Ginna operations during the renewal period; therefore, the impacts to the

environment are not expected to change.

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

The staff reviewed the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002a) and information obtained from several county,

city, and economic development staff during a site visit to Wayne and Monroe Counties from

January 2004 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

November 4 through 7, 2002. The following information describes the economy, population,

and communities near Ginna.

2.2.8.1 Housing

Ginna employs approximately 500 people on a full-time basis, with more than 80 percent of the

normal operating workforce composed of RG&E employees. Approximately 48 percent of

these employees (plant and contract employees) live in Wayne County, 44 percent in Monroe

I County, 2.5 percent in Ontario County, and 1.6 percent in Livingston County, with the remainder

living in other locations (Table 2-5). Because approximately 92 percent of the Ginna employees

live in Wayne and Monroe counties and Wayne County is where the plant is located, the focus

of the socioeconomic analysis is on these two counties.

Table 2-5. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Employee and Contractor Employee

Residence by County in New York State

County Number of Personnel Percent of Total Personnel

Wayne 240 48

Monroe 220 44

Ontario 15 3

Livingston 10 2

Other 15 3

Total 500 100

Source: RG&E 2002a

RG&E refuels Ginna on an 18-month cycle. During refueling, the number of employees

increases by as many as 700 temporary workers for a period of 30 to 40 days. These

temporary employees primarily stay at hotels, motels, and temporary rental housing available in

Wayne and Monroe counties (RG&E 2002a).

Table 2-6 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for Wayne and

Monroe counties for 1990 and 2000. Wayne County had approximately 38,800 housing units

in 2000, with a vacancy rate less than 10 percent. Monroe County, which has a larger

population base and a relatively stronger employment market, had a vacancy rate of

approximately 6 percent in 2000 based on a housing stock of approximately 304,400 units

(USCB 2000a). Wayne and Monroe counties are not subject to growth-control measures that

limit housing development.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-28 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-6. Total Occupied and Vacant (Available) Housing Units in Wayne and Monroe

Counties in New York State, 1990 and 2000

1990 2000 Approximate Percent Change

WAYNE COUNTY

Housing Units 35,188 38,767 10

Occupied Units 31,977 34,908 9

Vacant Units 3,211 3,859 20

MONROE COUNTY

Housing Units 285,524 304,388 6

Occupied Units 271,944 286,512 5

Vacant Units 13,580 17,876 32

Sources: USCB 1990,2000a I

Table 2-7 contains data on population, estimated population, and annual population growth

rates for Wayne and Monroe Counties. Both counties saw similar growth in population during

the 1990s.

Table 2-7. Population Growth in Monroe and Wayne Counties in New York State from

1970 to 2020

Monroe County

Percent Change (in

Wayne County

Percent Change (in

Population 10-year Increments) Population 10-year increments)

1970(a) 711,917 - 79,404 _

1980(a) 702,238 (-1.4) 84,581 6.4

1990(a) 713,968 1.7 89,123 5.4

2000(a) 735,343 3.0 93,765 5.2

2010°b 735,708 (est) 0.0 96,931 (est) 3.4

2020'b 742,150 (est) 1.0 98,454 (est) 1.6

- = No data available.

(a) USCB 1995, USCB 2000a

(b) GFLRPC 1997

January 2004 2-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

2.2.8.2 Public Services

Public services include water supply, education, and transportation.

* Water Supply

The water system of Monroe County is organized at a county level by the Monroe County Water

Authority (MCWA), while Wayne County's water system is organized mainly at a town level.

Although there is no available estimate of the percentage of households serviced by private

wells in the two counties, officials from the Ontario Water District estimate that no more than a

dozen households are serviced by private wells. The two counties have five primary surface

potable water sources: Lake Ontario, Hemlock Lake, Canadice Lakes, Third Creek Basin, and

Canadaigua Lake. In addition, Lyons Village purchases water from Junius Ponds in Seneca

County and draws additional water from two wells that are supplied by the Fairport/Lyons

Glacial Stream Channel (RG&E 2002a).

The daily consumption and areas served by the major public water supply districts are listed in

Table 2-8. The primary public water service providers in Wayne County are the Ontario Water

District and the town of Williamson. The Ontario Water District plans to increase the size of its

intake pipes, which would result in a doubling of the intake capacity.

Table 2-8. MajorWa) Public Water Supply Systems in Monroe and Wayne Counties in

New York State

Permitted

Capacity

m3Id (MGD)

5.5 x 105 (145)

Average Daily

Demand

m3/d(MGD)

2.3 x 105 (60)

Water System

MCWA

City of Rochester

Ontario Water

District

Town of

Williamson

Newark

County Source

Monroe Surficial

Aquifer

Monroe Surficial

Aquifer

Wayne Surficial

Aquifer

Wayne Surficial

Aquifer

Wayne Surficial

Aauifer

1.8 x 105 (48) 1.4 x 105 (37)

1.3 x 104 (3.5) 7.2 x IO0 (1.9)

1.5 x 104 (4.0) 6.8 x 103 (1.8)

1.3 x 104 (3.5) 5.3 x 103 (1.4)

Peak Demand

Per Day m3Id

(MGD) Area Served

4.6 x 105 (122) Monroe

County except

for City of

Rochester

1.8 x 105 (46.5) City of

Rochester

1.3 x 10 '(3.5) Town of

Ontario

1.4 x 104 (3.7) Town of

Williamson

7.9 x 103 (2.1) Newark

(a) Only permitted plants with a treatment capacity greater than 3.785 x 103 m3/day (1 MGD) are listed in the table.

I Source: RG&E 2002a. 2002d

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-30 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

The MCWA has a capacity for 585,825 m3/day (145 MGD) with a peak usage of

461,770 ml/day (122 MGD). Presently, the MCWA has enough supply to handle an additional

9200 households. Rochester has its own water system with over 2800 ha (7000 ac) of land in

the watershed around Hemlock and Canadice Lakes. The city is permitted to draw, on

average, 140,045 m3/day (37 MGD), with a maximum daily usage of 181,680 m3/day (48 MGD).

If the city needs supplemental water, it purchases from the MCWA.

Transportation

There are 13 counties wholly or partially within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of Ginna. The

13-county area is served by a network of interstate freeways including Interstate 90 (1-90),

1-390,1-490, and 1-81. In addition to interstate freeways, the region's transportation network

includes an international airport and a train network. The Port of Rochester, at the mouth of the

Genesee River, is also available to a limited number of cargo ships and passenger ferries.

1-90 runs east-west through the region connecting the urban area of Rochester with Buffalo and

Syracuse. 1-390 enters Monroe County from the south and flows into a beltway system that

connects the Rochester suburbs, and 1-81 runs through Syracuse along the east side of the

13 counties bordering Ginna. The main east-west transportation routes providing access to

Ginna are County Route 101 (Lake Road) and NYS Route 104. Lake Road, a two-lane road,

provides direct access to Ginna along much of the southern border of the site. NYS Route 104,

the predominant east-west corridor near the plant, runs parallel to Lake Road, approximately -

5.8 km (3.6 mi) south of Ginna. Ontario Center Road in the town of Ontario runs north-south,

connecting NYS Route 104 to Lake Road immediately south of Ginna. Several other secondary

roads run north-south providing access to Lake Road from NYS Route 104. Employees

commuting from Monroe County and other points west of Ginna are likely to use NYS Routes

104, 441, or 286 to access Lake Road. Employees commuting from the south and east are

likely to use north-south corridors NYS Routes 21 and 350 to reach NYS Route 104, and then

use Ontario Center Road to Lake Road (RG&E 2002a).

State roads are rated with a "volume/capacity ratio," which indicates whether the road is being

actively used over-capacity (value >1.0), at-capacity (value = 1.0), or under-capacity (value

<1.0) (RG&E 2002a). In addition, state roads carryusurface score ratings" ranging from a low

of "1" (impassable) to a high of "10" (new construction). The highest volume/capacity ratio

around Ginna is in Monroe County on a stretch of NYS Route 441 from Route 260 to the

Wayne County line. The volume/capacity ratio for this stretch of road ranges from 0.7 to 1.0,

which indicates the road is just under- or at-capacity., NYS Route 104 in Monroe County

between the Wayne County line and NYS Route 250 has a surface score rating of 5 (i.e., "highpoor' condition), which is the lowest rating of the state roads surrounding Ginna. This is

primarily a reflection of the high volume on this stretch of road due to people working for Xerox

January 2004 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

in Webster and for people commuting to Rochester. In addition, the surface ratings of NYS

Route 350 near Ginna and NYS Route 441 between Route 260 and the Wayne County line are

rated between 5 and 6; however, most of the state road surfaces in the area are rated around 7

(i.e., "good" condition) (RG&E 2002a).

The Greater Rochester International Airport is located in southwest Rochester just off of 1-390,

approximately 32 km (20 mi) from Ginna. A primary passenger railway, operated by Amtrak,

runs east-west approximately 21.6 km (13.5 mi) south of Ginna. In addition, the Ontario

Midland Railroad, a local privately owned "shortline" that feeds into the CSX Transportation

lines, operates both passenger and freight service. The east-west portion of the 'T" runs

approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of Ginna from Webster to Wolcott. The north-south portion of

the track runs from Sodus to Newark, 26 km (16 mi) east of Ginna. RG&E owns a corridor of

property from the railroad mainline track; however, no track has been built on this corridor

(RG&E 2002a).

The Port of Rochester, located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Genesee River, was

decommissioned as a commercial port in 1980. It now is used by only two cruise ships in the

summer. In addition, a cement freighter passes by the Port, but docks farther south on the

I Genesee River at a cement plant (RG&E 2002d). In recent years the City of Rochester has

invested millions of dollars into infrastructure improvements to the port as part of the City's

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The program involves redeveloping about 11 ha

(28 ac) of land and includes the construction of new streets, pedestrian amenities, a new

bridge, boat marinas, and infrastructure to support a high-speed ferry operation between

Rochester and Toronto, Canada (City of Rochester 2002).

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

Wayne and Monroe Counties are located along Lake Ontario's south shore. The Genesse

Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council produces an annual report that contains land-use

coverage data based on remote sensing satellite imagery. The results of the 1999 study are

found in Table 2-9 (GFLRPC 2001). The Council notes that eastern Monroe and western

Wayne Counties are among the fastest growing areas in the region. The following are

discussions of land use in each of these two counties.

* Wayne County

Wayne County is rich in agriculture, with approximately 840 farms present in 1997. Although

the acreage used in farming dropped from 77,423 ha (191,309 ac) to 67,662 ha (167,190 ac)

between 1987 and 1997, the county ranks forty-third nationwide in the number of acres

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-32 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-9. Land Use in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York State

Wayne County Monroe County

Square Square Percent of Square Square Percent of

Land Use Kilometers Miles Total Kilometers Miles Total

Water 29.5 11.4 2.0 20.9 8.1 1.0

Urban/Built Up 11.1 4.3 1.0 125.6 48.5 7.0

Forested Areas 821.7 317.4 52.0 517.8 200.0 30.0

Fields 722.1 278.9 45.0 1061.5 410.0 62.0

Total 1584.4 612.0 100.0 1725.8 666.6 100.0

Source: GFLRPC 2001

dedicated to orchards (255 farms). Other primary crops include corn (358 farms), hay and

other grains (342 farms), beef and milk cows (223 farms), oats, potatoes, and vegetables. The

land within 8-km (5-mi) radius of Ginna is used principally for growing apples, cherries, grapes,

and field crops (RG&E 2002a).

Most of the Wayne County land that is farmland, pastures, grassland, and other areas of nonforested vegetation would be included in the 'Fields" category in Table 2-9. The amount of land

made up of low-density, large-lot residential developments has increased in recent years, '

particularly along the west side of the county within a short commute distance from Rochester.

There has been relatively little retail or commercial growth. This is also evident from the annual

land use census conducted by RG&E to determine land-use changes and identify the nearest

gardens and locations of milk animals used for commercial production within 8 km (5 mi) of the

station (RG&E 2002d). The NYS Route 104 corridor has been the primary conduit for this

growth. In Table 2-9, residential land would be part of the land use categories "Forested

Areas," which are all areas with moderate to dense tree coverage, and "Urban/Built Up" land,

which includes developed areas as well as roads and parking lots (GFLRPC 2001).

Wayne County is composed of 15 towns, each with'an elected Town Supervisor. According to

Wayne County Department of Development, the Wayne County towns abutting Lake Ontario do

not have any restrictive ordinances placed on growth and development, and there is no reason

to suspect that there will be'limitations placed on building in the vicinity of Ginna in the

foreseeable future (RG&E 2002a).

* Monroe County

Monroe County is more developed and industrialized than Wayne County and is home to

Rochester, the third largest city in New York State. Monroe County comprises 19 towns,

10 villages, and the city of Rochester. The New York State Constitution grants all cities, towns,

January 2004 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

and villages the right of Mhome-rule" power; therefore, county-level, land-use planning is very

limited. The county sees its role as very minimal in land-use planning and does not have any

restrictions to growth. Recently, however, Monroe County provided $2 million from a tobacco

settlement to leverage other local and state funding for the purpose of open space preservation.

The suburban towns, however, must initiate the open space actions (RG&E 2002a).

The town of Webster in eastern Monroe County is the fastest growing municipality in the

county. It had 14 major projects out of 123 major projects proposed in Monroe County in 2001.

The town issued 227 building permits, which accounted for 16 percent of all permits issued in

Monroe County that year. Townhouses and apartments comprised 57 percent of these permits

(RG&E 2002d). Lot sizes for single family residences are a minimum of about 0.2 ha (0.5 ac),

but the average size is 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) because of the lack of sewer systems. Recently, the

town of Webster defeated a ballot measure that would have provided funds to preserve

1214 ha (3000 ac) as open space, although there is an ongoing effort to identify and retain farm

properties in agriculture using tax incentives with the purchase of development rights. The

MCWA is planning to expand capacity on the east side of the county with a new intake line into

Lake Ontario.(a)

The city of Rochester has declined in population over the last two decades, due to declining

household size and movement to the suburbs. No restrictions on growth are in place in

Rochester. The town of Webster, which is the town closest to Ginna in Monroe County, passed

a comprehensive plan to control building zones and development in 1998; however, there are

no growth control measures in place (RG&E 2002a).

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

Ginna is located in Wayne County just off the south shore of Lake Ontario. The Ginna site

occupies an area of 197 ha (488 ac) and includes 0.6 km (1.5 mi) of shoreline. The topography

of the site is either flat or gently rolling. The land in the area increases in elevation to the south,

from about 78 m (255 ft) above mean sea level (msl) near the edge of the lake; to 134 m

(440 ft) at Ridge Road about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) south of the plant; to 488 m (1600 ft) at the

northern edge of the Appalachian Plateau, about 56 km (35 mi) to the south. Southward from

NYS Route 104, the terrain progressively roughens, with a series of small abrupt hills

commencing about 16 km (10 mi) south of the site (RG&E 2002a).

Surface-water features onsite include Mill Creek, which enters the site from the south, and Deer

Creek, which enters the site from the west. Both creeks join southwest of the plant and empty

into Lake Ontario just east of the plant. The general plant area is relatively well drained, with no

(a) Discussion with Gary Kleist, Commissioner of Public Works, Webster, New York (October 6, 2002).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-34 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

topographic basins or swampy areas onsite. Approximately half of the site is leased and

currently being used for agricultural production, primarily apple orchards and, to a lesser

degree, corn and hay fields. Another quarter of the site has been left relatively undisturbed,

having a combination of open fields, shrub brush, and trees. The remaining quarter of the site

has been developed for the power station and ancillary facilities, with about 104 ha (256 ac)

enclosed within the security fences (RG&E 2002a).

Approaching from the south on State Road 350, the Ginna site is not visible until approximately

1 km (0.6 mi) from the main entrance of the site. The view of the plant is fairly well blocked by

woods and vegetation from the southwest and southeast. However, the transmission lines from

the plant are visible from greater distances due to their elevation.

From Lake Ontario, the plant is visible from the north with limited visibility directly east and west.

Many upscale homes have been built on Lake Ontario, but few are in sight of the plant. The

lights from the plant, however, are noticeable to residents along the lake several miles from the

plant, particularly in the winter when the light is reflected off snow on the ground. Noise from

Ginna, at locations on the plant site, is barely noticeable except very close to the reactor

containment building.

The immediate area around the site is rural. There are no substantial population centers,

industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a 4.8-km (3.0-mi) radius of

Ginna, and the only recreational facility within this radius is the Bear Creek boat ramp, about

2.4 km (1.5 mi) from the site. The largest municipality within 16 km (10 mi) of Ginna is

Webster, located in Monroe County, and approximately 11 km (7 mi) west-southwest of Ginna.

Webster Park, a 223-ha (550-ac) Monroe County park on the south shore of Lake Ontario, is

approximately 10 km (6 mi) west of the site. The nearest wildlife refuge is the Montezuma

Wetlands Complex, located approximately 56 km (35 mi) from the Ginna site, in southeastern

Wayne County. This complex is composed of 15,000 ha (36,000 ac) of marshes, forested

wetlands, old fields, meadows, farm fields, and woodlands under Federal, State, and private

control (RG&E 2002a).

2.2.8.5 Demography

* Resident Population Within 80 km (50 ml)

Population was estimated from the Ginna site out to 80 km (50 mi) in 16-km (10-mi) annular

rings. An estimated 581,745 people live within 32 km (20 mi) of Ginna, and 1.25 million people

live within 80 km (50 mi) (USCB 2000b). The largest population center within a portion of the

16-km (10-mi) area is Webster (town population 37,926 and village population of 5216)

(USCB 2000b). Between 1990 and 2000, the Wayne County population grew by about

January 2004 2-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

5 percent (which was the same growth rate as New York State during these years). The

Monroe County population grew by about 3 percent.

* Workforce

The economy in Wayne County is much more closely linked to Ginna activities than Monroe

County, as RG&E is one of the largest employers in Wayne County and pays more in property

tax than any other single tax paying entity. The largest employer in Wayne County is the

county government itself. In addition to the county and Ginna, most other larger employers are

moderately sized manufacturing plants, including Garlock (manufacturing gaskets, seals, and

rubber goods), Parker Hannifin Corporation (manufacturing refrigeration and air-conditioning

products), and IEC Electronics (assembling electronic parts for computers) (WCEDC 1996).

The Ames department stores were also a major employer in the area until their closure in 2002.

This closure is expected to have a negative impact on the economy of Wayne County, not only

because of the loss of employment from its three stores, but also because it was one of the

primary sources of sales tax revenue in the county. Wayne County has relatively few sources

of sales tax revenue, as most of the larger retail centers are found in neighboring counties. The

Wayne County economy is also struggling with the recent downsizing of IEC Electronics which

went from 1300 employees in 1996 to approximately 200 in 2002.(a)

One factor that could potentially counter some of the negative impact from recent business

closures and downsizing in Wayne County is its recent designation as an 'Empire Zone" by the

State of New York. The Empire Zone classification entitles the county to reduce certain State

taxes on businesses that choose to site themselves in the county. The State also provides, as

part of its Empire Zone program, a certain amount of funding to the county to attract new

businesses to the area.(a)

Table 2-10 presents information on the major employment sectors and number of employees

for Wayne and Monroe counties.

* Transient Populations

During the summer months, the lakeside population increases by about 500 people within a

8-km (5-mi) radius of the plant site and by about 4000 people within a 32-km (20-mi) radius.

The nearest group of houses are summer cottages located 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west of the site.

Other than the summertime residents of the area, there are no large groups of transients within

8 km (5 mi) of Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

(a) Discussion with Jim Armstrong, Wayne County Economic Development Corporation

(November 4, 2002).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-36 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-10. Major Employment Sectors in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York

State (2000)

Number of Employees

Employment Sector Wayne Monroe

Services 15,280 150,960

Retail trade 7,400 60,380

Manufacturing 7,400 81,140

Agriculture 1,780 11,320

Construction 1,020 13,440

Other 13,860 43,930

Unemployed 2,560 16,230

Total jobs - full- and part-time 49,300 377,400

Source: RG&E 2002a

* Migrant Labor

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural

crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers

may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural

areas. Others may be permanent residents near Ginna who travel from farm' to farm harvesting

crops.

Migrant workers can be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel

and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant

workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would

be "underrepresented" in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low-income population

counts (RG&E 2002a).

Wayne County does have a migrant labor population, with most of these workers arriving after

May and staying through October, primarily for the apple-picking season. Approximately

115 farm-worker camps of five or more persons are scattered throughout Wayne County, with

a total population of about 4400 workers. Information from Rural New York Farmworker

Opportunities shows that there are about 12 camps with about 130 migrant workers located in

the vicinity of the Ginna site (RG&E 2002a).

The majority of the migrant farm laborers in rural New York state come from Mexico and speak

Spanish. In addition, there are several hundred Haitian workers, and other workers come from

January 2004 2-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries in the Caribbean and Central

America. There are also some African-American migrant workers who come to New York state

from Florida.(a)

There are an estimated 1000 children of migrant workers, ranging in age from infants to 21,

who qualify for the migrant education program in Wayne County. Some workers and their

families are in the county for as long as 9 months, but the vast majority are present for a

relatively short time (usually from the end of August until October). Also, there are some

seasonal (as opposed to migratory) workers who live in Wayne County all year and work on the

farms doing many of the same seasonal tasks as the migrant workers.(,

2.2.8.6 Taxes

Property taxes are used to fund schools, police and fire protection, road maintenance, and

other municipal services. Property taxes may be levied by counties, cities, towns, villages,

school districts, and special districts. Ginna is located in the town of Ontario, Wayne County,

and the Wayne Central School District. RG&E tax payments for Ginna to these jurisdictions are

detailed in Table 2-11. Tax payments for Ginna averaged 13.2 percent of the total revenue

collected and 37.2 percent of total property taxes for Ontario for the period from 1995 to 2001

(RG&E 2002a).(c) Ginna accounted for a smaller proportion of the Wayne County total revenue,

an average of 2.0 percent of the total revenue and 6.4 percent of total property taxes for the

I same period (RG&E 2002a). Ginna accounted for an average of 11.7 percent of the total

I revenue and 26.1 percent of the total school levy amount for the period 1995 through 2001 for

I the Wayne Central School District (WCSD 2003).

Over time, tax payments from Ginna constitute a decreasing percentage of each taxing entity's

revenues and budgets. RG&E expects this trend to continue into the future, and with respect to

the town of Ontario and Wayne Central School District, this trend is approaching a level that is

(a) Cornell Migrant Program. Personal communications (e-mail) with Kay Embrey, Senior Extension

Associate, Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University,

Alton, New York (October 30, 2002).

(b) Cornell Migrant Program. Personal communications (e-mail) with Kay Embrey, Senior Extension

Associate, Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University,

Alton, New York (October 30, 2002).

(c) Tax payments for Ginna as a percentage of the town budget would be significantly higher than

percentage of total revenue, as the total revenue includes fees collected for dedicated funds, such

as the water fund and debt service. In 2001, the town of Ontario's budget for items supported by

taxes totaled $3.9 million dollars. The total amount paid by RG&E for Ginna to the town was

$700,000 or approximately 18 percent of the budget (Discussion with Richard Clark, Town of Ontario

Supervisor, November 6, 2002.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-38 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

10 percent or less of the taxing jurisdiction's total revenue. In an agreement with the three

taxing jurisdictions, the assessed value of the facility will be reduced by $13 million per year

through 2009. While this reduction does not directly translate to a percentage reduction in

taxes, it does suggest that these levels will continue to decline, as shown in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11. Property Taxes Paid to the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, and Wayne

Central School District in New York State by RG&E for R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant

Property Tax Paid

Total Property for Ginna Station Percent of Total Total Percent of Total

Year Tax Revenues ($) ($) Property Taxes Revenue ($) Revenue

WAYNE COUNTY

1995 25,637,215 1,977,607 7.7 79,315,166 2.5

1996 26,040,581 1,767,004 6.8 80,650,726 2.2

1997 26,012,141 1,661,234 6.4 82,669,765 2.0

1998 25,923,815 1,599,601 6.2 84,526,663 1.9

1999 - 25,504,000 1,597,823 6.3 85,934,651 1.9

2000 26,911,005 1,634,372 6.1 88,697,549 1.8

2001 27,198,909 1,489,193 5.5 92,486,009 1.6

TOWN OF ONTARIO

1995 1,489,983 720,503 48.5 4,868,418 14.8

1996 1,772,832 683,209 38.5 5,105,070 13.4

1997 1,984,839 731,959 36.9 5,413,726 13.5

1998 2,i 19,847 765,647 36.1 5,552,530 13.8

1999 2,174,857 764,523 35.2 5,923,504 12.9

2000 2,224,925 749,000 33.7 5,889,192 12.7

2001 2,225,607 704,898 31.7 6,182,603 11.4

WAYNE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

1995 11,044,505 3,270,099 29.6 24,291,560 13.5

1996 11,338,181 3,172,118 28.0 25,320,035 12.5

1997 11,627,181 3,183,220 27.4 25,129,910 12.7

1998 11,806,820 3,165,620 26.8 27,692,260 11.6

1999 12,216,050 3,105,391 25.4 29,821,750 10.4

2000 13,376,050 3,170,478 23.7 30,672,350 10.4

2001 14,512,925 3,182,172 21.9 30,208,925 10.5

Sources: RG&E 2002a, WCSD 2003

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

There is relatively little tax revenue generation from sales tax in Wayne County due to the low

number of retail centers in the county. The tax revenue generated by property taxes makes up

January 2004 2-39;' NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

a significant portion of the overall revenue generated by Wayne County and the town of

Ontario. Despite the fact that most property in the county is used for agricultural purposes,

most of the property tax revenue comes from the residential sector (nearly 70 percent). The tax

revenue generated by Ginna alone makes up about 6 percent of property tax revenues, while

all other commercial properties generate approximately 10 percent of the property revenues for

the county.(a)

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section discusses the historic and archaeological background of the Ginna site and the

surrounding area.

2.2.9.1 Historic and Archaeological Background

There is evidence that Native American populations lived and foraged in what is now Wayne

County from at least 10,000 B.C. until they were displaced by Euro-American populations in the

late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Secor 1987). However, known archaeological

sites are sparse in the area immediately south of Lake Ontario. In most periods, this area

seems to have been used temporarily for hunting, gathering, and fishing. Larger, more

permanent settlements tended to be located farther south.

Paleoindian hunters appear to have been attracted to the tundra and spruce woodland

environment characteristic of the area by the presence of large game animals such as

mammoth and bison. They preferred to make their hunting camps on well-drained hills or rises.

The fluted chipped stone projectile points that mark this period have been found near Savannah

in southeastern Wayne County (Secor 1987). By 8000 B.C., deciduous forests associated with

smaller game had spread into the area around Lake Ontario. Early and Middle Archaic (7000 to

4000 B.C.) populations adapted to these new resources by taking a wider variety of game and

by using a greater variety of smaller stone tools. By the end of the Middle Archaic (4000 B.C.),

the area was part of the Lake-Forest biome and the associated Lake-Forest culture area. At

this time, fishing and forest hunting and gathering provided the subsistence base for small,

mobile bands. This more efficient exploitation of the environment allowed Archaic groups to

remain in larger camps for longer periods of time (Funk 1978). By 3000 B.C., the area around

Lake Ontario was home to essentially modern fauna. Archaeological sites from the period yield

thick, parallel-sided projectile points and, by 3000 B.C., ground stone axes and adzes. During

the Late Archaic Meadowood Phase (4000 to 1500 B.C.), small habitation sites with circular

(a) Discussion with Robert Diener, Director of Real Property Tax Service, Wayne County, New York

(November 4, 2002).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-40 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

houses are found along sizable streams, suggesting the continuing'dependence of small bands

on fishing (Tuck 1978a).

The appearance of pottery at about 1000 B.C. marks the onset of the Early Woodland Period

(1000 B.C. to A.D. 100). Experiments with plant domestication, greater sedentism, and larger

settlements characterize this period. The typical Early Woodland settlement pattern is one of

larger base settlements and dispersed smaller camps associated with the seasonal exploitation

of specific resources. The evidence from Wayne County suggests small-scale hunting and

fishing camps. Larger settlements were located farther south and to the west along the

Genesee River (Versaggi 1999).

During the Middle Woodland Period (A.D. 100 to 1000), intensive hunting and fishing continued

in the Lake-Forest Zone, with an emphasis on fishing. Horticulture based on maize, beans, and

squash was introduced to the area by A.D. 1000 and was practiced along with foraging. The

earliest horticultural villages that have been discovered still retain good access to streams and

other water sources.

During the Late Woodland Period, the antecedents of the historical Iroquois tribes begin to

emerge out of the Middle Woodland traditions. The Owasco phases begin around 1000 and

the Iroquois phases begin around 1350. The Seneca appear to have developed in an area

stretching from the Genesee River Valley to Seneca Lake that reaches north to Lake Ontario

including Wayne County. Beginning with small, seasonally occupied campsites situated on

knolls and terraces along the Genesee River, the increased reliance on horticulture led to the

consolidation of settlement into larger, palisaded, hilltop hamlets after 1350 (Niemczycki 1984).

These semi-sedentary villages included longhouse-like dwellings, thought to have provided

communal shelter for extended, 'probably matrilineal families (Tuck 1978b), and cemeteries.

Archaeological investigations along the Genesee River suggest a post-1450 settlement pattern

composed of pairs of large agricultural villages located well south of the lake that changed

location about every 20 years, associated with a large number of smaller special-use camps

(Wray et al. 1991).

By 1550, five Iroquois nations, including the Seneca and their eastern neighbors the Cayuga,

had formed a league or confederacy. After European contact, the Iroquois became increasingly

dependent on European metal goods, which they obtained through trade for furs. After

depleting the supply of beaver in their own lands, the Iroquois sought to control the fur trade

passing through their lands. They actively resisted the activities of French fur traders along the

Great Lakes, expanded their control over neighboring Native American groups, and sent war

parties great distances to take captives and to maintain control of trade routes and trade

(Abrams 1976). In 1687, the French reacted by burning the main Seneca villages.: The Seneca

sought refuge with the Cayuga and eventually established more dispersed communities closer

January 2004 2-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

to the Cayuga, east of the Genesee Valley and west of Canandaigua Lake, well inland from

Lake Ontario (Niemczycki 1984).

The Iroquois' enmity with the French caused them to ally with the British, whom they supported

in colonial conflicts. Initial agreements with British colonial governments recognized the claims

of six Iroquois nations to northwestern Pennsylvania and western New York. Constant warfare

with European powers and an influx of smallpox eventually diminished the Seneca population.

During the American Revolution, the Iroquois were initially neutral, but eventually sided with the

British. The colonies sent troops into western New York to subdue the Iroquois League. The

Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 acknowledged the American victory but reserved for the Iroquois

much of western New York. About a third of the reserve, including the Wayne County area,

I was acquired by Oliver Phelps and Nathaniel Gorham in 1787, thus opening up the area to

Euro-American settlement. By 1797, the Seneca had lost control of all but 11 relatively small

parcels of their land. By 1802, when their lands had been further reduced, the Seneca had

become increasingly Americanized. Longhouses no longer marked their settlements, and

individuals began to own land. The number of Seneca in western New York further declined as

I a result of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, but a core population remained. Today, they own

four reservations in New York state (Abrams 1976).

Euro-American settlement increased dramatically after the Revolutionary War. At the

conclusion of the war, both Massachusetts and New York held territorial claims to western

New York state. In a compromise settlement, Massachusetts relinquished claims to

sovereignty over territory in exchange for the authority to sell the right to acquire land from the

Iroquois. Phelps and Gorham purchased these rights for a large section of western New York.

They had the land surveyed and divided into tracts for sale, and then sold their rights to this

area to the Pultney of London Company in 1801 (Scully-Hill 1993). The first Euro-American

settlers arrived in the Wayne County area in 1789. Finding the area thickly forested, they first

settled along the lakeshore. Lake Ontario served as their main transportation route until the

Erie Canal was built in 1823. The town of Ontario was formed in 1807, and Wayne County was

formed in 1823.

Lakeshore property, such as that now occupied by Ginna, was the first to be settled and

cleared. Although the area was eventually farmed, small-scale industry arose along the lake

during the clearing process. Noah Fuller discovered a salt spring on Smoky Point, and salt

production began there in 1810 (McIntosh 1975). With plenty of wood for fuel, brick kilns are

said to have been located in the same vicinity, where bricks were produced for the Brick Church

located on Ontario Center Road about a mile south of Ginna.(') Hematite deposits that crop out

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with Ray Todd, Ontario Historical and Landmark Preservation

Society, Ontario, New York (November 6, 2002).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-42 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

south of the Ginna site between Lake Road and Ridge Road were first recognized in 1811.

Surface mining and iron production were underway in the area by 1820. The first blast furnace

was built in 1835. The large Furnaceville Iron Company furnace went into production in 1880.

This new large furnace triggered a mining boom. Ontario became a mining town and remained

so until the end of World War I. The pits left from the mining activity filled with water and

served as reservoirs until 1953. Hematite continued to be mined as pigment for a local paint

mill until 1948 (Scully-Hill 1993). The transmission line right-of-way from Ginna appears to pass

through the mining area before reaching Substation 204. After the decline of mining and iron

production, Ontario returned to its rural character, which it retains today.

In the early part of the 20th century, during the Country Place Era of American architecture, the

stretch of shoreline now occupied by Ginna attracted Rochester residents seeking a summer

retreat. Beginning as early as 1907, at least 11 summer cottages, known as the Gates Grove

Cottages, were built along the lakeshore on the western end of the Ginna property. The area is

currently wooded, and three cottages remain. In 1913, Laura Ellwanger, daughter-in-law of

prominent Rochester businessman and horticulturalist George Herman Ellwanger, purchased

approximately 31 ha (77 ac), on which she built a summer residence called Brookwood. The

estate included a Tudor Revival "manor house," a carriage house, pool, extensive gardens, and

other out-buildings.(a)

The Brookwood Estate, the neighboring Bailey Farm, and adjacent parcels were acquired by

RG&E for the site of a nuclear power plant in 1958 (Hammer 1967). Ground was broken for

Ginna (initially called Brookwood) in 1966. The plant was substantially completed in 1969 and

became operational in 1970. Most of the structures constructed for the plant are located on the

former Bailey Farm.

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Ginna Site

Ginna is currently located on a 197-ha (488-ac) parcel of land on the shores of Lake Ontario.

Roughly a quarter of the land has been developed for the power plant itself and ancillary

structures. About half the land is leased for agricultural use, and the remaining quarter has

been left relatively undisturbed and consists of open fields, shrub-brush, and trees. Two

streams, Deer Creek and Mill Creek, drain the area and empty into the lake just east of the

plant. These resources are likely to have made this part of Wayne County attractive for human

use in both prehistoric and historic times. While no archaeological sites have been recorded at

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with C. Howk, Landmark Society of Western New York, Rochester,

New York (January 9, 2003).

January 2004 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Ginna, archaeological sites have been found along both creeks in relative proximity to the site.

The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) states that the Ginna property is

located in an archaeologically sensitive area.(a)

I Iroquoian Native American tribes were contacted to determine the area's traditional cultural

I importance (Appendix C). Of these, the Seneca Nation of New York responded. The Seneca

consider the location and area of the Ginna site to be part of their traditional range and to be

culturally highly sensitive (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

I During 1958, RG&E acquired 137 ha (338 ac) for the construction of Ginna. During planning

and construction of the plant, care was taken to preserve the rural character of the area. The

Brookwood Manor House, four original farm houses with barns located along Lake Road, and

the Gates Grove Cottages were preserved. The SHPO considers the Brookwood Estate to

I embody the distinctive characteristics of the Country Place Era and to be potentially eligible for

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The four farms on Lake Road all

appear on the 1858 plat of the area and were initially occupied by pioneer Ontario families. The

Bailey Farm belonged to the Hodges family, which first arrived in Ontario in 181 1, while the

remaining farms came to be owned by the Gates family, who came to Ontario as early as 1816.

The existing farm houses range in date from 1866 to 1920 (Kemmet 2002). In the opinion of

the SHPO, the farms are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The Gates Grove Cottages are

not owned by RG&E, although it does own the property. These cottages are likewise not

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP.(a)

There are two historic properties in the town of Ontario currently listed on the NRHP. Brick

Church Corners, also known as Ontario Heritage Square, is a historic district located at the

intersection of Brick Church and Ontario Center Roads about a mile south of Ginna, and just

east of the transmission line right-of-way. This 121-ha (300-ac) district includes eight early- to

mid-i 9th-century structures. The second is the First Presbyterian Church of Ontario Center

located 4.8 km (3 mi) south of Ginna at 1638 Ridge Road in Ontario Center. It is noted for its

period (1900 to 1924) Tudor Revival architecture. Three other historic sites, located between

1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 mi) from Ginna, may be eligible for listing on the NRHP: the Albright

School (SHPO Al 17-08-002), Bear Creek Harbor (SHPO Al 17-08-0026), and Furnaceville

(SHPO Al 17-08-00 28).(b) These sites are all associated with the development of the

community of Ontario.

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with Nancy Todd, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and

Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York (December 27, 2002).

(b) Personal communication (letter) with Wayne Boyko, Rochester Museum and Science Center,

Rochester, New York (January 13, 2003).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-44 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

operation of Ginna during the license renewal term. Any such activities could result in

cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a

cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.

There are two major Federal projects planned for the region. In November 2001, the

U.S. Congress approved funding for the Port of Rochester Harbor and Ferry Terminal Project,

locally known as the "fast ferry." The Port of Rochester is located approximately 24 km (15 mi)

west of the Ginna site. According to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who secured the

funding in the U.S. House of Representatives, the monies will be spent for harbor and port

construction and to pay for a portion of the terminal services for the ferry service and cruise and

excursion services. Congress also approved spending money on the planned Center of

Excellence in Photonics and Optoelectronics to be located in Rochester. The Center will

combine Federal, State, and private monies and will focus on developing technology transfer

and pilot fabrication facilities for imaging and communications devices that can be shared

between Center partners (including Kodak, Xerox, Coming, the University of Rochester, and the

Rochester Institute of Technology). There is also a Federally owned wildlife preserve discussed

in Section 2.2.5.

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the Ginna plant, the staff determined that

there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.

NRC is required under Section 102 of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to consult withand obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise

with respect to any environmental impact involved. NRC consulted with the FWS. Consultation

correspondence is included in Appendix E.

2.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

January 2004 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

'Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

Abrams, G. H. J. 1976. The Seneca People. Indian Tribal Series: Phoenix, Arizona.

American Nuclear Society (ANS). 1992. Controlled Nuclear Chain Reaction: The First

50 Years. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.

City of Rochester. 2002. uPort of Rochester Request for Qualifications." City of Rochester

Economic Development Department. Accessed at

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/edd/portrfq/pdf on January 6, 2003.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[FWPCA] of 1977)

Cope, J. B. 1999. 'Indiana Bat.' In Wilson, D. E. and S. Ruff, ed. The Smithsonian Book of

North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dames and Moore. 1971. Terrestrial Biological Survey, Nuclear Power Plant Site and

Environs, Ginna Nuclear Power Station. Ontario, New York.

Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

I Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-46 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Funk, R. F. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Adaptations.' Handbook of North American Indians,

Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger, Washington, D.C.

Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (GFLRPC). 1997. U1997 County and

Subcounty population Projections." Accessed at http://www.gflrpc.org/DTRCenter/1 997.html on

January 7, 2003.

Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (GFLRPC). 2001. Genesee Finger Lakes

RegionalPlanning Council2001AnnualReport. Rochester, New York.

Hammer, S. 1967. The RG&E Story, Vol.2, The Ginna Years. Christopher Press, Rochester,

New York.

Hoyle, J. A., and T. Schaner. 2002. Lake Ontario Offshore Benthic Fish Community. In Lake

Ontario Management Unit 2001 Annual Report. Lake Ontario Committee Meeting, Great Lakes

Fishery Commission. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Available at:

http://www.glfc.orgAakecomIloc/mgmtunit/index.html.

Humphrey, S. R. 1982. "Bats." Wild Mammals of North America, Biology, Management, and

Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds., Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore, Maryland.

Indian Removal Act of 1830. Ch. CXLVIII, 7 Stat. 411(1830).

Kemmet, K. 2002. 'Real Estate-NRC Re-Licensing.' Memorandum from Ken Kemmet

(Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Rochester, New York) to G. Wrobel (Rochester Gas

and Electric Corporation, Ontario, New York), November 15, 2002.

Kraft, C., and C. Carothers. 2002. The Lake Ontario Salmon Fishery. Cornell Cooperative

Extension and NY Sea Grant, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Itheca,

New York. Available at: http:l/www.dnr.cornell.edu/extlfish/salmon.html

McIntosh, W. H. 1975. History of Wayne County, New York. Dendron Press, Pultneyville,

New York.

Mitchell, K. and L. Maybee. 2002. "Comments on 67 FR 63171-R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant." E-mail from K. Mitchell and L. Maybee (Seneca Nation of New York, Irving, New York)

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), December 11, 2002.

January 2004 2-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
-

Plant and the Environment

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

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1998. Indiana Bat

Fact Sheet. Accessed at

http://www.dec.stagte.ny.us/weebsite/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/inbafs.html on January 7, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2001. Letter from

NYSDEC to M.E. Dangler (RG&E) regarding hazardous waste compliance inspection. Avon,

New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2002. New York Rare

Plant Status List, May 2002. Ed. by S. M. Young, New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany,

New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. List of

Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish and Wildlife Species of New York State.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine

Resources. Accessed at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/etsclist.html on January 22, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. New York

State Breeding Bird Atlas Project 2000. Accessed at http://www.dec.sgtate.ny.us/apps/bba/

index.html on January 7, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. New York

State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project 1990-1999. Accessed at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/herp/ on January 7, 2003.

Niemczycki, M. A. P. 1984. The Origin and Development of the Seneca and Cayuga Tribes of

New York State. Research Record No. 17, Research Division, Rochester Museum and Science

Center, Rochester, New York.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. uEcoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map

(Scale 1:7500000)." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1): 118-125.

Ramsdell, J. V. and G. L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatology in the Contiguous United

States. NUREG/CR-4461, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 42 USC 6901 et seq.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-48 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1972. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Unit No. 1, Environmental Report, Vol. 1. Docket No. 50-244. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). - 1977. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 316(a)

Demonstration Supplement. NPDES Permit No. 070 02 2 000079 (NY 0000493), RG&E Report

No. BP-13-043, Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1995. Electric Transmission Right-Of-Way

Management Plan. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001 a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant,

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Rev 16. April 2001. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001 b. 2001 Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. Docket No. 50-244. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001c. The 2001 Hazardous Waste

Regulatory Fee Information (form) to New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001 d. 2001 Annual Radiological

Environmental Operating Report, R.E Ginna Nuclear Plant. Docket No. 50-244. Rochester,

New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E- Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant:

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Revision 17. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002c. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix A - Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report Supplement. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002d. Letter dated December 23, 2002,

from R. C. McCready (RG&E) to R. Schaaf (NRC) submitting additional information following

the site visit to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. Rochester, New York. (Accession

No. ML030140009).

January 2004 2-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

Schaner, T., J. N. Bowlby, M. E. Daniels, and B. F. Lantry. 2002. Lake Ontario Offshore

Pelagic Fish Community. In Lake Ontario Management Unit 2001 Annual Report. Lake Ontario

Committee Meeting, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto,

Canada. Available at http://www.glfc.org.lakecom/loc/mgmt-unit/index.html.

Scully-Hill, Virginia. 1993. Ontario's History 1807-1993 as Preserved at Heritage Square,

Ontario, New York. Empire State Weeklies, Ontario, New York.

Secor, H. 1987. Pre-history of the Savannah, New YorkArea 9000 B.C. to 1700 A.D. Wayne

County Historical Society, Lyons, New York.

Tuck, J. A. 1978a. 'Regional Cultural Development: 3000-300 B.C." Handbook of North

American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger,

Washington, D.C.

Tuck, J. A. 1978b. 'Northern Iroquoian Prehistory." Handbook of North American Indians,

Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation. Docket No. 50-244. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and

Housing, Summary Tape file 1. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov on January 6, 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. New York Population of Counties by Decennial Census:

1900 to 1990. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ny190090.txt on

January 6, 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 2000, Table DP-1.

Profile of General Demographic characteristics. Accessed at

http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ny.html on April 9, 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. "Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1) 100 Percent

Data." Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet on

April 9, 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003a. Green Book, Nonattainment Areas for

Criteria Pollutants. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oarloaqps/greenbkl on January 9, 2003.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-50 January 2004
Plant and the Environment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003b. Number of Days with AQI Values

Greater Than 100 at Trend Sites, 1991-2000, and All Sites in 2000. Accessed at

http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtmd00/pdffiles/aqiall.pdf on January 15, 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1989. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Determination of Threatened Status for Eastern and Western Prairie Fringed Orchids." Federal

Register, Vol. 54, 39857 - 39863, September 28, 1989.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Final Rule to Reclassify the Plant Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) from

Endangered to Threatened." Federal RegisterVol. 59, 50852 - 50857, October 6,1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Guidelines for Bog Turtle Surveys. Pennsylvania

Field Office, State College, Pennsylvania. August 30, 2000 Revision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping

Plover." Federal RegisterVol. 66,22938-22969, May 7, 2001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from D. A. Stilwell (FWS) to P. M. Sawyko

(RG&E). 25 February 2002.

U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). 2002. Climatology of the

United States No. 81, Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and

Cooling Degree Days, 1971-2000, 30 New York (revision date February 2002). National

Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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.

Versaggi, N. M. 1999. Regional Diversity within the Early Woodland of the Northeast."

Northeast Anthropology, 57: 45-56.

January 2004 2-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Plant and the Environment

I Wayne Central School District (WCSD). 2003. Information regarding WCSD tax levies, E-mail

I from Greg Atseff (WCSD) to Katherine Cort (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

I November 5, 2003.

Wayne County Economic Development Corporation (WCEDC). 1996. Wayne County Strategic

Economic Development Plan. Prepared by Nutter Associates, Lyons, New York.

Wray, C. F., M. L. Sempowski, and L. P. Saunders. 1991. Tram and Cameron: Two Early

Contact Era Seneca Sites. Research Record No. 21, Research Division, Rochester Museum

and Science Center, Rochester, New York.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-52 January 2004
3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic

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

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then 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:

(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 characteristic.

(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 supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and

significant information is identified.

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

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

License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type,

of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.

Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, -are Category 2

issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.

(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.

January 2004 3-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SURFACE-WATER QUALuTY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment 3.5

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 3.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3;

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

Category 1 and Category 2 issues not applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

(Ginna) are listed in Appendix F.

The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. The Rochester

Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of

structures and components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are necessary to

continue operation of Ginna during the requested 20-year period of extended operation. These

activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities and

are described in the Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002).

However, RG&E stated in their ER that the replacement of these components and the

additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement

and inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds

of plant operations for Ginna as evaluated in the final environmental statement (AEC 1973). In

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 3-2 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

10 CFR 51.53

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B- (c)(3)(ii)

I - - GEIS Section Subparagraph

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

AIR QUALITY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and 3.3 F

maintenance areas)

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 1

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 1

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 1

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not Not

addressed(a) addressed(a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision

to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license

renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the applicant's environmental report and the staff's

environmental impact statement.

addition, RG&E's evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not

identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the

continued operation of Ginna beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore,

refurbishment is not considered in this SEIS.

3.1 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

I

January 2004 3-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
-

Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E - Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation.

Dockets No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

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.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 3-4 January 2004
4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal

term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS

includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied

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

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:

(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 characteristic.

(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 unless new and significant information is identified.

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

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

This chapter of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) addresses the issues

related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).

Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the Ginna cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses

issues related to transmission lines and onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological

impacts of normal operation, and Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic

impacts of normal operation during the renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to

groundwater use and quality, while Section 4.6 discusses the impacts of renewal-term

operations on threatened or endangered species. Section 4.7 addresses potential new

information that was raised during the scoping period. The results of the evaluation of

(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.

January 2004 4-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in

Section 4.8. Finally, Section 4.9 lists the references cited in the chapter. Category 1 and

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

site characteristics not found at Ginna are listed in Appendix F.

4.1 Cooling System

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to the operation of the Ginna cooling system during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) stated in its Environmental Report (ER)

(RG&E 2002a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the

renewal of the Ginna operating license (OL). The staff has not identified any new and

significant information related to operation of the cooling system during its independent review

of the Ginna ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, or

its evaluation of other information including the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(SPDES) permit for Ginna issued by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) (Permit No. NY0000493). Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these

issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows.

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of altered current patterns during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-2 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant Cooling System During the Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3

AoUATiC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3; 4.4.2.2

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7; 4.4.3

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3

Low dissolved oxygen In the discharge 4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

exposed to sublethal stresses

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.1 1; 4.4.3

HUMAN HEALTH

Noise 4.3.7

Altered thermal stratification of lakes. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

January 2004 4-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of lake stratification during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacitv. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of temperature on sediment transport during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of scouring during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of eutrophication during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-4 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,

if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of sanitary wastes and minor chemical

spills during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other metals in wastewater during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Water-use conflicts (olants with once-through cooling systems). Based on information

in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of water-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

January 2004 4-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes

with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Entrainment of phvtoglankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of cold shock during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-6 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information'. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of thermal plumes during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating

nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of premature emergence of aquatic insects during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

January 2004 4-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen in the discharge during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Losses from predation. Darasitism. and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease

among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of stimulation of nuisance organisms during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-8 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of noise during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are

applicable to Ginna are listed in Table 4-2 and are discussed in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3.

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant Cooling System During the Renewal Term

10 CFR

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section Subparagraph Section

AaUATic ECOLOGY

(FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2; 4.3.3 B 4.1.1

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3; 4.3.3 B 4.1.2

Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4; 4.3.3 B 4.1.3

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages at Ginna has been investigated as part of

the NYSDEC SPDES Permit (RG&E 2002a) and compared to studies conducted in a similar

region of Lake Ontario. Review of impacts due to entrainment continues to be conducted by

NYSDEC.

Entrainment sampling of Ginna intake waters for ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) took

place between 1976 and 1981. Over the 6-year sampling program, an estimated annual

average of 89 million fish eggs (range of 14 to 168 million eggs) and 17 million fish larvae

(range of 7 to 37 million larvae) were entrained. The principal larval species were alewives

(Alosa pseudoharengus), smelt (Osmerus mordax), and darters (Etheostoma spp.), with

alewives the predominant species (RG&E 2002a).

During 1977 and 1978, RG&E conducted additional studies of the ichthyoplankton community in

Lake Ontario in the vicinity of Ginna. The fish species found in the lake studies were similar to

the entrainment studies conducted at the same time. Alewives were the dominant species in

both studies, followed by smelt and johnny darters (E. nigrum) (RG&E 2002a).

January 2004 4-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Cornell University conducted ichthyoplankton studies of Lake Ontario during 1997 and 1998

I (Klumb et al. 2003). The results of these studies showed a similar community structure along

I the entire southern shoreline of Lake Ontario similar to that identified by RG&E in its 1977 and

1 1978 studies. RG&E concluded that entrainment impacts due to the plant's operations during

the license renewal period will not be substantially different from those previously evaluated

(RG&E 2002a).

Information from these studies has been incorporated into the SPDES permit, and NYSDEC

has regularly reviewed and approved the results. NYSDEC has determined that further

mitigative efforts are not warranted at this time (RG&E 2002a). Further evaluation of

entrainment of the ichthyoplankton community by Ginna is required as part of the NYSDEC

SPDES permit program. SPDES permits are renewed every 5 years. The most recent SPDES

permit, (Appendix E), which expires in February 2008, requires that RG&E conduct an

I entrainment study of the aquatic organisms in the station's cooling-water flow in 2004

(NYSDEC 2003a).

The studies by RG&E and others confirm that any impact of operational water withdrawal by

Ginna will be on a nearshore fish community that is typical for the southern shoreline of Lake

Ontario. Ginna operations only affect a small region of the southern shoreline of the lake.

Thus, RG&E concluded in the ER that Ginna operations will have a negligible impact on the

identified species.

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts due to entrainment of early life stages of

I fish and shellfish by continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff's conclusion

that the potential impacts due to entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages during the

renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

measures in place at Ginna (e.g., placement of the intake structure) provide mitigation for

impacts related to entrainment, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

Impingement has been extensively monitored and impingement impacts evaluated at Ginna

each year since 1973. NYSDEC has required submittal of annual reports on impingement

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-10 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

monitoring as part of Ginna's SPDES permit. From 1997 through 2001, on average, over 625

fish per billion liters (165 fish per billion gallons) of water were impinged at Ginna. Table 4-3

lists the principal species collected in the impingement program. The three most common

species impinged are all introduced species to Lake Ontario.

Table 4-3. List of the Fish from Lake Ontario Impinged at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant from 1997 Through 2001 (RG&E 2002b)

Percent of

Average Fish Individuals

Impingement Rate Collected

(Fish per (Fish per (Average over

Scientific Name Common Name Billion Liters) Billion Gallons) 5 years)

Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback 281.04 (74.25) 44.93

Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt 132.93 (35.12) 21.25

Alosa pseudoharengus alewife 118.85 (31.40) 19.00

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 29.90 (7.90) 4.78

Cottus bairdi mottled sculpin 11.58 (3.06) 1.85

Micropterus dolomleul smallmouth bass 10.79 (2.85) 1.72

Cottus cognatus slimy sculpin 9.27 (2.45) 1.48

Salvelinus namaycush lake trout 7.87 (2.08) 1.26

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 6.62 (1.75) 1.06

Noturws flavus stonecat 3.75 (0.99) 0.60

All other species 13.02 (3.44) 2.07

I

Impingement impact assessments for Ginna have been developed over the years in

consultation with NYSDEC. For alewife and smelt, the total annual projected number'impinged

is compared to the Lake Ontario (New York state waters) population for that species and year

as reported by NYSDEC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). RG&E then calculates

the percentage of the lake population impinged and makes a determination of impact, which is

reported to NYSDEC. Because lake population information is not available for other species, a

qualitative approach must be used, primarily using information provided by NYSDEC.

Based on information collected from 1983 through 2001, Ginna'has impinged an estimated

0.001 percent of the alewife population and 0.0009 percent of the smelt population in Lake

Ontario. These impingement losses are considered negligible'in relation to the lake populations

for both species. Using the'maximumr values, these findings show that only about five alewives

for every 100,000 in the New York state waters of Lake Ontario, and three smelt for every

I

January 2004 4-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

100,000 in the New York state waters, would be impinged. The most recent RG&E

Impingement Program Report concluded that the impingement impact per year for alewife and

smelt is very low and must be considered negligible (RG&E 2002b).

Impingement impact determinations regarding other species are limited to qualitative

evaluations because there are no estimates of their populations within Lake Ontario.

Section 2.2.5 discusses the overall lakewide reductions in fish populations as reported by

NYSDEC through their annual assessments within the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario.

Correspondingly, Ginna impingement numbers have declined substantially throughout the past

29 years.

The alewife and smelt impingement data indicate that the percentage of the lake population

impinged is fairly constant and correlates with abundance in the lake. NYSDEC studies since

1976 have shown that the alewife and smelt populations in Lake Ontario have declined. This is

consistent with the impingement data, which show generally decreasing numbers, similar to

what is being reported for the lake overall.

Impingement studies have consistently demonstrated that Ginna intake system operations have

an extremely limited and minimal impact upon alewife and smelt populations. Likewise,

impingement of other species has been consistent with lakewide trends and indicates no

localized impacts. Based on these facts, RG&E concluded in the ER that impingement impacts

from Ginna operations during the license renewal period will not be substantially different from

those previously evaluated and approved within the SPDES permit process (RG&E 2002a).

The current SPDES permit includes similar requirements on assessing impingement, including

annual reports on the impingement monitoring reports, and does not call for mitigative efforts at

this time (NYSDEC 2003a).

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts due to impingement of fish and shellfish by

I continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential

impacts due to impingement of fish and shellfish during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant') were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

measures in place at Ginna (e.g., the offshore, underwater intake) provide mitigation for all

impacts related to impingement, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-12 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.1.3 Heat Shock

The issue of heat shock to fish and shellfish resources from thermal discharges into Lake

Ontario has been investigated by RG&E in support of the Clean Water Act Section 316(a)

variance for Ginna (RG&E 1977) and in compliance with subsequent NYSDEC SPDES permits

(RG&E 2002a). Of primary concern is the impact of heat shock on impinged fish that are

returned to the discharge canal and subsequently into Lake Ontario. In addition to heat shock,

fish impinged at Ginna are subjected to the stress of being impinged on the intake screen and

passage through the fish return system.

Heat shock to fish is a function of the temperature increase that the fish are subjected to in the

discharge canal and the residence time of the fish in the elevated temperatures of the

discharge flow (Fry 1971; Dean 1973). Residence time at Ginna is determined by the

discharge velocity and the distance that the fish have to travel before reaching cooler

temperatures. Discharge velocities in the area where the impinged fish are returned range from

0.6 to 1.5 m/s (2.0 to 5.0 fps). The distance that the fish have to travel before reaching the

point of entry into the lake, and ambient water temperatures, is about 30 m (100 ft). Thus, the

residence time the fish would be in elevated temperatures is approximately 20 to 50 seconds.

RG&E concluded that a fish subjected to discharge temperatures for less than a minute would

not be adversely affected. There are areas within the discharge canal that can reach upper

lethal threshold temperatures for representative fish. However, the residence time for even a

fish that becomes disoriented from the heat would be less than would be expected to cause

death (RG&E 2002a). This conclusion is further supported in a recent review by Beitinger et al.

(Beitinger 2000) concerning temperature tolerances of North American freshwater fishes that

includes many of the representative important species identified for Ginna.

The Ginna 316(a) Demonstration Supplement (RG&E 1977) discussed the potential of heat

shock to fish and concluded:

This supplement demonstrates that the shoreline surface discharge of the Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant assures the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic

community as exemplified by the Representative Important Species at the Ginna Site.

Since 1985, NYSDEC has approved the conclusion in the Ginna 316(a) Demonstration

Supplement in the SPDES permit for the operation of Ginna. The current SPDES permit states:

The water temperature at the surface of Lake Ontario shall not be raised more than three

Fahrenheit degrees over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial

origin except that in a mixing zone consisting of an area of 320 acres from the point of

discharge, this temperature may be exceeded.

January 2004 4-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

I Further evaluation of heat shock on impinged fish returned to the discharge canal is required as

I part of the NYSDEC SPDES permit for Ginna (NYSDEC 2003c). On July 1, 2003, NYSDEC

I issued a modification to the SPDES permit that requires RG&E to conduct an assessment of

the potential for increased mortality to impinged fish returned to the discharge canal due to

I thermal stress (NYSDEC 2003c). This study will to be completed in 2005, at which time

NYSDEC will determine whether additional mitigation is required.

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts to aquatic resources due to heat shock

I during continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff's conclusion that the

potential impacts to aquatic resources due to heat shock during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

measures in place at Ginna (e.g., design and placement of the discharge) provide mitigation for

all impacts related to heat shock, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

4.2 Transmission Lines

The Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1,

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (AEC 1973) describes four transmission lines running

in the same right-of way that connect Ginna with the transmission system. This transmission

line right-of-way covers approximately 85 ha (210 ac) over a total length of approximately 5.6

km (3.5 mi). Tree trimming is normally only required at mid-span. Herbicides are used

occasionally, primarily applied to individual trees or shrubs to prevent re-sprouting. Mowing is

used only to provide access to individual towers when needed. The applicant uses only nonrestricted-use herbicides, and these are applied under the supervision of licensed pesticide

applicators. Buffer strips are left adjacent to wetlands and stream crossings. RG&E has a New

York State Public Service Commission-approved long-range vegetation management plan for

its transmission line rights-of-way (RG&E 1995).

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

transmission lines from Ginna are listed in Table 4-4. In the Ginna ER, RG&E stated that it is

not aware of any new and significant information concerning the transmission lines or right-ofway maintenance for the Category 1 issues associated with the renewal of the Ginna OL. The

staff conducted an independent review of the Ginna ER, a site visit, the scoping process,

consultation with the FWS and NYSDEC, and an evaluation of other available information. The

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-14 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

staff concludes that there are no impacts related to the Category'l issues discussed in the

GEIS. For all of these issues, the staff's conclusions are that the impacts are SMALL, and

additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

Table 4-4. Category 1 Issues Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission

- Lines During the Renewal Term

I

I

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 4.5.6.3

honeybees, wildlife,'livestock)

Flood plains and wetland on power line right-of-way 4.5.7

AIR QUALITY

Air-quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 4.5.3

Power line right-of-way 4.5.3

A brief description of the staff's review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide appli6ation). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of

small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new andsignificant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

January 2004 4-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops.

honeybees. wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during

the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Flood plains and wetlands on power line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath

power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No

significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-of-way on flood plains and wetlands

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Air-quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-16 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no air quality impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected onsite land use changes required during ... the renewal period

would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve

land that is controlled by the applicant.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no onsite land-use impacts during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Power line right-of-way (land use). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in

-restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-of-way during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Category 2 and uncategorized issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1,

that are applicable to transmission lines from Ginna are listed in Table 4-5, and are discussed in

Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

Table 4-5. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, - GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-I . Section Subparagraph Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

shock)

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

January 2004 4-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects

In the GEIS, the Commission found that without a review of the conformance of each nuclear

plant transmission line to the criteria established in the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)

(IEEE 1997), it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential.

Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric

shock safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land

use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies

may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51 .53(c)(3)(ii)(H), an

applicant must provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines

that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission

system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from

induced currents.

To support its conclusion that the four 115-kV transmission lines at Ginna are in compliance

with the NESC 5-mA, electric-field-induced current limit, RG&E performed field measurements.

These measurements demonstrated compliance. The Ginna transmission lines are within the

scope of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license renewal environmental

review, and are below the size of concern for induced shock. Field measurements demonstrate

the electric-field-induced currents from these transmission lines are well below the NESC

recommendations for preventing electric shock from induced currents (RG&E 2002a).

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this information, the staff

evaluated the potential impacts for electric shock resulting from operation of Ginna and

I associated transmission lines. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts for electric

shock during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

measures in place at Ginna (e.g., transmission lines in compliance with the NESC) provide

mitigation for all impacts related to acute effects of electromagnetic fields, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-18 January2OO4
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not

designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be categorized until a scientific consensus is

reached on the health implications of these fields.

The potential for chronic effects from these fields is not known at this time and continues to be

studied. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

research through the U.S. Department of Energy. A NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) contains the

following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field]

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States

uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other

cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently

warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The staff considers the GElS finding of 'not

applicable" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

Ginna in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-6. RG&E stated in the Ginna ER

that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

Ginna OL. No new and significant information on these issues has been identified by the staff

during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process,

discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and

plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

January 2004 4-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

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

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

* Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

normal operations.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of radiation exposures to the public during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

. Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of occupational radiation exposures during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-20 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.4 - Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

License Renewal Term

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-7. RG&E stated in the

Ginna ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal

of the Ginna OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with

other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues,

the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

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

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SOCIOECONOMIC

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3;

4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6

Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

Public services - public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are

expected to be of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and

recreation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

January 2004 4-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Public services - education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Only impacts of small significance are expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts on education during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in

the GEIS, the Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Table 4-8 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues that require plant-specific analysis and

environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS. These issues are discussed in

Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.6.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-22 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

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

Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(I)

Appendix B, Table B-i GEIS Section Subparagraph SEIS Section

SOCIOECONOMIC

Housing Impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 1 4.4.2

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 1 4.4.3

Public services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not addressed(") 4.4.6

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision to

10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in the licensee's ER and

the staff's environmental impact statement.

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

Impacts on housing are considered SMALL when a small or not easily discernible change in

housing availability occurs. Impacts are considered MODERATE when there is discernible but

short-lived reduction in available housing units because of project-induced migration. Impacts

are considered LARGE when project-related housing demands result in very limited housing

availability and would increase rental rates and housing values well above normal inflation

(NRC 1996).

In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

(NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors,

"sparseness" and "proximity." Sparseness measures population density within 32 km (20 mi) of

the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 80 km (50 mi). Each

factor has categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1), and a matrix is used to rank the

population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS Figure C.1).-

During 2000, the population living within 32 km (20 mi) of Ginna was estimated to be

approximately 581,745 (USCB 2000). This total converts to a population density of about

357 persons/km2 (926 persons/mi 2) living on the land area within a 32-km (20-mi) radius of

January 2004. 4-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Ginna.(a) This concentration falls into the GEIS sparseness Category 4 (i.e., having greater

than or equal to 46 persons/km2 [120 persons/mi 2]) (USCB 2000).

An estimated 1.25 million people live within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site (USCB 2000),

equating to a population density of around 124 persons/km2 (318 persons/mi2) on the available

land area.° Applying the GEIS proximity measures (NRC 1996), Ginna is classified as

Category 4 (i.e., having greater than or equal to 73 persons/km2 [190 persons/mi 2] within 80 km

[50 mi] of the site). According to the GEIS criteria, these sparseness and proximity scores

place Ginna in a high-population area.

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, states that impacts on housing availability

are expected to be of SMALL significance at plants located in a high-population area where

growth-control measures are not in effect. The Ginna site is located in a high-population area.

Monroe and Wayne Counties are not subject to growth-control measures that would limit

housing development.

SMALL impacts result when no discernible change in housing availability occurs, changes in

rental rates and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing

construction or conversion is required to meet new demand (NRC 1996). The GEIS assumes

that an additional staff of 60 permanent per-unit workers might be needed during the license

renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities. RG&E does not plan any

new refurbishment activity as part of the license renewal process; therefore, employment will

not change in the area as result of license renewal. Thus, RG&E concludes that there are no

impacts to housing from license renewal activities (RG&E 2002a). However, to establish an

upper bound on possible increased employment during the license renewal term, RG&E

assumes the hiring of 60 additional permanent workers. It is assumed that the hiring of these

additional 60 employees would result in 40 indirect jobs, or an increased demand for a total of

100 housing units. Using the fact that 92 percent of its employees live in Monroe and Wayne

Counties (Table 2-5), RG&E concludes that a demand for 92 housing units would be created in

the two counties. The-demand for the housing units could be met with the construction of new

houses or the use of existing, unoccupied houses. In 2000, Wayne and Monroe Counties had

a total of 343,000 housing units (Table 2-6), and vacancy rates in both counties were more than

5 percent. The increase in projected housing units would not create a discernible change in

(a) These numbers differ from those presented in the Ginna ER. In their calculations, RG&E took the

surface area in the 32-km (20-mi) and 80-km (50-mil) radii and distributed the population evenly

within the circles. However, the circles encompass a large area of Lake Ontario. It was assumed

that the lake encompasses half the area for the 32-km (20-mi) and 80-km (50-mi) circles. As such,

the population concentrations were adjusted, resulting in higher population concentrations than

those reported in the Ginna ER.

(b) Note that these conclusions differ from the Ginna ER for the reasons stated in footnote (a).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-24 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

housing availability, a change in rental rates or housing values, or spur new construction or

conversion. As a result, RG&E concludes that the impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation

measures would not be necessary or effective (RG&E 2002a).(a)

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions-with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential housing impacts resulting from

operation of Ginna during the license renewal term. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential

housing impacts during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures

in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to housing, and no new mitigation

measures are warranted.

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the

ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, so there is no need to add capital

facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs

during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service

(e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to

meet ongoing demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, in the absence of new and

significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be

significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996).

Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plantrelated population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the Ginna-permitted withdrawal rate and

actual use of water. RG&E plans no refurbishment at Ginna, so plant demand would not

change beyond current demands (RG&E 2002a).

In the ER, RG&E assumed, for the purposes of impact analysis only, an increase of

60 employees to perform license renewal activities. RG&E also assumed the generation of

100 new jobs and a net overall population increase of approximately 308 as a result of those

(a) The RG&E estimate of 100 housing units (92 units for Monroe and Wayne Counties) is likely to be

an extreme 'upper bound" estimate. Most of the potentially new jobs would likely be filled by

existing area residents, thus creating no, or little, net demand for housing.

January 2004 4-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

jobs.a) The plant-related population increase would increase demand for water by an additional

60 to 90 m3/d (1.6 x 10-2 to 2.3 x 10.2 MGD) (RG&E 2002a). This amount is within the total

residual capacity of the water treatment plants serving Monroe and Wayne Counties

(Table 2-8).

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts of increased water use resulting

I from the potential increase in employment. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts

of increased water use resulting from the potential increase in employment during the renewal

term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures

in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to public services, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, notes

that "significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue

changes resulting from license renewal."

Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant

operation during the license renewal term as follows:

SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern.

MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern.

LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.

For the purposes of impact analysis, RG&E has identified the need for a maximum of 60

additional employees to perform license renewal activities during the license renewal term plus

(a) Calculated by assuming that the average number of persons per household is 3.08 in the State of

New York (100 jobs x 3.08 = 308) (USCB 2000).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-26 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

an additional 40 indirect jobs (total 100) in the community (RG&E 2002a). Section 3.7.5 of the

GEIS (NRC 1996) states that if plant-related population growth is less than 5 percent of the

study area's total population, offsite land-use changes would be small, especially if the study

area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a population density

of at least 23 persons/km2 (60 persons/mi 2), and at least one urban area with a population of

100,000 or more within 80 km (50 mi). In this case, population growth will be less than

5 percent of the area's total population; the area has established patterns of residential and

commercial development (Table 2-9), a population density of well over 23 persons/km2

(60 persons/m?), and an urban area with a population of 100,000 or more within 80 km (50 mi).

Consequently, the staff concludes that population changes resulting from license renewal are

likely to result in SMALL offsite land-use impacts.

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public

services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1

of the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license

renewal term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the community's

total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to

which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If

the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's total revenue,

tax-driven, land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be small, especially

where the community has pre-established pattems of development and has provided adequate

public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS states that if tax

payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction's revenue, the

significance level would be SMALL (NRC 1996). If a plant's tax payments are projected to be

medium-to-large relative to the community's total revenue, the impact of new tax-driven, landuse changes would be MODERATE. From 1995 to 2001, the average percentages of total

revenue that Wayne County, the town of Ontario, and the Wayne Central School District

derived from property taxes paid by RG&E for Ginna were 2 percent, 13.2 percent, and

11.7 percent, respectively.

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts on offsite land use resulting

from operation of Ginna. While the tax receipts are large enough to potentially result in

moderate impacts on land use, these receipts are expected to decrease in the future. Tax

receipts from past operation of Ginna have not resulted in significant changes in land use in

Wayne County. Development has been focused on the west side of the county, and appears to

be driven by residential demand within a short commute distance from Rochester. There has

also been little retail or commercial development in the county. The criteria in the GEIS -

(Section C.4.1.5.2) results in the assignment of an impact level of MODERATE when tax levels

January 2004 4-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

are greater than 10 percent. However, the case study assumed a certain level of

refurbishment. As no major refurbishment activities are planned at Ginna to support license

renewal, no new sources of plant-related tax payments are expected that could significantly

I affect land use in Wayne County. Based on these considerations, it is the staff's conclusion

that the tax-related land-use impacts are likely to be SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures

in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to offsite land use, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

On October 4, 1999, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, were revised to clearly state that uPublic Services: Transportation Impacts During

Operations" is a Category 2 issue (see NRC 1999 for more discussion of this clarification). The

issue is treated as such in this SEIS.

As noted in Section 2.2.8.2, NYS Route 104 serves as the primary east-west corridor in this

area, as indicated by volume of traffic. Traffic volume ranges from 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles

with the higher volumes existing near the entrance to Monroe County. Traffic volume on much

of NYS Route 104 in the vicinity of Ginna is well below capacity, while some of the two-lane

portions east of the town of Ontario are characterized as near capacity. Traffic volumes,

however, drop off dramatically on north-south routes crossing NYS Route 104 that access

County Route 101 and, subsequently, Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

The bounding scenario of 60 additional license renewal staff represents less than 3 percent of

the traffic volume on County Route 101, and if it is assumed that all employees would use

Ontario Center Road (Figure 2-4) to access the site from NYS Route 104, an increase of

60 additional vehicles represents less than 1 percent of the volume. The north-south routes for

which capacity information is available indicate that these roads are well below capacity (less

than 50 percent). Based on these facts, RG&E concluded that the impacts on transportation

during the license renewal term would be SMALL, and no mitigative measures would be

warranted (RG&E 2002a).

I The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts to transportation service

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-28 January 2004
Environmental Impacts-of Operation

resulting from operation of Ginna. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts to--.I

transportation service degradation during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures forthe---

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is,

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not.

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures

in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to transportation, and no-new...

mitigation measures are warranted.

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take intcr account

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including significant archaeological sites.-

The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in-_

regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR:Part 800..::

Renewal of an OL is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties;- Therefore,

according to the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a good faith effort to identify historic- -

properties in the areas of potential effects. The NRC has determined that-the area of potential I

effect for the license renewal is the Ginna site and its immediate environs (NRC 2003):.The:_ I

NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the results of those:

efforts and of any properties that might be adversely affected by the undertaking before-- -

proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to -

assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking in consultation with the SHPO.

The Ginna site includes one structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of I

Historic Places (NRHP). The transmission line that leads south from the plant is in proximity to

an historic district listed on the NRHP. The 197-ha (488-ac) Ginna site lies in an area

considered archaeologically sensitive by the SHPOOa) and culturally highly sensitive by theSeneca Nation of New York (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

The Brookwood Estate Manor House has not been formally evaluated for NRHP'eligibility; I

however, in the opinion of the SHPO,(') it is potentially historically significant and eligible for- I

inclusion in the NRHP. RG&E initially used the'ho'me for meetings and gatherings; but later it

fell into disuse. The structure has been restored and is now once again used by Ginna staff for

meetings and social events. It is also used by the Wayne Central High School for an alternative

special education program. Current RG&E management of the Brookwood Estate Manor--

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with Nancy Todd, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and

Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York (December 27, 2002).

January 2004 4-29- NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

House appears to be an effective adaptive reuse of the structure that preserves the historic

qualities of the building.

While the transmission line right-of-way passes directly west of the Brick Church Corners

historic district, it does not adversely affect the historical setting of the district. The transmission

lines are hung from wooden supports, and the edges of the right-of-way are tree-lined. When

the trees are in leaf, the transmission lines are mostly obscured from sight. Renewal of the OL

should not affect any of the other historic properties near Ginna.

Since no archaeological surveys have been conducted at the Ginna site, it is not known

whether archaeological sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP exist there. Archaeological sites

have been recorded in proximity to Ginna. The proximity of Ginna to Lake Ontario, the two

streams that run through the property and empty into the lake, and the existence of

archeological sites along other reaches of those streams have led the SHPO to determine that

the undeveloped and agriculturally developed portions of the Ginna site are archaeologically

sensitive.(a)

It is likely that the Ginna site was used in prehistoric times for hunting and fishing. Lake Ontario

also provided a trade route used in both prehistoric and proto-historic times. The area lies

within the traditional range of the Seneca. The Seneca Nation of New York has determined

that the area has a high probability of including traditional Native American cultural properties,

and finds the area culturally highly sensitive (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

The proposed action includes no new construction or refurbishment. Thus, any historic or

archaeological resources at Ginna should not be adversely impacted by renewal of the OL. If

there is future development at the Ginna site, the development could adversely affect historic

or archaeological resources. Development actions that could impact resources include

ground-disturbing activities beyond current practices and any actions that would damage or

I significantly change the Brookwood Estate Manor House. The impacts of such actions could be

mitigated through appropriate measures, including regular maintenance of the estate, timely

consultation, avoidance, and data recovery.

The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant, the staff's site visit, the SHPO, the

Seneca Nation of New York, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources

I resulting from continued operation of Ginna for an additional 20 years. It is the staff's

conclusion that the potential impacts to known historic and archaeological resources during the

renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-30 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered and no additional mitigation is required.

4.4.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that requires Federal agencies to identify and

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its actions on minority/s) or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider

environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The

Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) has provided guidance for addressing environmental

justice'(CEQ 1997). Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent agencies,

the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific

guidance is provided in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203,

'Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering

Environmental Issues" (NRC 2001).

The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site, employing the 2000 census for low-income and minority

populations (USCB 2000). The populations within an 80-km (50-mi)'radius of Ginna

encompassed parts of 13 counties. The staff supplemented its analysis by field inquires to

county planning departments, social service agencies, personnel in Wayne and Monroe

Counties, and a private social service agency in Wayne County.

For the purpose of the staff's review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage

of each minority, or aggregated minority category'within the census block groups(,) potentially

affected by the license renewal of Ginna, exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities

in the entire State of New York by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines 'minority" as American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic

(NRC 2001).

(b) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a

census tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau

(USCB) collects and tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively

permanent statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in

accordance with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census

data. Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

January 2004 4-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income population is defined to exist

if the percentage of low-income population within a census block group exceeds the

corresponding percentage of low-income population in the entire State of New York by

20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income population within a census block

group is at least 50 percent.

The staff followed the convention of employing 2000 census block group data to identify

minority and low-income block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of Ginna. Using this

convention, the 80-km (50-mi) radius includes 143 census block groups for minority populations

and 173 census block groups for low-income populations (Figures 4-1 and 4-2) (USCB 2000).

The "more than 20 percentage points" above the comparison area criterion was used to

determine whether a census block group should be counted as containing minority or lowincome populations. Because the 20 percentage points criterion is a lower threshold, the 50

percent criterion was not used (RG&E 2002a).

The staff followed the convention of employing census block groups and counts of individuals in

minority or low-income status. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of minority populations

(shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Minority populations are present in all counties

within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Ginna site. Minority populations are primarily

concentrated in the urban center of Rochester. Monroe County contains 142 of the 143 block

groups containing significant minority populations.

Data from the 2000 census characterize low-income populations within the 80-km (50-mi)

radius of the Ginna site. Applying the NRC criterion of "more than 20 percent greater," the

census block groups containing low-income populations were identified. Figure 4-2 shows the

locations of the low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site. The lower

income populations are concentrated around the urban center of Rochester, where 137 of the

173 low-income block groups are found. Wayne County has 34 low-income block groups

(USCB 2000).

With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff evaluated whether

any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a

disproportionately high and adverse manner. Based on staff guidance (NRC 2001), air, land,

and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site were examined. Within that

area, a few potential environmental impacts could affect human populations, but all of these

impacts were considered SMALL for the general population.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-32 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

o 2!' i 10 Ua U U

o S 10 20 20 4

Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within 80 km (50 mi) of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on

Census Block Group Data

January 2004 4-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

I , 4 U *V a

*. I to 30 0

Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within 80 km (50 mi) of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on

Census Block Group Data

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-34 January 2004
.' - -_- fl : . , I - _ . 4. .;

Environmental Impacts of Operation

The pathways through which the'environmental impacts associated with Ginna license renewal

can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section. During its review of

the information, including that provided by the applicant, the staff's site visit, the scoping

process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources, the staff found no unusual

resource dependencies or practices such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through

which minority and/or low-income populations could be disproportionately highly and adversely

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent disproportionately high

and adverse impacts that would affect these minority and low-income populations. The staff's

conclusion is that potential offsite impacts from Ginna to minority and low-income populations

during the renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

measures in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to environmental justice,

and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

There are no groundwater withdrawals at Ginna, and RG&E imports less than 4 m3/min

(100 gpm) for plant use. Therefore, the Category 1 issue, groundwater use and quality, in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, is applicable to Ginna. This issue is listed

in Table 4-9. RG&E stated in the Ginna ER that it is not aware of any new and significant

information associated with the renewal of the Ginna OL. The staff has not identified any new

and significant information on this issue during its independent review of the ER, the staff's site

visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there-are no impacts related to this issue

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the staff concludes that the impacts are

SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

Table 4-9. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

Renewal Term

GEIS

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 Section

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 4.8.1.1

January 2004 4-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51, follows.

* Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water: olants that use <100 gpm).

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

conflicts.

Ginna groundwater use is less than 4 m3/min (100 gpm). The staff has not identified any

new and significant information on this issue. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are

no groundwater-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality for Ginna.

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

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

Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(11) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6

This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act are present and whether they

would be adversely affected by continued operation of the nuclear plant during the license

renewal term. The presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Ginna

I site is discussed in this SEIS (Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6).

Consultation with the FWS was initiated by RG&E in January 2002 with a letter requesting

information about the presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Ginna

(RG&E 2002d). The FWS responded on February 25, 2002, stating that except for occasional

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-36 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

transient individuals, no listed, proposed, or candidate species were likely to occur in the site

vicinity and that no biological assessment or further consultation under Section 7 was required

(FWS 2002; ESA 1972). Staff analysis of data provided by the applicant and/or obtained from

the NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2003b), and surveys of the Ginna site and surrounding environments

confirmed the FWS conclusions.

The staff has reviewed the available information including that provided by the applicant, FWS,

NYSDEC,'the scoping process, and other public information sources. Based on'this review and

its independent analysis, the staff's conclusion is that continued operation of the plant and

continued operation and maintenance of the transmission lines and right-of-way under license

renewal is likely to have no effect on any Federally listed, threatened, or endangered species

within the terrestrial or aquatic environs in the immediate vicinity of the Ginna site or the '

associated transmission lines. Further, the staff's conclusion is that continued operation of

Ginna will not affect any New York State-listed terrestrial or aquatic species. Therefore, it is the

staff's determination that the impact on threatened or endangered species of an additional

20 years of operation of Ginna and of continued maintenance activities of the transmission

right-of-way would be SMALL.

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures

in place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to threatened or endangered species,

and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information

on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

During the scoping period, comments were received from the State of New York and the FWS

related to shoreline erosion at the Ginna site. The issues raised are discussed in the following

section.

4.7.1 Shoreline Erosion

During the Ginna site audit, on November 5, 2002, the NRC staff met with representatives from

the NYSDEC. NYSDEC staff expressed a concern over the shoreline erosion rates occurring at

the Ginna site. In a December 11, 2002, letter providing the NRC staff with scoping comments,

NYSDEC again expressed its concern over shoreline erosion. In a January 6, 2003, letter the

FWS also'commented on the issue of shoreline erosion at the site.

January 2004 4-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

To protect the shoreline immediately in front of the Ginna site, a revetment composed of riprap

or large stones was installed during plant construction. The length of the protected shoreline

has been extended during the plant operating period. Shoreline erosion is occurring both east

and west of the portion of the shoreline not protected by the revetment. A revetment may

redirect a portion of the erosional forces onto adjacent unprotected portions of the shoreline,

thereby increasing erosion on the shoreline unprotected by the revetment. Shoreline erosion is

a natural phenomenon, an endless redistribution process that continually alters the shoreline.

Shorelines have always been areas of continuous and sometimes dramatic change. The force

of waves, seiches, and ice movement on the shoreline of Lake Ontario all contribute to

shoreline erosion. A variety of options are available to protect against continued shoreline

erosion, including: bulkheads, revetments, breakwaters, groins, vegetation, and drainage

controls. The NYSDEC has estimated the average annual erosion rate of the unprotected bluffs

in the vicinity of Ginna to be between 0.3 and 0.5 m (1.0 and 1.5 ft) per year. Based on these

estimates of shoreline erosion rates, the additional 20 years to the end of the proposed renewal

period an additional 6 to 10 m (20 to 35 ft) of shoreline loss can be expected. Some portion of

this erosion may be attributable to enhanced erosion resulting from presence of the revetment.

I This flank erosion (i.e., erosion at the edges of the revetment) is localized and not quantitatively

significant. The staff believes that any additional shoreline erosion that might occur at the east

and west terminus of the revetment will not result in significant additional shoreline erosion a

short distance from the riprap due to the localized nature of the flank erosion.

NYSDEC also expressed concern that the shoreline erosion could adversely affect Lake

I Ontario water quality in the vicinity of the site. Any erosion at the flanks of the revetment is

expected to quickly be redistributed within the lake by natural processes. The staff believes

that the amount of material that could be resuspended due to the increased erosion at the east

and west terminus of the revetment would be inconsequential relative to the volume of water

and would have no measurable impact on local water quality.

At the request of NYSDEC, RG&E has recently performed a survey of the shoreline in the

vicinity of the Ginna site. This survey will help to understand the degree to which the revetment

that RG&E has constructed has altered the natural erosion process. If additional surveys

indicate that the natural erosion rate has been significantly altered, the State of New York may

require that some mitigation measures be taken and other permits or permit modifications may

be required. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act of 1977, as amended, provides the authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

permit construction lakeward of the high-water mark on the banks of Lake Ontario. Such a

permit would be required for most mitigation options, such as changes to the revetment.

The staff has reviewed the information about shoreline erosion and the design of the revetment

I at Ginna. The staff concludes that the comments made by the NYSDEC do not represent

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-38 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

information that would call into question the Commission's conclusions regarding GEIS

Category 1 issues that impacts on aquatic and terrestrial resources and land use from

continued operation of Ginna are SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures

are not warranted at this time.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the

Renewal Term

The staff considered potential cumulative impacts during the evaluation of information

applicable to each of the potential impacts of operations during the renewal term identified

within the GEIS. For the purposes of this analysis past actions were those related to the

resources at the time of the plant licensing and construction, present actions are those related

to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plant, and future actions are.

considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant operation.

Therefore, the analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term,

as well as the 20-year renewal license term. The geographical area over which past, present,

and future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of

action considered, and is described below for each impact area.

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4.0, are combined with other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at Ginna regardless of what agency

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

are defined as 'cumulative" in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be

SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in

combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource

is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it

contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline.

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System

For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered is Lake Ontario. As

described in Section 4.1, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that the

conclusions regarding any of the cooling system-related Category 1 issues as related to Ginna

are inconsistent with the conclusions in the GEIS. Additionally, the staff determined that none

of the cooling system-related Category 2 issues were likely to have greater than a SMALL

impact on local water quality or aquatic resources.

January 2004 4-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

In general, the overall water quality of Lake Ontario and the status of the fishery and other

aquatic resources have greatly improved since Ginna started operations. Therefore, there is no

basis to conclude that the SMALL impacts of Ginna operations, including entrainment of fish

and shellfish, impingement of fish and shellfish, heat shock, or any of the cooling systemrelated Category 1 issues are contributing to an overall decline in water quality or in the status

of the fishery or other aquatic resources.

During 1987, the governments of Canada and the United States made a commitment, as part of

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, to develop a Lakewide Management Plan for each

of the five Great Lakes. According to the 1987 Agreement, the plans embody a systematic and

comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in the lakes.

The plans address sources of lake-wide critical pollutants. The plans are coordinated with other

efforts that are best suited to address issues of local concern. In addition, the plans utilize

linkages to other natural resource management activities, such as the development of Lake

Ontario fish community objectives by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Lake

Ontario Committee of fisheries managers. The plans address impairments found in open

waters of the lake and nearshore areas. Tributaries, including the Niagara River, are treated as

inputs to the lake. The St. Lawrence River is treated as an output from the lake.(t) Given the

lake-wide management plans in place to protect Lake Ontario and its environs, the staff

concludes that potential cumulative effects will be carefully assessed and managed over time.

As described in Section 2.2.8.2, local water utilities withdraw potable water primarily from five

surface water sources, including Lake Ontario. The average daily water demand by the

communities in the area is about 378 million liters (100 million gallons). To meet current

demand and anticipated future growth, the Ontario Water District plans to increase the size of

its intake pipes. This expansion will represent a minor increase over current surface water

withdrawals, and will be regulated and controlled by New York State and other governmental

agencies.

The staff, while preparing this assessment, assumed that other industrial, commercial, or public

installations will be located in the general vicinity of Ginna prior to the end of Ginna operation.

The intake of water from, and the discharge of water to Lake Ontario for these facilities would

be regulated by the NYSDEC and other agencies, just as the Ginna plant is presently regulated.

The intake and discharge limits for each installation are set considering the overall or

cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Therefore, the staff

concludes that the potential cumulative impacts of continued operation of Ginna will be SMALL,

and that no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

(a) http:/Iwww.epa.gov/ginpo/lakeontlsummary.html, accessed on June 4, 2002.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-40 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the

Transmission Lines

The continued operation of the Ginna electrical transmission facilities was evaluated to

determine if there is the potential for interactions with other past, present, and future actions

that could result in adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources such as wildlife

populations, and the size and distribution of habitat areas; aquatic resources such as wetlands

and floodplains; and both the acute and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. For the

purposes of this analysis, the geographic area that encompasses the past, present and

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to adverse cumulative 'effects is the area within

80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site, as depicted in Figure 2-1.

As described in Section 4.2, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that

the conclusions regarding any of the transmission line-related Category 1 issues as related to

Ginna are inconsistent with the conclusions within the GEIS: The applicant follows right-of-way

management procedures (RG&E 1995) over all of its rights-of-way that are protective of wildlife

and habitat resources, including floodplains and wetlands. There are no State or Federally

regulated wetlands at the Ginna site or within the transmission line right-of-way connecting

Ginna to the power grid. Therefore, continued operation and maintenance of this right-of-way is

not likely to contribute to a regional decline in wetland or floodplain resources. The

maintenance procedures ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife and in many ways improve the

habitat within the rights-of-way relative to many. of the surrounding land-uses.

The staff determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the Ginna transmission lines

are well below the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) recommendations for preventing

electric shock from induced currents. Therefore, the Ginna transmission lines do not detectably

affect the overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area.

With respect to chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, although the staff considers the GEIS

finding of "not applicable" to be appropriate in regard to Ginna, the Ginna transmission lines are

not likely to detectably contribute to the regional exposure to extremely low frequencyelectromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF).. The Ginna transmission lines pass through a sparsely

populated, rural area with very few residences or business close enough to the lines to have

detectable ELF-EMF.I

Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of

the Ginna transmission lines will be SMALL, and that no additional mitigation is warranted.

January 2004 4-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts

The radiological exposure limits for protection of the public and for occupational exposures

have been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore incorporate cumulative

impacts. As described in Section 2.2.7, the public and occupational doses resulting from Ginna

are well below regulatory limits, and as described in Section 4.3, the impacts of these

I exposures are SMALL. For the purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is the area

included within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Ginna Site (Figure 2-1). The NRC would

regulate any reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of Ginna that could contribute

to cumulative radiological impacts.

Therefore, the staff determined that the cumulative radiological impacts of continued operation

of Ginna will be SMALL, and that additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

Much of the analyses of socioeconomic impacts presented in Section 4.4 of this SEIS already

incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for quantification only make

sense when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the impact of the total

number of additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to

the total number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of

the cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend

on specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions or may be distance related, as in the case

of Environmental Justice.

The continued operation of Ginna is not likely to add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts

beyond those already evaluated in Sections 4.4. In other words, the impacts of issues such as

transportation or offsite land-use are likely to be non-detectable beyond the regions previously

evaluated and will quickly decrease with increasing distance from the site. The staff determined

that the impacts on housing, public utilities, public services, and environmental justice would all

be SMALL. The staff determined that the impact on off-site land-use is SMALL because, even

I though Ginna provides greater than 10 percent of the property tax revenue for the Town of

Ontario and the Wayne Central School District there are no refurbishment actions planned at

Ginna. There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions in

regard to cumulative impacts.

I Related to historic resources, there is one undocumented structure on the Ginna site that is

I potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and the transmission line is located near a historic

district that is included in the NRHP. The current management of the Ginna site has functioned

to protect these properties and the staff concluded that the impacts of license renewal would be

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-42 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

SMALL. There is no reason to believe that the continued operation and maintenance of the

Ginna site and transmission right-of-way would impact any properties beyond the site or rightof-way boundaries, and therefore the contribution to a cumulative impact on historic resources

would be negligible.

The Seneca Nation has determined that it is likely that the Ginna site was used in prehistoric

times, that it is culturally highly sensitive, and that the site has a high potential of including

traditional Native American cultural properties (Section 4.4.5). These findings probably also

apply to much of the Lake Ontario shoreline to the east and west of the Ginna site and it is

reasonable to expect that these activities could impact shoreline areas. A Toronto company,

Lake Ontario Fast Ferry Corporation, is proposing daily passenger- and car-ferry service

between Rochester, New York and Toronto, Ontario. Therefore, the increased development of

the shoreline along the southern shore of Lake Ontario may have a cumulative adverse effect

on these Native American cultural properties. However, because there are no plans for

refurbishment or other major changes at the Ginna site, the land and shoreline within the Ginna

boundaries is protected from further development or adverse impacts, at least through the

period of decommissioning.

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that continued operation of Ginna is not

likely to make a detectable contribution to the cumulative effects associated with any of the

socioeconomic issues discussed in Section 4.4, and therefore, the cumulative impacts will be

SMALL and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality

There are no groundwater withdrawals at Ginna, and RG&E imports less than 4 mr3/min

(100 gpm) of potable water from local utilities for plant use. As noted previously, surface water

is the primary source of potable water for local water utilities. The impact of current water

usage has been determined in Section 4.5 to be SMALL. Because there are no groundwater

withdrawals at Ginna and there are none'anticipated in the future, the Ginna site is not causing

a detectable change in the regional groundwater usage, and therefore the cumulative impact is

SMALL and no mitigation measures are warranted.

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species

The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or

endangered species includes Wayne County and the waters of Lake Ontario near Wayne

County. As discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6, there are several threatened or endangered

species that occur within this area. However, the staff determined in Section 4.6, that continued

operation of Ginna would have no effect on any of these species, primarily because none are

January 2004 4-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

known to occur near the Ginna site or its transmission line right-of-way. Therefore, the

continued operation of Ginna will not contribute to a regional cumulative impact on these

species, regardless of whether or not other actions occur that could have adverse impacts.

There are no species currently considered to be candidates or proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered known to occur in the vicinity of Ginna. Also, it is unlikely that any

listed species will increase its known range to an extent that it would become adversely affected

by continued plant operation.

Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to threatened or endangered

species due to continued operation of the Ginna site and associated transmission line will be

SMALL, and that additional mitigation measures would not be warranted.

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the

Renewal Term

RG&E and the staff discovered no new and significant information related to any of the

applicable Category 1 issues associated with Ginna operation during the renewal term.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the Category 1

issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of the issues, the GEIS

concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation

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

Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 11 Category 2 issues applicable to

Ginna operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic effects of

I electromagnetic fields. For all 11 issues and environmental justice, the staff's conclusion is that

the potential environmental impact of renewal-term operations of Ginna would be of SMALL

significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS and that further mitigation is

not warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been reached by

appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic

fields. Therefore, no evaluation of this issue is required.

Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

impacts on potentially affected resources.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-44 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.10 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties"

59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 32. February 16,1994.

Beitinger, T. L., W. A. Bennett, and R. W. McCawley. 2000. Temperature Tolerances of North

American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature. Environmental

Biology of Fishes, 58(3):237-275.

Clean Water Act. 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act [FWPCA] of 1977).

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Accessed at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ejljustice.pdf on February 9, 2002.

Dean, J. M. 1973. The Response of Fish to a Modified Thermal Environment. In Chavin, W.,

ed. Responses of Fish to Environmental Changes. Charles. C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield,

Illinois.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Fry, F. E. 1971. The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Physiology of Fish. In Hoar, W.

S., and D. J. Randall, eds., Fish Physiology, Volume VI, Environmental Relations and Behavior,

Academic Press, New York.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 1997. National Electrical Safety Code.

New York.

Klumb, R. A., L. G. Rudstam, E. L. Mills, C. P. Schneider, and P. M. Sawyko. 2003.

"Importance of Lake Ontario Embayments and Nearshore Habitats as Nurseries for Larval

Fishes with Emphasis on Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)." Journal of Great Lakes Research,

29(1): 181-198.

January 2004 4-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Mitchell, K. and L. Maybee. 2002. "Comments on 67 FR 63171 - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant," December 11, 2002, e-mail from Mitchell and Maybee (Seneca Nation of New York,

Irving, N.Y.) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. "Application

1D#8-5434-00010/00003, SPDES Permit Modification Issuance, RG&E Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant, Ontario (T), Wayne (C)." Letter from K. A. Merchant (NYSDEC) to J. Widay (RG&E).

January 23, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. "Master

Habitat Database Report for Wayne County." Letter from K. A. Merchant (NYSDEC) to R.

Schaaf, NRC (Washington, D.C.), February 26, 2003.

I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. "Application

I ID#8-5434-00010/00010, Department Initiated SPDES Permit Modification Issuance, RG&E

I Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Ontario (T), Wayne (C)." Letter from K. Merchant (NYSDEC) to

I J. Widay (RG&E), June 27, 2003.

River and Harbor Act of 1899. 33 USC 401, et seq.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1977. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 316(a)

Demonstration Supplement, NPDES Permit No. 0070 0X2 2 000079 (NY 0000493). RG&E

Report No. BP-13-043. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1995. Electric Transmission Right-of-Way

Management Plan. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E - Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-46 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. Rochester Gas & Electric

Corporation Fish Impingement Program: -1997 through 2001 Analysis Report Ginna Nuclear

Power Station. RG&E Report No. B-1 3-389. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002c. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix A - UFSAR Supplement. Rochester,

New York.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation.

Docket No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1991. 1990 Census-Population and Housing; Public Law 94-171

Data. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. 'Census 2000 Summary File I (SF-1) 100 Percent Data."

Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet in January 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. "Glossary - Definition and Explanations - Decennial

Census Terms." Accessed at http:#llandview.census.gov/dmd/www/advglossary.html on

January 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from D. A. Stilwell (FWS) to P. M. Sawyko

(RG&E). February 25, 2002.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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). 2001. "Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues." Appendix D to NRR

Office Instruction LIC-203, June 21, 2001, Washington, D.C.

January 2004 4-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Operation

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Letter from Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program

I Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts, Division of Regulatory Improvement

I Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New

I York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, July 2, 2003,

I Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-48 January 2004
5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents were discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then 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:

(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 characteristic.

(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 unless new and significant information is identified.

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

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

This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

during the license-renewal term.

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBA)

and severe accidents, as discussed in the following sections.

(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.

January 2004 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

To receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to operate a nuclear power

facility, an applicant for an initial operating license must submit a Safety Analysis Report (SAR)

as part of its application. The SAR presents the design criteria and design information for the

proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses

various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and

mitigate accidents. The staff reviews the application to determine whether the plant design

meets the Commission's regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant

design and its anticipated response to an accident.

The DBAs are evaluated by both the licensee and the staff to ensure that the plant can

withstand normal accidents and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated

accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these

postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to

establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The

acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100.

The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

I issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license

I documentation such as the applicant's final safety analysis report (FSAR), the staff's safety

evaluation report (SER), and the Final Environmental Statement (FES). A licensee is required

to maintain the acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant,

including any extended-life operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for

the hypothetical maximally exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will

not affect these evaluations. Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the

consequences and aging management programs be in effect for license renewal, the

environmental impacts as calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing

assessments over the life of the plant, including the license renewal period. Accordingly, the

design of the plant relative to DBAs during the extended period is considered to remain

acceptable and the environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the

GEIS.

The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, design-basis events are designated

as a Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue,

applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), is listed in Table 5-1. The early

resolution of the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-2 January 2004
Environmental impacts of Postulated Accidents

licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and,

therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal.

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

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

POSTULATED AcCIDENTS

Design-basis accidents (DBAs) 5.3.2; 5.5.1

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents

are of small significance for all plants.

In its Environmental Report (ER), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) stated that

no' new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions"

(RG&E 2002). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation

of other available information. Therefore, the staff c6ncludes that there are no impacts related

to this issue beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

5.1.2 Severe Accidents

Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite

consequences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the

license renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to

conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the

renewal period.

Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and

fires have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and were not

considered specifically for the Ginna site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the GEIS, the

staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by the NRC and by the industry at

44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from' beyond-design-basis

earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Additionally,'the staff concluded that

the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of

internally initiated severe accidents.

January 2004 5-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from

severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to Ginna, is

listed in Table 5-2.

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

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; L 5.2

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4;

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

The staff has not identified any new and significant information with regard to the

consequences from severe accidents during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe

accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for Ginna. The results of its review are discussed in

Section 5.2.

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to

mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant's

plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an environmental

assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware,

procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance

are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for Ginna; therefore,

the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-4 January 2004
.Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

5.2.1 Introduction

This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for Ginna conducted by RG&E and

described in the ER (RG&E 2002) and of the NRC's review of that evaluation. The details of

the review are described in the NRC staff evaluation that was prepared by the staff with

contract assistance from Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. The entire evaluation is

presented in Appendix G.

The SAMA evaluation for Ginna was a four-step process. In the first step, RG&E quantified the

level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant-specific probabilistic

safety assessment (PSA) and other risk models.

The second step was the examination of the major risk contributors to identify areas where

plant improvements might have the greatest chance to reduce risk. Then possible ways of

reducing those risks were identified. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to

components, systems, procedures, and training. RG&E identified approximately 200 potential

SAMAs. Using a set of screening criteria, the number of SAMAs requiring further consideration

was reduced to 20. Further refinement and review of these 20 SAMAs eliminated 12 from

further consideration.

In the third step, the benefits and costs for the remaining eight candidate SAMAs were

estimated. Estimates were made of how much each proposed SAMA could reduce risk. Those

estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing

regulatory analyses (NRC 1997). The costs of implementing the proposed SAMAs were also

estimated.

Finally in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the eight final SAMAs were

compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the

SAMA were'greater than the costs (a positive cost-benefit). In the final analysis, two of these

SAMAs were determined to be cost-beneficial for Ginna.

Each of these four steps is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna

RG&E submitted an assessment of SAMAs for Ginna as part of the ER (RG&E 2002) and

provided a revised assessment in response to staff information requests (RG&E 2003); This

assessment was based on the most recent Ginna PSA (including the Level 1 and 2 analyses),

a plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident

Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) (essentially a Level 3 PSA model), and the Ginna

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (RG&E 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c).

January 2004 5-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The most recent PSA is a refinement of the plant-specific PSA presented in the Ginna

Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (RG&E 1994, 1997b, 1997c). The baseline core damage

frequency (CDF) for Ginna is approximately 4.0 x 10i5 per year, based on internally-initiated

events at power and at shutdown, and fire and internal flooding events at power. RG&E did not

include the contribution to CDF from seismic events in these estimates. RG&E concluded that

the existing IPEEE and Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) evaluations had adequately

identified potential plant improvements to address seismic events. The breakdown of CDF by

initiating event/accident class is summarized in Table 5-3. Fires, internal floods, shutdown

events, and steam generator tube ruptures are the dominant contributors to the CDF.

Table 5-3. Core Damage Frequency for R.E. GInna Nuclear Power Plant (Revision 4.2 of PSA)

Percent of Total

Contributor CDF (per year) CDF

Internal Events - At Power

Transients 1.0 x 104 3

Station Blackout (SBO) 2.1 x 104 5

Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 2.0 x 10-7 1

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 6.0 x 1 04 15

Loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) <2 inches 2.6 x 104 6

LOCAs >2 inches 7.0 x 107 2

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.5 x 10 ' 1

Internal Events - Shutdown 6.8 x 104 17

Total CDF from Internal events 2.0 x 10-5 50

External Events

Fire 1.1x 105 28

Flood 8.8 x 108 22

Total CDF from external events 2.0 x 10o5 50

Total CDF 4.0 x 10 5 100

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-6 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

RG&E estimated the dose from all postulated accidents to the population within 80 km (50 mi)

of the Ginna site to be approximately 0.163 person-Sv (16.300 person-rem). The breakdown of

the population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Bypass events

(SGTR and interfacing system LOCA) and late containment failures dominate the population

dose.

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

Population Dose

Person-Sv (Person-Rem Percent

Containment Release Mode Per Year - - Per Year) Contribution

SGTR(a) 0.063 6.300 39

ISLOCAs 0.044 4.400 27

Early containment failure 0.020 - 2.000 12

Late containment failure(b) 0.030 3.000 19

No containment failure 0.006 0.600 - 3

Total 0.163 16.300 100

(a) Includes thermally induced SGTR

(b) Includes contrbution from shutdown events

The staff has reviewed RG&E's data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality of

the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for the'

candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and

offsite doses provided by RG&E.

5.2.3 Potential Design Improvements

Once the most risk significant parts of the plant design'and operation were identified, RG&E

searched for ways to reduce those risks. To identify potential plant improvements, RG&E

reviewed improvements identified in the Ginn'a IPE and IPEEE processes, SAMA analyses

submitted for other nuclear power plants, and NRC and industry documents discussing,'

potential plant improvements. RG&E also reviewed the importance measures and dominant

cutsets of the Ginna PSA and considered insights provided by Ginra plant staff. RG&E

identified approximately 200 potential risk-reducing improvements to plant components,

systems, procedures, and training (SAMAs).

All but 20 of these SAMAs were removed from further consideration because (1) the SAMA was

not applicable at Ginna due to'design differences, (2) the SAMA would involve major plant

design and/or structural changes that would clearly be well in excess of the maximum attainable

benefit, or (3) the SAMA would provide only minimal 'risk reduction.

January 2004 5-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

These 20 candidate SAMAs were further defined and then reviewed based on the following

considerations: (1) ability to implement the change at Ginna (i.e., assessment of design

challenges or physical limitations), (2) the risk reduction that would realistically be achieved,

and (3) whether implementation of the change would increase vulnerabilities in other areas.

Using this evaluation process, all but eight of the candidate SAMAs were removed from further

consideration.

The staff reviewed the screening methods used by RG&E and their results and concluded that

they were systematic and comprehensive.

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction Potential and Cost of Design Improvements

RG&E calculated the potential risk reduction for the remaining eight SAMAs. The potential

benefits were developed by adding the estimated present dollar value of the averted public

exposure, offsite property damage, occupational exposure, and onsite costs associated with

each SAMA. RG&E estimated the costs of implementing the eight remaining SAMAs through

I application of engineering judgment and site-specific cost estimates.

The staff reviewed RG&E's calculations of the potential risk reduction and concluded that they

are reasonable and conservative. Therefore, the staff based its estimates of averted risk for

the SAMAs on RG&E's risk reduction estimates. The staff reviewed the cost estimates and

concluded that they are sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

Based on the more detailed evaluations of potential risk reduction and cost discussed above,

RG&E determined that two of the eight remaining SAMAs were cost beneficial. RG&E

performed additional analyses to determine the impact of certain parameter choices such as

the discount rate on the calculations. RG&E also evaluated the impact on SAMA results if the

95h- percentile values of the CDF were used in the cost-benefit analysis instead of the bestestimate CDF values. These analyses did not result in identifying any additional cost-beneficial

SAMAs. Therefore, RG&E finally concluded that there were two cost-beneficial SAMAs.

The two SAMAs considered to be potentially cost beneficial include (1) obtaining a skidmounted, 480-V diesel generator that could be directly connected to one train of the safeguards

buses in the event of a failure of the two existing diesel generators; and (2) modifying

procedures to allow certain charging pumps to be manually aligned to an alternate power

source in the event of a control complex fire, or a fire that disables safeguards train B when the

train A charging pump is out of service or fails to run.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-8 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The staff reviewed calculation methods and logic arguments used by RG&E in the final costbenefit comparisons and agreed with their conclusion that two of the original approximately

200 SAMAs are cost beneficial.

5.2.6 Conclusions

The staff reviewed the SAMA analysis provided by RG&E and concluded that the methods used

and the implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and

costs, the generally large negative net benefits, and the inherently small baseline risks support

the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by RG&E are reasonable and

sufficient for the license renewal submittal.

Based on its review of the RG&E SAMA analysis, the staff concludes that two of the candidate

SAMAs are cost-beneficial. This is based on conservative treatment of costs and benefits.

This conclusion is consistent with the low residual level of risk indicated in the Ginna PSA and

the fact that Ginna has already implemented many plant improvements identified from the IPE

and IPEEE process. Although two SAMA candidates appear to be cost beneficial, they do not

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. RG&E stated that it will consider implementation of these SAMAs through its current

plant change process.

5.3 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

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."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site

Criteria."

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1994. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20. March 15, 1994.

January 2004 5-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE-Seismic Evaluation Report

(prepared by Stevenson & Associates), Rochester Gas and Electric, Robert E. Ginna Station,

Attachment to Letter. January 31, 1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 1 Probabilistic

Safety Assessment (PSA). January 15, 1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 2 Probabilistic

Safety Assessment. August 30,1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Ginna Station Fire IPEEE. June 30, 1998.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE High Winds and Transportation

Report. August 19, 1998.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Supplement to High Winds and

Transportation Report. September 8, 1998.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E - Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. February 28, 2003.

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). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-01 84, Washington, D.C.

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

for Ucense 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.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-10 January 2004
6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management were

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 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 then 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:

(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 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 of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management during the license renewal term that are listed in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, and are applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). The generic

potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium

fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in the GEIS,

based in part on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51 (b), Table S-3, "Table of

Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, "Environmental

Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear

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

all references to the uGEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2004 6-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Fuel Cycle

Power Reactor." The GEIS also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99.

There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

Category 1 issues from 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable

to Ginna from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1.

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

Management During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other 6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 6.2.4;

than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9;

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1;

6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2;

6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 6.4.4.5.1;

6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6,

6.6

Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4;

6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2;

6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4, 6.6

Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3;

6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6

Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6

Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4; 6.6,

Addendum 1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-2 January 2004
Fuel Cycle

In the Ginna Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

(RG&E) stated that "no new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS

conclusions." The staff has not identified any new and significant information on this issue

during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process,

discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. For all of those GEIS issues, the staff concluded that the impacts are SMALL except for

collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent

fuel disposal, as discussed below, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be

sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of sDent fuel

and high-level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51 (b)]. Based on information in

the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.-

* Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

about 14,800 person rem [148 person Sv], or 12 cancer fatalities, for each

additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the

contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses

summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be

extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well

as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands

of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny

doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be

mitigated (for example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that

these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these

assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the

January 2004 6-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Fuel Cycle

possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For

perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even

smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] implications of these matters should

be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case

[NEPA 1969]. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission

concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of

extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly,

while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the

collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium

fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain StandardsO and that in accordance

with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository

can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1 mSv] per year or

less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

[1 mSv] per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual

doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and

international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem

[1 mSv] per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem [1 mSv] annual

dose limit is about 3 x 1 31.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-4 January 2004
Fuel Cycle

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events ih'at could seriously

compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

Department of Energy in the 'Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management

of Commercially Generated Radioactive.Waste," October 1980 [DOE 1980]. The

evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum

individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a

reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years,

and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies'

have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the

licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at

Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to population may be

possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed'

Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty,

especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The

standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The

relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and

cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report

articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the

population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's [Environmental

Protection Agency] generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191 generally

provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that

could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the

ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration.

The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing containment

requirements that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over

10,000 years. Reporting performance standards that will be required by EPA are

expected to result in releases and associated health consequences in the range

between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of

1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM)

repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these

impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.

Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for

the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered

Category 1.

January 2004 6-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Fuel Cycle

Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation protection

standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, at 40 CFR Part 197, "Public Health and

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada," on June 13,

2001 (66 FR 32132). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC 10101) directed that the NRC

adopt these standards into its regulations for reviewing and licensing the repository. The

NRC published its regulations at 10 CFR Part 63, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive

Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,' on November 2, 2001

(66 FR 55792). These regulations include the following requirements: (1) 0.15 mSv/year

(15.00 mrem/year) dose limit for members of the public during the storage period prior to

repository closure; (2) 0.15 mSvlyear (15.00 mrem/year) dose limit for the reasonably

maximally exposed individual for 10,000 years following disposal; (3) 0.15.00 mSv/year

(15.00 mremlyear) dose limit for the reasonably maximally exposed individual as a result of

a human intrusion at or before 10,000 years after disposal; and (4) a groundwater protection

standard that states for 10,000 years of undisturbed performance after disposal,

radioactivity in a representative volume of groundwater will not exceed (a) 0.19 Bq/L (5.00

pCV/L) (radium-226 and radium-228), (b) 0.56 Bq/L (15 pC/L) (gross alpha activity), and (c)

0.04 mSv/year (4.00 mrem/year) to the whole body or any organ (from combined beta- and

photon-emitting radionuclides).

On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by Secretary Abraham,

U.S. Department of Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the

development of a repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

nuclear waste. The U.S. Congress approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002. On

July 23, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 87 designating Yucca

Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste.

This change in regulatory status does not cause the staff to change its position with respect

to the impact of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal. The staff still considers the

Category 1 classification in the GEIS appropriate.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts related to spent fuel and high-level

waste disposal during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

of an operating license for any plant are found to be SMALL.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-6 January 2004
Fuel Cycle

The staff has not identified any new and significant information.. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient

low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for

facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning

requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with

the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and

nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste

disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with

the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

January 2004 6-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Fuel Cycle

* Onsite spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects

through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

retrievable storage is not available.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of onsite spent fuel associated with license renewal

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Nonradiolopical waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

all plants.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no nonradiological waste impacts during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Transoortation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235

with average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste

to a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be

consistent with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51 .52(c), Summary

Table S-4 - Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and

from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or

bumup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

implications for the environmental impact values reported in 51.52.

Ginna meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

GEIS. The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of transportation associated with license renewal

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-8 January 2004
Fuel Cycle

6.2 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."

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 63, "Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste."

40 CFR Part 197. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 197,

'Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,

Nevada."

Energy Policy Act of 1992. 42 USC 10101, et seq.

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

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E- Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOEIEIS 00046-G, Vols. 1-3,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. "Part 197 - Public Health and

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada." 66 FR 32132.

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.

January 2004 6-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Fuel Cycle

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. "Part 63 - Disposal of High-Level

Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." 66 FR 55792.

November 2, 2001.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-10 January 2004
7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Environmental impacts from the'activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Final Supplement 1 to

the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,

NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). The staff's evaluation of the environmental impacts of

decommissioning presented in Final Supplement 1 resulted in a range of impacts for each

environmental issue. These results may be used by licensees as a' starting point for a plantspecific evaluation of the decommissioning impacts at their facilities.

The incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities resulting

from continued plant operation during the renewal term are evaluated in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(a) 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 were then 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:

(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 highlevel 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 unless new and significant information is identified.

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

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. No Category 2 issues are

related to decommissioning the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).

(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.

January 2004 7-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to Ginna decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. In its

Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E)

stated "no new information exists for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions."

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other

agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues,

the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant Following the Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

DECOMMISSIONING

Radiation Doses 7.3.1; 7.4

Waste Management 7.3.2; 7.4

Air Quality 7.3.3; 7.4

Water Quality 7.3.4; 7.4

Ecological Resources 7.3.5; 7.4

Socioeconomic Impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of the issues follows:

Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

no more than 1 man-rem (0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived

radionuclides during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no radiation doses associated with decommissioning following

license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 7-2 January 2004
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

. Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of solid waste associated with decommissioning

following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on air quality during

decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Water auality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

to avoid such impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on water quality during

decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Ecological Resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on ecological resources during

decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

January 2004 . 7-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

* Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

economic growth.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on the socioeconomic impacts of

decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

7.1 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E- Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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.

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Supplement 1 to the Generic

I Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586,

I Supp. 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 7-4 January 2004
8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal

of the operating license (OL) (i.e., the'no-action alternative); the potential environmental

impacts from electric generating sources other than the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

(Ginna); the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power

generated by Ginna and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental

impacts from a combination of generating and c6nservation measures; and other generation

alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by Ginna. The

environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)

three-level standard of significance - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1

of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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 - Erivironmental 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 impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999)(a) with the additional impact category of environmental

justice.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

The NRC's regulations implementing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 specify

that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC EIS (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix A[4]). For license renewal, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the

NRC would not renew the Ginna OL and RG&E would then cease operations at the plant and

initiate the decommissioning of the plant.

(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.

January 2004 8-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

RG&E will be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the

OL is renewed. If the Ginna OL is renewed, decommissioning activities will not be avoided but

may be postponed for up to an additional 20 years. If the OL is not renewed, RG&E would

conduct decommissioning activities according to the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82.

The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning following a license renewal period

of up to 20 years or following the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of

I impacts in Chapter 7 of the GEIS (NRC 1996), Chapter 7 of this supplemental environmental

impact statement (SEIS), and the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The impacts

of decommissioning after 60 years of operation are not expected to be significantly different

from those occurring after 40 years of operation.

The no-action alternative, that is, ceasing operations after the current license expires, would

result in a net reduction in power production. The power not generated by Ginna during the

license renewal term would likely be replaced by (1) demand-side management (DSM) and

energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers, (3) generating

alternatives other than Ginna, or (4) some combination of these options. This replacement

power would produce additional environmental impacts as discussed in Section 8.2.

The staff's assessments of the impacts of the no-action alternative on each impact category are

provided in the following sections. The assessment of each impact category is supplemented

with information about the potential impacts of decommissioning.

* Land Use

Cessation of plant operations would result in a reduced use of the Ginna site. Land use on and

off the site will be reduced and eventually eliminated resulting from plant operations. During

decommissioning, some temporary changes in onsite land use could occur. These changes

may include additional or expanded staging and laydown areas or construction of temporary

buildings and parking areas. No offsite land-use changes are expected as a result of

decommissioning. After cessation of operations and following decommissioning, the Ginna site

would likely be retained by RG&E for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the

site, however, could result in changes to land use. Notwithstanding this possibility, the impacts

of the no-action alternative and decommissioning on land use are considered SMALL.

* Ecology

Impacts on aquatic ecology should be reduced immediately following cessation of plant

operations. Water withdrawal and discharge of heated water will end when the reactor is shut

down. Decommissioning activities may have some short-term impacts to site ecology. Impacts

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-2 January 2004
Alternatives

on aquatic ecology could result from removal of in-water pipes and structures or the filling of the

discharge canal. Impacts to aquatic ecology would likely be short-term and could be mitigated.

The aquatic environment is expected to recover naturally. Impacts on terrestrial ecology,

following cessation of operations, should be greatly reduced because there will be less use of

the land on and off the site. Impacts on terrestrial ecology, related to decommissioning

activities, could occur as a result of land disturbance for additional laydown yards, stockpiles,

and support facilities. Land disturbance is expected to be minimal and would result in relatively

short-term impacts that can be mitigated using best management practices. The land is

expected to recover naturally. Overall, the impacts associated with the no-action alternative

and decommissioning on terrestrial and aquatic ecology are considered SMALL.

* Water Use and Quality

Cessation of plant operations would result in a significant reduction in water use because

reactor cooling will no longer be required. As plant staff size decreases, the demand for

potable water is expected to also decrease. Water use during decommissioning is expected to

be less than during operation. The water quality is unlikely to be adversely affected unless

onsite disposal of demolition debris is utilized. Overall, water use and quality impacts of the noaction alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Air Quality

Emission from diesel generators, boilers, and other activities associated with Ginna operations

will cease or be greatly reduced. During normal operations, emissions from these Ginna

sources are lower than the thresholds in New York state and Federal air-quality regulations.

Decommissioning activities that can adversely affect air quality include dismantlement of

systems and equipment, demolition of buildings and structures, and the operation of internal

combustion engines. The most likely adverse impact would be the generation of fugitive dust.

Best management practices, such as seeding and wetting, could be used to minimize the

generation of fugitive dust. Air-quality impacts associated with the no-action alternative and

decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Waste

Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive wastes are by-products of reactor operations. Liquid

wastes are generated primarily by plant maintenance and service operations. The primary

source of gas is displaced from the chemical and volume control system tanks used to store

liquids. Solid wastes include dry active waste, sludge, oil, bead resin, and filters. -These wastes

will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the cessation of operations. Decommissioning activities

would result in the generation of radioactive and non-radioactive waste. The staff concluded in

NRC (2002) that the volume of low-level waste generated during decommissioning could vary

January 2004 8-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

greatly depending on the type and size of the plant, the length of time it operated, the

decommissioning option chosen, and the waste treatment and volume reduction procedures

used. Low-level radioactive waste must be disposed of in a facility licensed by NRC or a state

with authority delegated by NRC. Recent advances in volume reduction and waste processing

have significantly reduced waste volumes. A permanent repository for high-level waste is not

currently available. The NRC has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel

generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for

at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised

or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite

independent spent fuel storage installations (10 CFR 51.23(a)). Onsite and offsite licensed

disposal facilities would be used for disposal of non-radioactive waste. Overall, waste impacts

associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Human Health

During operation of Ginna, releases and the resultant dose revealed that the doses to

maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Ginna have been a small fraction of the limits

specified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. The assessment of

radiation dose to the general public from effluents indicates the dose is only a fraction of the

regulatory limit. These potential exposures will be reduced following cessation of plant

operations. Radiological doses to occupational workers during decommissioning activities are

estimated to average approximately 5 percent of the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to be

similar to, or lower than, the doses experienced by workers in operating nuclear power plants.

Effluent releases from decommissioning activities are estimated to be well below the limits in

10 CFR Part 20, and to be similar to, or lower than, effluent releases from operating nuclear

power plants. These effluent releases will result in doses to the public well below

10 CFR Part 20 requirements. Occupational injuries to workers engaged in decommissioning

activities are possible. However, historical injury and fatality rates at nuclear power plants have

been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. For years, America's commercial nuclear

energy industry has ranked among the safest places to work in the United States. In 2000, its

industrial safety accident rate, which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work

time, restricted work, or fatalities, was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. This is lower than the

accident rate for the U.S. manufacturing industry, at 3.95, and even lower than the accident rate

I for the workplaces of the U.S. finance, insurance, and real estate industries, at 0.62. Overall,

the human health impacts associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

* Socioeconomics

If Ginna ceased operation, there would be a decrease in employment and tax revenues

associated with the closure. Employment (primary and secondary) impacts and impacts on

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-4 January 2004
Alternatives

population would occur over a wide area. Employees working at Ginna reside in a number of

New York counties including Wayne, Monroe, Ontario, and Livingston (RG&E 2002). Taxrelated impacts would occur in Wayne County. In 2001, RG&E paid property taxes for Ginna to

Wayne County, the town of Ontario, and the Wayne Central School District in the amount of

$5,376,263 (RG&E 2002). This payment represented approximately 2.0 percent of total

revenues in Wayne County and approximately 13.2 percent of total revenues for the town of

Ontario. Payments to the Wayne Central School District accounted for 11.7 percent of the total

district revenue between 1995 and 2001.

The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes attributable to Ginna as well as

the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the OL was renewed. There would also be an

adverse impact on housing values and the local economy if Ginna ceased operations.

RG&E employees working at Ginna currently contribute time and money toward community

involvement, including schools, churches, charities, and other civic activities. It is likely that with

a reduced presence in the community following decommissioning, community involvement

efforts by RG&E and its employees in the region would be less.

Both Chapter 7 of the GEIS and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002) note that

socioeconomic impacts would be expected as a result of the decision to close a nuclear power

plant, and that the direction and magnitude of the overall impacts would depend on the state of

the economy, the net change in workforce at the plant, and the changes in local government tax

receipts. The socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning activities are expected to be SMALL.

Appendix J of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 shows that the overall socioeconomic impact of

plant closure plus decommissioning could be greater than SMALL.

The staff has concluded that when the property tax revenue from a nuclear power plant

comprises less than 10 percent of the tax revenue of a local jurisdiction, the socioeconomic

impacts associated with the loss of the plant's tax revenue as a result of plant closure is

considered SMALL. The property taxes that RG&E pays for Ginna comprise less than

10 percent of total revenue of Wayne County; however, it comprises slightly more than

10 percent of the total revenue for both the town of Ontario and the Wayne Central School

District; consequently, the socioeconomic impacts resulting from loss of this revenue are

considered SMALL to MODERATE.

Employees at Ginna constitute approximately 1 percent of total employment in Wayne County.

Loss of these jobs is considered to have a SMALL socioeconomic impact.

Overall, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts associated with the no-action

alternative are considered SMALL to MODERATE and the impacts of decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

January 2004 8-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

* Aesthetics

Cessation of plant operations would probably result in the dismantlement of buildings and

structures at the site resulting in a positive aesthetic impact. Operational noise would be

reduced or eliminated. Decommissioning would result in the eventual dismantlement of

buildings and structures at the site resulting in a positive aesthetic impact. Noise would be

generated during decommissioning operations that may be detectable offsite; however, the

impact is unlikely to be of large significance and can normally be mitigated. Thus, the aesthetic

impacts associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

Use of land resources at Ginna would be reduced following plant closure. The site would likely

be retained by RG&E for other corporate purposes. Sale or transfer of the site could follow

closure. Reduced use of the property will reduce the likelihood of adversely impacting historic

and archaeological resources. The amount of undisturbed land needed to support the

decommissioning process will be relatively small. The staff concluded in NRC (2002) that

decommissioning activities conducted within the operational areas of a nuclear power plant are

not expected to have a detectable effect on important cultural resources because these areas

have been impacted during the operating life of the plant. Minimal disturbance of land outside

the licensee's operational area for decommissioning activities is expected. Historic and

archaeological resources on undisturbed portions of the site should not be adversely affected.

Following decommissioning, the site would likely be retained by RG&E for other corporate

purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the site, however, could result in adverse impacts to

cultural resources if the land-use pattern changes dramatically. Notwithstanding this possibility,

the impacts of the no-action alternative and decommissioning on historic and archaeological

resources are considered SMALL.

Environmental Justice

Current operations at Ginna have no disproportionate impacts on the minority and low-income

populations of Wayne and surrounding counties. No environmental pathways have been

identified that would cause disproportionate impacts if the no-action alternative is implemented.

Closure of Ginna would result in decreased employment opportunities and tax revenues in

Wayne and surrounding counties, with possible negative and disproportionate impacts on

minority or low-income populations. Ginna is located near a relatively urban area with many

employment opportunities. Decommissioning activities are not expected to adversely impact

the minority and low-income populations of Wayne and surrounding counties. Thus, the

environmental justice impacts under the no-action alternative and decommissioning are

considered SMALL

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-6 January 2004
Alternatives

* Summary of the No-Action Alternative

The environmental impacts associated with the nb-action alternative are summarized in

Table 8-1. Implementation of the no-action alternative would also have certain positive impacts

in that adverse environmental impacts associated with current operation of Ginna (for example,

solid waste generation and impingement or entrainment of aquatic life) would be eliminated.

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

Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Operating License

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use

Ecology

Water Use and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

SMALL Closure will result In decreased land use.

Decommissioning onsite impacts expected to be

temporary. No offsite impacts expected or plant closure

or decommissioning.

SMALL -Plant closure will immediately reduce impacts to

' terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Decommissioning

impacts to ecology are expected to be temporary and will

be mitigated using best management practices.

SMALL Water use will decrease. Water quality unlikely to be

adversely affected unless onsite disposal of demolition

debris is utilized.

SMALL All emissions will decrease following closure. During

decommissioning, the greatest impact is likely to be from

'fugitive dust; impact can be mitigated by good

management practices.

SMALL Low-level radioactive waste will be disposed of In licensed

facilities. A permanent disposal facility for high-level

waste is not currently available.

SMALL Radiological doses to workers and members of the public

are expected to be within regulatory limits and

comparable to, or lower than, doses from operating

plants. Occupational injuries, during decommissioning,

are possible, but injury rates at nuclear power plants are

below the U.S. average industrial rate.

SMALL to Following plant closure there will be a decrease in

MODERATE employment in Wayne and surrounding counties and tax

revenues in Wayne County. There will be some

employment created during decommissioning.

January 2004 8-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-1. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Aesthetics SMALL Positive impact from eventual removal of buildings

and structures. Some noise impact during

decommissioning operations.

Historic and Archaeological Resources SMALL Use of the properties will decrease following plant closure

and will be controlled during decommissioning.

Environmental Justice SMALL Some loss of employment opportunities and social

programs is expected.

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

This section describes the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

power to replace the power generated by Ginna, assuming that the OL is not renewed. The

order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply which

alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impacts. The

following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

* coal-fired generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.1)

* natural-gas-fired generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.2)

* nuclear generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.3).

The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated by Ginna is

discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation alternatives and conservation alternatives

considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for Ginna are discussed

in Section 8.2.5. The environmental impacts of a combination of generation and conservation

alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.6.

The Ginna site is approximately 197 ha (488 ac) and was originally planned to accommodate an

additional nuclear power unit west of the existing plant. A replacement power plant, regardless

of fuel type, could be placed at this site and could therefore use existing infrastructure (e.g.,

cooling water system, transmission, roads, and technical and administrative support facilities).

However, for other reasons, such as fuel-delivery infrastructure limitations, there may be

advantages to locating any replacement power plants elsewhere in western New York state.

Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2003, EIA

projects that natural-gas-fired combined-cycle or combustion turbine technology (including

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 - 8-8 January 2004
Alternatives

distributed generation capacity), will make up 80 percent of new electric-generating capacity

through the year 2025 (DOEIEIA 2003). Both technologies are designed primarily to supply

peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet baseload(a) requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for approximately 17

percent of new capacity during this period. Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet baseload requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind, geothermal, and municipal solid

waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the remaining 3 percent of capacity additions.

EIA's projections are based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will

seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. Combined-cycle

plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest generation cost in 2005 and 2025, followed by

coal-fired plants and then wind generation (DOE/EIA 2003).

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little new generation capacity in the

United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

(DOE/EIA 2003).

EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

capacity in the United States through the year 2025 because natural-gas and coal-fired plants

are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2003). In spite of this projection, a new nuclear

plant alternative for replacing power generated by Ginna is considered for reasons stated in

Section 8.2.3.

If an alternative generating technology were selected to replace power generated by Ginna,

Ginna would be decommissioned. Environmental impacts associated with decommissioning

are discussed in Section 8.1 and are not otherwise addressed in Section 8.2.

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

Environmental impact information for a replacement coal-fired power plant 'using closed-cycle

cooling with cooling towers is presented in Section 8.2.1.1 and using once-through cooling in'

Section 8.2.1.2.

The staff assumed construction of two coal-generating companion units, each producing

265-megawatt electric [MW(e)] units,(b) which is consistent with RG&E's Environmental Report'

(ER) for Ginna (RG&E 2002). This assumption will slightly overstate the impacts of replacing

(a) A base-load plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a

system and consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants

are commonly used for base-load generiation (i.e., these units generally run near full load).

(b) The units would have a rating of 297.5 gross MW(t) and 265 net MW(e). The difference between

"gross" and "net" is electricity consumed on the plant site.

January 2004 8-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

the 490 MW(e) from Ginna; however, an additional assumption is made that these power plants

would operate at 80 percent capacity to correspond with the annual net production of 422

MW(e) from Ginna.

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

from the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only

20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a

reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

The coal-fired alternative is analyzed for the Ginna site and an unspecified greenfield alternate

site in western upstate New York. RG&E assumes in its ER that the plant would bum

medium-sulfur bituminous coal of the type currently used at its Russell Station. This coal

originates in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Average characteristics of this fuel include a heat

content of 30,775 kJ/kg (13,233 Btu/lb), a sulfur content of 2.22 percent by weight

(7.2 x 10 4 g/kJ [1.68 lb/MMBtu]), and an ash content of 7.35 percent by weight. Scaling from

DOE estimates for comparable units, taking into account differences in fuel heat content and

capacity factor, RG&E estimates that the plant would consume approximately 1.3 million MT

(1.4 million tons) of coal per year. Construction of a new electric power transmission line to

connect to existing lines and a rail spur to the plant site may be needed.

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts at either the Ginna or alternate sites of the coal-fired generating system

using a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in the following sections.

The magnitude of impacts for the alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site

selected. The Ginna plant currently uses a once-through cooling system. For the purposes of

comparison with an alternative site, however, it is assumed that the replacement coal-fired plant

sited on the Ginna site would use a closed-cycle cooling system, which would most likely

require the acquisition of additional land adjacent to the site.

Land Use

The coal-fired generation alternative at the Ginna site would necessitate converting

approximately 130 ha (320 ac) to industrial use for the power block, infrastructure and support

facilities, coal storage and handling, and landfill disposal of ash, spent selective catalytic

reduction (SCR) catalyst (used for control of nitrogen oxide [NOJ emissions), and scrubber

sludge (RG&E 2002). Of this amount, disposal of ash and sludge over a 40-year plant life

would require approximately 105 ha (260 ac) (RG&E 2002). Additional land could be needed

for an electric power transmission line, and a rail spur or barge slip and supporting facilities.

Although the Ginna site has an existing once-through cooling system, it is likely that the system

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-10 January 2004
Alternatives

would need to be significantly modified to accommodate a coal plant with a closed-cycle cooling

system. The alternate site would require construction of pipelines for cooling-water intake and

discharge. During construction of the coal plant on the Ginna site, it is likely that the land

requirements would exceed the size of the existing Ginna site, which would necessitate the

acquisition of additional land adjacent to the site.

Locating the plant at an alternate site may require more site acreage than for the Ginna station

siting alternative to provide for additional onsite support infrastructure and buffer areas. - For

example, scaling for plant size from the NRC's estimate for a 1000 MW coal-fired plant

(NRC 1996), a 222-ha (900-ac) site could be required.

Land-use changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for

the plant. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 8900 ha (22,000 ac) would be

affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a 1000 MW(e) coal plant

during its operational life (NRC 1996). A replacement coal-fired plant for Ginna would generate

425 MW(e), so proportionately less land would be affected. Partially offsetting this offsite land

use would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for

Ginna. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected

for mining and processing the uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power

plant (NRC 1996).

The impact of a coal-fired generating unit with a closed-cycle cooling system on land use

located at either the Ginna site or at an alternate New York site is considered as MODERATE

to LARGE. The impact would be greater than the alternative of renewing the OLs.

* Ecology

The coal-fired generation alternative at the Ginna site would use undeveloped areas of the site,

which is primarily made up of wooded areas and orchards. In addition, there are two streams

that flow through the site that would most likely be impacted. If the rail delivery option is*

chosen, it would require the construction of a 4.8-km (3.0-mi)-long rail spur to an existing rail

line and the use of a 29-km (18-mi) corridor that is not currently used. If the barge delivery

option is chosen, a navigable channel would need to be dredged and a dockage area would

need to be constructed. Barge delivery would require maintenance dredging during operation

of the plant. Cooling tower drift could result in some minor impacts.

Because construction would result in the loss of hundreds of acres of habitat for the plant,

infrastructure and waste disposal, the staff considers the ecological impacts of a new coal-fired

plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site to be MODERATE.

January 2004 8-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Coal-fired generation at an alternative site would introduce construction impacts and new

incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced

productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling

makeup water from a nearby surface-water body could have adverse impacts on aquatic

resources. If needed, construction and maintenance of an electric power transmission line and

a rail spur would have ecological impacts. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology

from water drift from the cooling towers. Overall, the ecological impacts of constructing a coalfired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site are considered to be

MODERATE to LARGE and would be greater than renewal of the Ginna OL.-

* Water Use and Quality

Coal-fired generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for cooling. It

is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used, but the

construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a closedcycle cooling system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown,

characterized primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids

relative to the receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g.,

chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged.

All discharges would be regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) through a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)

permit. There would be a consumptive use of water due to evaporation from the cooling

towers. Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996).

The staff considers the impacts to surface-water use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a

closed-cycle cooling system located at the Ginna site to be SMALL.

Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

coal-fired plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a coal-fired plant at an

alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to groundwater

use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site

are considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a plant at an

alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater

withdrawn.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-12 January 2004
Alternatives

* Air Quality

The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation differ considerably from those of nuclear

generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SOJ), NO,, particulates, carbon monoxide,

hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive materials.

A new coal-fired generating plant would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would need to comply

with the new source performance standards for such plants set forth in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR

60.42a), sulfur dioxide (SO2) (40 CFR 60.43a), and NOX (40 CFR 60.44a). The facility would be

designed to meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emissions

Rate (LAER) standards, as applicable, for control of criteria air emissions.

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P.- including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an

area designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants(a) under the Clean Air Act.

All of the RG&E potential power plant sites are most likely in areas that are designated as

attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future, and remedying 'existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment results from man-made air pollution. In addition, EPA regulations provide that for

each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the state must establish goals that

provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable

progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the

period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired

days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. The Ginna site and the surrounding region

are not located within a Class I Federal area. -

Impacts for specific pollutants are as follows:

Sulfur oxides. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title

IV of the Clean Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NO,, the

two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from

power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant S emissions and imposes

controls on S emissions through a system of marketable allowances. EPA issues one

allowance for each ton of S that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive

(a) Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, S02, lead, and

NO,. Emission standards for criteria pollutants are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51.

January 2004 8-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their S02 emissions. Owners

of new units must therefore either acquire allowances from owners of other power plants

by purchase or reduce SO2 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can

be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to

net regional S02 emissions, although it might do so locally. Regardless, S02 emissions

would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative since a nuclear

power plant releases almost no S02 during normal operations.

RG&E estimates that by using the best technology to minimize S02 emissions, the total

annual stack emissions would be approximately 2661 MT (2933 tons) of SO2 (RG&E 2002).

RG&E states in its ER that a coal-fired plant would use wet limestone flue-gas

desulfurization technology (RG&E 2002).

Nitrogen oxides. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based

emission limitations for NO, emissions. The market-based allowance system used for

SO2 emissions is not used for NO. emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be

subject to the new source performance standard for such plants at 40 CFR

60.44a(d)(1), which limits the discharge of any gases that contain NO, (expressed as

NO2) to 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling

average.

RG&E estimates that by using low-NO, burners with overfire air and SCR, the total annual

NOX emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be approximately 1597 MT (1760

tons) (RG&E 2002). Regardless of the control technology, this level of NO, emissions

would be greater than the OL renewal alternative, because a nuclear power plant releases

almost no NOX during normal operations.

* Particulates. RG&E estimates that the total annual stack emissions of particulates

would include approximately 195 MT (215 tons) of PM10 (particulate matter having an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 um). Fabric filters or electrostatic

precipitators would be used for control (RG&E 2002). In addition, coal-handling

equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions. Particulate emissions would

be greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative since a nuclear

plant releases few particles during normal operations.

During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition,

exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during

construction.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-14 January 2004
Alternatives

* Carbon monoxide. RG&E estimates that total carbon monoxide emissions would be

approximately 2781 MT (3066 tons) per year (RG&E 2002). This level of emissions is

greater than the OL renewal altemative.

* Hazardous air pollutants including mercury In December 2000, the EPA issued

regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steamgenerating units (EPA 2000a). The EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric

utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coalfired power plants were found by EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

dioxins, hydrogen chloride; hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury

(EPA 2000a). The EPA concluded that mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of'

-greatest concern. The EPA found that (1) there is a link between coal consumption and

mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic

source of mercury emissions; and (3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the

developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential

risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting from consumption of

contaminated fish (EPA 2000a). Accordingly, EPA added coal- and oil-fired electric

utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section 112(c) of the

Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued

(EPA 2000a).

* Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally

about 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is

that a typical coal-fired plant had an annual release of approximately 4.7 MT (5.2 tons)

of uranium and 11.6 MT (12.8 tons) of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population

dose equivalent from the uranium and thorium releases and daughter products

produced by the decay of these isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher

than that from nuclear power plants (Gabbard 1993).

* Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions'

that could contribute to global warming.

The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but implied that air

impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming from unregulated

carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SO, and NO, emissions as potential impacts

(NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects from coal combustion such as cancer and

emphysema have been associated with the products of coal combustion. Although local air

quality would noticeably be reduced from the presence of a coal plant, equivalent regional

allowances for S02 emissions would have to be obtained and credits to more than offset NO,

emissions by a ratio of 1.15:1.00 would also have to be obtained. The appropriate

January 2004 8-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

characterization of air impacts from coal-fired generation at either the Ginna site or an alternate

site are considered to be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not

destabilize air quality.

- Waste

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution

generates additional ash, spent SCR catalyst, and scrubber sludge. One 422-MW(e) coal-fired

plant would annually generate approximately 148,000 MT (163,000 tons) of ash and 138,000

MT (152,000 tons) of scrubber sludge. Spent SCR catalyst would be regenerated or disposed

of offsite. Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities. Waste

impacts to groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if

leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could noticeably

affect land use and groundwater quality but, with appropriate management and monitoring, it

would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land

could be available for some other uses.

In May 2000, the EPA issued a 'Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

I Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (EPA 2000b). The EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because (1) the

composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment under

certain conditions; (2) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damage to human

health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface

impoundments; (3) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were being

managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable

controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (4) EPA identified gaps

in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to

issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste under subtitle D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

For all of the preceding reasons, the impacts from waste generated by a coal-fired plant using

once-through cooling at either the Ginna site or at an alternate site are considered to be

MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable but would not destabilize any important

resource.

* Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risk from coal and limestone mining, worker and

public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of

coal combustion wastes, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-16 January 2004
Alternatives

Emission impacts can be widespiead and health risk is difficult to quantify. The coal alternative

also introduces the risk of coal pile fires and attendant inhalation risk.

The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but the GEIS

does not identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess

of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and state agencies, set air emission standards and

requirements based on human health'impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has

recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and

subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed tobe at potential risk of adverse health effects

due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, in the

absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling

toxins and particulates generated by a coal-fired plant at either the Ginna or alternate site are

considered to be SMALL.

* Socloeconomics

If a coal-fired power plant were built on the Ginna site, the community would not lose the tax

base; however, they would experience a net loss of operational jobs, down from 500 to

100-150 plant employees. If a coal-fired power plant were built at an alternate site to replace

power produced by Ginna, the communities around the Ginna site would experience the impact

of Ginna operational job loss and the town of Ontario, the Wayne Central School District, and

Wayne County would lose the Ginna tax base. These losses would have SMALL to -

MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, given the fact that Ginna provides less than 10 percent of

the total revenue in Wayne County and slightly over 10 percent of the total revenue in the town

of Ontario and the Wayne' Central School District (Section 8.1.7).

During'construction of the new coal-fired plant, communities near the construction site would

experience demands on housing and public services that could have a MODERATE impact

around the Ginna site and possibly a MODERATE to LARGE impact at an alternative site. After

construction, the nearby communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction jobs.

The construction'of the representative coal-fired plant would require a'peak onsite workforce of

approximately 820 workers and would take approximately three years to complete. It is

estimated that the completed coal plant would employ approximately 100-150 workers. The

coal-fired plant would provide a new tax base for the local jurisdiction at an alternative site. The

staff stated in the GEIS that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an

urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to the area to

January 2004 8-17: NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

work (NRC 1996). Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be MODERATE.

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction and plant operating

personnel at the Ginna site would likely be SMALL. Transportation-related impacts associated

with commuting construction workers at an alternate site are site-dependent, but could be

SMALL to MODERATE. Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating

personnel would also be site-dependent, but can be characterized as SMALL.

Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered to both the Ginna and alternative site by rail

or barge. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to

MODERATE. For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass and there

could be negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. Barge delivery of

coal and lime/limestone would likely have SMALL socioeconomic impacts.

Overall, the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating a coal-fired generating plant

at the Ginna site are considered to be SMALL to MODERATE. The socioeconomic impacts of

a coal-fired plant at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE to LARGE depending on

the alternate site location.

* Aesthetics

The two coal-fired power block units could be as much as 61 m (200 ft) tall and be visible from

offsite during daylight hours. The exhaust stacks could be as much as 152 m (500 ft) high.

The stacks would likely be highly visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 16 km

(10 mi). Cooling towers and associated plumes would also have an aesthetic impact. Natural

draft towers could be up to 160 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers could be up to 30 m

(100 ft) high. The stacks would be visible from parks, other recreational areas, and wildlife

refuges in the vicinity of the plant. The power block units and associated stacks and cooling

towers would also be visible at night because of outside lighting. The U.S. Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an overall height of 61 m

(200 ft) above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair aviation safety

(FAA 2000). Visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be mitigated by landscaping and

color selection for buildings that is consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could

be mitigated by reduced use of lighting, provided the lighting meets FAA requirements, and

appropriate use of shielding. Overall, the coal-fired units and the associated exhaust stacks

and cooling towers would likely have a MODERATE to LARGE aesthetic impact. There would

also be an aesthetic impact that could be LARGE if construction of a new electric power

transmission line is needed.

Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as

continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-18 January 2004
Alternatives

with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling towers. Intermittent sources include

the equipment related to coal handling, solid waste disposal, transportation related to coal and

lime/limestone delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees.

Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant

for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from

passing trains significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the

noise reduces the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the fact that

many people are likely to' be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on

residents in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE. Noise

associated with barge transportation of coal and lime/limestone would be SMALL. Noise and

light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site would be

mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area or adjacent to other power plants.

Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with locating a coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle

cooling system at either the Ginna or an alternate New York site are considered to be

MODERATE to LARGE.

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

An historic and archaeological resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite

property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and

recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse

effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant

site.

Before construction, studies would likely be'needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources.

The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads,

transmission corridors,'rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic'and archaeological resource

impacts can generally be managed or mitigated to some extent. Therefore, the impacts of a

new coal-fired plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site could be SMALL to MODERATE.

* Environmental Justice

If a coal-fired plant were located on the Ginna site, the environmental impacts on minority and

low-income populations around the site would most likely be SMALL. There may be some

impacts on housing that occur during construction; however, the impacts on minority and lowincome populations should be similar to those experienced by the population as a whole. The

January 2004 8-19 . NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

loss of Ginna operating jobs would be SMALL due to the proximity of the plant to a diverse

urban job market.

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

coal-fired plant built at an alternate site in New York state would depend upon the site chosen

and the nearby population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income

populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating jobs.

Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

populations. However, Ginna is located in a relatively urban area with many employment

possibilities. Wayne County would also experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could

affect its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would likely have

SMALL environmental justice impacts given the moderate proportion of the tax base in Wayne

County attributable to Ginna (Section 8.1.7). Overall, impacts of a new coal-fired plant at either

the Ginna or an alternate site are considered to be SMALL.

* Summary

The potential impacts of replacing the power produced by Ginna with a coal-fired generating

plant with a closed-cycle cooling system are summarized in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using ClosedCycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and an Alternate

Site in New York State

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE Uses up to approximately MODERATE May use up to approximately

to LARGE 130 ha (320 ac) for power to LARGE 360 ha (320 ac) for power

block; coal handling, block; coal handling,

storage, and transportation storage, and transportation

facilities; infrastructure facilities; infrastructure

facilities; and waste facilities; and waste disposal.

disposal. Additional land Additional land impacts for

impacts for coal and coal and limestone mining.

limestone mining. Additional impacts would

Additional impacts would occur for electric power

occur for rail spur and transmission line, rail spur,

closed-cycle cooling-water and cooling-water intake and

intake and discharge discharge piping.

piping.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-20 January 2OG4
Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category

Ecology

Surface-Water

Use and

Quality

Groundwater

Use and

Quality

Air Quality

Impact

MODERATE

Comments' Impact

Uses undeveloped areas MODERATE

in current site and possibly to LARGE

other nearby land and

existing transmission

corridor. Construction of

barge slip and dredged

channel or 4.8-km (3.0-mi)

rail spur needed; Impacts

to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

- Comment -

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

Partial use of existing

intake and discharge

structures. Operational

impacts similar to or less

than Ginna.

Use of groundwater is

unlikely.

Sulfur oxides

. 2661 MT/yr (2933 tons/yr)

0.25 gfGJ (0.15 lb/MMBtu)

Nitrogen oxides

* 1597 MT/yr (1760 tons/yr)

0.15 g/GJ (0.09 lb/MMBtu)

Particulates

* 195 MTlyr (215 tons/yr) of

PM10

Carbon monoxide . 2781 MT/yr (3066 tons/yr)

Small amounts of mercury

and other hazardous air

pollutants and naturally

occurring radioactive

materials - mainly uranium

and thorium

SMALL to

'MODERATE

SMALL TO

MODERATE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface-water body used for

intake and discharge, and

electric power transmission

line route; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity; impacts

to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged, the

constituents in the discharge

water, and the

characteristics of the

surface-water body.

Discharges would be

regulated by NYSDEC.

Impact will depend on the

volume of groundwater

withdrawn.

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

January 2004 8-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact - Comments Impact Comment

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

Total waste volume would

be approximately

148,000 MT/yr

(163,000 tons/yr) of ash,

spent catalyst, and

138,000 MT/yr

(152,000 tons/yr) of

scrubber sludge requiring

approximately 105 ha

(260 ac) for disposal

during the 40-year life of

the plant.

Impacts are uncertain, but

considered SMALL in the

absence of more

quantitative data.

Increased demand for

public services during

construction (up to

820 workers needed

during 3-year construction

period). Net loss of jobs

during operation (from 500

to approximately

150 employees); tax base

preserved. Transportation

of coal and limestone

could have MODERATE

impact if rail line is used.

For barge transportation,

the impact is considered

SMALL.

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

SMALL Same as Ginna site.

MODERATE Construction impacts

to LARGE depend on location, but

could be LARGE if plant is

located in a rural area.

Wayne County would

experience loss of the Ginna

site tax base and

employment, but impacts are

likely to be SMALL to

MODERATE. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL. Transportation

impacts associated with

construction workers could

be MODERATE to LARGE.

For rail transportation of coal

and lime/limestone, the

impact is considered

MODERATE to LARGE. For

barge transportation, the

impact is considered

SMALL.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-22 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd) I I .

A, ..

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

Aesthetics MODERATE Visual impact of large MODERATE Impact would depend on the

to LARGE industrial facility with to LARGE site selected and the

stacks and cooling towers surrounding land features.

on lake shore could be Power block, exhaust stacks,

significant. Construction cooling towers, and cooling

and operation of new tower plumes will be visible

barge facilities or railway from nearby areas. If

line to Rochester could needed, a new electric

also impact aesthetics. power transmission line

Noise impacts from plant could have a LARGE

operations and intermittent aesthetic impact.

sources such as rail Noise impact from plant

transportation of coal could operations and intermittent

be MODERATE. sources such as rail

transportation of coal could

be MODERATE.

Historic and SMALL to Impacts can generally be SMALL to Same as Ginna site.

Archaeological MODERATE managed or mitigated. MODERATE

Resources

Environmental SMALL Impacts on minority and SMALL Impacts at alternate site vary

Justice low-income populations depending on population

should be similar to those distribution and makeup at

experienced by the site. Wayne County would

population as a whole. lose tax revenue and jobs,

Some impacts on housing however, the impacts on

may occur during minority and low-income

construction. Loss of populations would likely be

Ginna operating jobs SMALL.

would be SMALL due to

the proximity of the plant to

a diverse urban job

market.

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation system at the Ginna site and

an alternate site in New York state using once-through cooling are similar to the impacts for a

coal-fired plant using a closed-cycle cooling system. However, there are some environmental

differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3

summarizes the incremental differences.

January 2004 8-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with OnceThrough Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or an

Alternate Site in New York State

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category

Land Use

Ecology

Surface-Water

Use and

Quality

Groundwater

Use

and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

Impact

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

Slightly less loss of

terrestrial habitat and

elimination of potential

cooling tower impacts.

Increased water

withdrawal, but aquatic

impacts would be similar

to current Ginna

operations.

No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown.

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on

receiving body of water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

Reduced aesthetic

impact because cooling

towers would not be

used.

Impact

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required because

cooling towers and

associated infrastructure

are not needed.

Slightly reduced habitat

loss, and no impacts to

terrestrial resources from

cooling towers, but

increased water withdrawal

may impact aquatic

resources.

Impact will depend on the

characteristics of the

surface-water body, volume

of water withdrawn, and

characteristics of the

discharge.

It is unlikely that

groundwater would be used

for once-through cooling,

but could be used for

sanitary water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

Reduced aesthetic impact

because cooling towers

would not be used.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-24 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-3. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Comparison with

Impact Closed-Cycle Cooling Closed-Cycle Cooling

Category Impact System Impact System

Historic and SMALL to Less land Impacted SMALL'to Less land impacted

Archaeological MODERATE MODERATE

Resources

Environmental SMALL No change SMALL No change

Justice

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

The environmental impacts of a natural-gas-fired plant using combined-cycle combustion

turbines are-examined in this section for both the Ginna site and an alternate site in New York

state. For the Ginna site, the staff assumed that the plant would use at least part of the existing

once-through cooling canal system.

RG&E concluded in its ER that the Ginna site would be a reasonable site for location of a

natural-gas-fired'generating unit. In its ER, RG&E chose to evaluate gas-fired generation using

combined-cycle turbines; The environmental impact analysis in the ER is based on the

Wawayanda Energy Center plant, near Middletown, New York. The Wawayanda Energy

Center plant operates at a nominal 540 MW(e), which is slightly more than the 490 MW(e) net

capacity of Ginna; therefore, a net capacity factor of 80 percent for the representative gas-fired

plant is assumed.

For construction at an alternate site, a new pipeline would need to be constructed from the plant

site to a supply point where a reliable supply of natural gas would be available.

The staff assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

combustion turbines as described by RG&E (RG&E 2002). RG&E estimates that the plant

would consume approximately 765 million m3 (27 billion ft3) of natural gas annually

(RG&E 2002).

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used throughout this section

are from the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only 20

years, the impact of operating the natural-gas-fired alternative for 40 years is considered a

reasonable projection of the operating life of a natural-gas-fired plant.

January 2004 8-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

The impacts of a plant with a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in

Section 8.2.2.1 and the impacts of a plant with once-through cooling are discussed in

Section 8.2.2.2.

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts of the natural-gas-generating system with a closed-cycle cooling system

located either at the Ginna site or an alternate New York site are discussed in the following

sections. The magnitude of impacts at an alternate site will depend on the location of the

particular site selected.

- Land Use

The natural-gas-fired alternative would require converting approximately 12 ha (30 ac) to

industrial use for the power block, cooling towers, and infrastructure and support facilities

(RG&E 2002). Additional land would likely be impacted for construction of an electric power

transmission line, natural gas pipeline, and water intake/discharge pipelines to serve the plant.

The Ginna ER assumes that these activities could impact up to 59 ha (145 ac) (RG&E 2002).

Locating the facility at an alternate site may require greater land area devoted to transmission

rights-of-way, but potentially less for gas pipelines. At the Ginna site, there is sufficient land

available within the existing plant boundaries for the power block, cooling tower, and support

facilities. A natural gas pipeline to the Ginna site would likely follow the existing transmission

lines right-of-way. For any new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land would be required

for natural gas wells and collection stations. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately

1500 ha (3600 ac) would be needed for a 1000 MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). Proportionately less

land would be needed for a natural-gas-fired plant replacing the 490 MW(e) from Ginna.

Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be the elimination of the need for

uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for Ginna. NRC staff stated in the GEIS (NRC

1996) that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and processing the

uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant.

Overall, land-use impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the

Ginna site are considered SMALL, and the impacts to land use of a new natural-gas-fired plant

with a closed-cycle cooling system located at an alternate site are considered to be

MODERATE.

* Ecology

There would be ecological impacts related to habitat loss and cooling tower drift associated with

siting of the gas-fired plant. If needed, there would also be temporary ecological impacts

associated with bringing a new underground gas pipeline and/or electric power transmission

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-26 January 2004
Alternatives

line to the site. Ecological impacts would depend on the nature of the land converted for the

plant and the possible need for a new transmission line and/or gas pipeline. To accommodate

a gas-fired plant at the Ginna site, a 26-km (1 6-mi) gas supply pipeline would need to be

constructed, which, assuming a construction right-of-way of 75 feet, could disrupt 59 ha (145.

ac) of terrestrial habitat. Ecological impacts to the plant site and utility easements could include

impacts on threatened or endangered species, wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity,

habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Cooling makeup water intake

and discharge could impact aquatic resources. There would be some impact on terrestrial

ecology from drift from the cooling towers. Because it would use existing site land areas and

infrastructure, a new natural-gas-fired plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site is

considered to have a SMALL impact on ecological resources. A new natural-gas-fired plant

with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site will have SMALL to MODERATE impacts on

ecological resources.

Water Use and Quality

Natural-gas-fired generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for

cooling. It is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used,

but the construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a

closed-cycle system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown,

characterized primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids

relative to the receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g.,

chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged.

All discharges would be regulated by NYSDEC through an SPDES permit. There would be a

consumptive use of water due to evaporation from the cooling towers. Some erosion and

sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). The staff considers the

impacts to surface-water use and quality of a new natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle

cooling system located at the Ginna site to be SMALL.

Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

natural-gas-fired plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL

to MODERATE.

Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a natural-gas-fired plant at

an alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to

groundwater use and quality of a new gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the

Ginna site are considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a

January 2004 8-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

plant at an alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of

groundwater withdrawn.

* Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-buming fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar

types of emissions, but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative.

A new gas-fired generating plant would likely need a PSD permit and an operating permit under

the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired power plant would also be subject

to the new source performance standards for such units specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts

Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NO,.

The facility would be designed to meet BACT or LAER standards, as applicable, for control of

criteria air emissions.

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in

areas designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. All of the RG&E

preferred and potential power plant sites (RG&E 2002) are in areas that are designated as

attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 1 69A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class

I Federal areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the

state must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)].

RG&E estimates that a natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate pollution control

technology would have the following emissions (RG&E 2002):

* sulfur oxides - 27 MT/yr (30 tons/yr)

* nitrogen oxides - 86 MT/yr (95 tons/yr)

* carbon monoxide - 53 MT/yr (58 tons/yr)

* PM,0 particulates- 100 MT/yr (110 tons/yr).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-28 January 2004
Alternatives

A natural-gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming.

In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000a). Natural-gas-fired power plants were

found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000a). Unlike coal- and oil-fired

plants, EPA'did not determine that regulation of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from

natural-gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would also

come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

Impacts of emissions from a gas-fired plant would be clearly noticeable, but would not be

sufficient to destabilize air resources as a whole. The overall air-quality impact for a new

natural-gas-generating plant sited at either the Ginna site or an alternate site in New York State

is considered MODERATE.

Waste

In the GEIS the staff concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology would be

minimal (NRC 1996). Gas firing results in few combustion by-products because of the clean

nature of the fuel. Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating gas-fired

plant would be largely limited to typical office wastes. Construction-related debris would be

generated during construction activities. Overall, 'the waste impacts are considered to' be'

SMALL for a natural-gas-fired plant located at either the Ginna site or an alternate site.

* Human Health

In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from naturalgas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NO, emissions that contribute to

ozone formation, which in turn contributes to health risks. For a plant sited in New York, NO,

emissions would be regulated by NYSDEC. Human health effects are expected to be

undetectable or sufficiently minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any

important attribute of the resource. Overall, the impacts on human health of a natural-gas-fired

plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site are considered SMALL.

* Socioeconomics

Construction of a natural-gas-fired plant would take approximately two years. Peak

employment could be up to 420 workers (RG&E 2002). The staff assumed that construction

would take place while Ginna continues operation and would be completed by the time Ginna

January 2004 8-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

permanently ceases operations. During construction, the communities immediately surrounding

the plant site would experience demands on housing and public services that could have

SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction workers

commuting to the site from more distant communities. After construction, the communities

would be affected by the loss of jobs. The current Ginna workforce (500 workers) would

decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size. The new naturalgas-fired plant would provide a new tax base at an alternate site and provide approximately 25

permanent jobs (RG&E 2002). Siting at an alternate site in New York state would result in the

loss of the nuclear plant tax base in Wayne County and associated employment. These losses

would have SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, given the fact that Ginna provides

less than 10 percent of the total revenue in Wayne County and slightly over 10 percent of the

total revenue in the town of Ontario and the Wayne Central School District (Section 8.1.7).

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a natural-gasfired plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational workforce would have the

lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology (NRC 1996).

Compared to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the construction

workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operations workforce

would mitigate socioeconomic impacts.

Transportation impacts associated with construction personnel commuting to the plant site

would depend on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the

site. The impacts can be classified as MODERATE. Impacts associated with operating

personnel commuting to the plant site would be SMALL.

Overall, socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a natural-gas-fired plant either at

the Ginna site or at an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Aesthetics

The turbine buildings, exhaust stacks (approximately 61 m [200 ft] tall), cooling towers, and the

plume from the cooling towers would be visible from offsite during daylight hours. The gas

pipeline compressors also would be visible. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable

offsite. If a new electric power transmission line is needed, the aesthetic impact at an alternate

site could be LARGE. Aesthetic impacts would be mitigated if the plant were located in an

industrial area adjacent to other power plants. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with a

replacement natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at either the Ginna site

or an alternate site in New York state are categorized as MODERATE to LARGE, with sitespecific factors determining the final categorization.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-30 January 2004
Alternatives

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

An historic and archaeological resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite

property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and

recording of existing historic and archaeological resources,'and possible mitigation of adverse

effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant

site.

Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources.

The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

site and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur (e.g., roads,

transmission and pipeline rights-of-way, or other rights-of-way). Impacts to historic and

archaeological resources can be managed and mitigated to a certain extent under current laws

and regulations. Therefore, impacts to historical and archaeological resources from a naturalgas-fired plant are considered to be SMALL to MODERATE.

* Environmental Justice

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

natural-gas-fired plant built at an alternate site in New York state would depend upon the site

chosen and the nearby population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices

during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and lowincome populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating

jobs. Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or lowincome populations. However, Ginna is located in a relatively urban area with many

employment possibilities. Wayne County would also experience a loss of property tax revenue,-

which could affect its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would

likely have SMALL environmental justice impacts, given the moderate proportion of the tax base

in Wayne County attributable to Ginna (Section 8.1.3) considered. Overall, impacts of a new

natural-gas-fired plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site are considered to be SMALL.

* Summary

The environmental impacts of a new gas-fired electrical power generation facility with closedcycle cooling are summarized in Table 8-4.

January 2004 8-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

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

Closed-Cycle Cooling at an Alternate Site in New York State

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact

Land Use SMALL

Ecology SMALL

Comments

12 ha (30 ac) of

existing site land for

power blocks, office,

roads, and parking

areas. Additional

impact of up to

approximately 59 ha

(145 ac) for

construction of

underground gas

piping.

Uses previouslydisturbed areas at

current Ginna site.

Some effects from gas

pipeline construction.

Impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

Uses part of the

existing once-through

cooling system.

Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown will

have impacts.

Use of groundwater

very unlikely.

Impact

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comment

12 ha (30 ac) for power block,

switchyard, cooling towers, and

infrastructure support facilities.

Additional impact of up to 53

ha (130 acres) for electric

power transmission line,

natural gas pipeline, and

cooling-water intake/discharge

piping.

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface-water body used for

intake and discharge, and

possible electric power

transmission and pipeline

routes; potential habitat loss

and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity; impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower

drift.

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawal and

discharge, the constituents in

the discharge water, and the

characteristics of the surface

water body. Discharge of

cooling tower blowdown will

have impacts.

Impacts will depend on the

quality of water withdrawn.

Surface-Water SMALL

Use and

Quality

Groundwater

Use and

Quality

SMALL

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-32 January 2004
Altematives

Table 8-4. (contd)

Ginna Site . Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact

Air Quality MODERAT

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

'MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comments

-E Sulfuroxides

* 27 MT/yr

(30 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides

* 86 MT/yr

(95 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide

* 53 MT/yr

(58 tons/yr)

PM,, particulates

* 100 MT/yr

(11 0 tons/yr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants.

Minimal waste product

from fuel combustion.

Impacts considered to

be minor.

During construction

E impacts would be

SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to'

420 additional workers

'during the peak of the

two-year construction

period, followed by

reduction from current

Ginna workforce from

500 to 25; tax base

preserved. Impacts

during operation would

be SMALL.

Aesthetic impact due to

impact of plant unit,

and cooling towers and

associated plume

stacks.

Impact Comment

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

SMALL

SMALL

Same as Ginna site.

Same as Ginna site.

SMAL

MODE

L to ' During construction impacts

-RATE would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to

420 additional workers during.

the peak of the two-year

construction period.' Wayne

County would experience loss

of the tax base and.

employment associated with

Ginna with potentially SMALL

impacts. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.

'RATE MODERATE impact from plant,

:GE stacks, and cooling towers and

associated plumes. Additional

impact that could be LARGE if

a new electric power

transmission line is needed.

MODE

to LAR

Impacts can generally -"SMALL to, ' ' ' Same as Ginna site.

be managed or ' ' MODERATE

mitigated. . l 

January 2004 8-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-4. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

Environmental SMALL Impacts on minority SMALL Impacts at alternate site vary

Justice and low-income depending on population

communities should be distribution and makeup at site.

similar to those Wayne County would lose tax

experienced by the revenue and jobs, however the

population as a whole. impacts on minority and lowSome impacts on income populations would

housing may occur likely be SMALL.

during construction;

loss of Ginna operating

jobs on minority and

low-income populations would most likely be

SMALL due to the

proximity of the plant to

diverse urban job

market.

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a natural-gas-fired generation system at an alternate

site in New York state using a once-through cooling system are similar to the impacts for a

natural-gas-fired plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are

some environmental differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems.

Table 8-5 summarizes the incremental differences.

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation

Since 1997, the NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

(10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), and the

AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). All of these plants are light-water reactors.

Although no applications for a construction permit or a combined license based on these

certified designs have been submitted to the NRC, the submission of the design certification

applications indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants.

Recent volatility in prices of natural gas and electricity have made new nuclear power plant

construction more attractive from a cost standpoint. Additionally, System Energy Resources,

Inc.; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; and Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC have recently

submitted applications for early site permits for new advanced nuclear power plants under the

I

I

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-34 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

Alternate Site in New York State

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling Closed-Cycle Cooling

Impact Category Impact System Impact System

Land Use - SMALL to

MODERATE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

SMALL to

MODERATE

10 to 12 ha (25 to

30 ac) less land

required because

cooling towers and

associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

Ecology

Surface-Water Use

and Quality

Groundwater Use

and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

Less terrestrial habitat

lost and cooling tower

effects eliminated.

Increased water

withdrawal, but aquatic

impact would be similar

to current Ginna

operations.

No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown

containing dissolved

solids. Increased water

withdrawal would be

insignificant to Lake

Ontario.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact would depend

on ecology at the

site. No impact to

terrestrial ecology

from cooling tower

drift. Increased water

withdrawal and

possible greater

impact to aquatic

ecology. -

No discharge of

cooling tower

blowdown.

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on -

receiving body of

water.

It is unlikely that

groundwater would

be used for oncethrough cooling, but

could be used for

sanitary water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

January 2004 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-5. (contd)

Ginna Site

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

Alternate Site

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

Impact Category Impact System Impact System

Aesthetics SMALL to Reduced aesthetic SMALL to Reduced aesthetic

MODERATE impact because cooling MODERATE impact because

towers would not be cooling towers would

used. not be used.

Historic and SMALL to Less land affected. SMALL to Less land affected.

Archaeological MODERATE MODERATE

Resources

Environmental Justice SMALL No change SMALL No change

I procedures in 10 CFR Part 52 Subpart A (SERI 2003; Dominion 2003; Exelon 2003).

Therefore, construction of a new nuclear power plant, either at the Ginna site or at an alternate

site in New York state using both closed- and open-cycle cooling is considered in this section.

The staff assumed that the new nuclear plant would have a 40-year lifetime.

The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in

Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts

that would be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified

designs. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be

adjusted to reflect replacement of Ginna, which has a capacity of 490 MW(e). The

environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and from a light-watercooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The summary of

NRC's findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly applicable, for

consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a replacement nuclear

power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a replacement nuclear power

plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is presented in Section 8.2.3.1 and using

once-through cooling in Section 8.2.3.2.

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts of a new nuclear electrical-generating plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling

system at the Ginna site or an alternate site are discussed in the following sections. The extent

of impacts at an alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site selected.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-36 January 2004
Alternatives

* Land Use

According to the GEIS, land-use requirements for a new nuclear unit at an alternate site would

be approximately 200 to 400 ha (500 to 1000 ac) (NRC 1996). Additional land could be needed

for an electric power transmission line, a rail spur to bring construction materials to the plant -

site, and/or pipelines to supply cooling-water intake and discharge. Depending particularly on

transmission line routing, siting a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site

would result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.

If a new nuclear plant were to be constructed at the Ginna site, the staff assumed that the

existing facilities would be used to the extent practicable, reducing the amount of new

construction that would be required. Specifically, the staff assumed that a replacement nuclear

power plant would use the existing cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission rightof-way. A replacement nuclear unit constructed at the Ginna site would be expected to require

less land area than a unit at a greenfield site, but would still require at least several hundred

acres. It is not clear whether there is enough usable land for a replacement unit at the Ginna

site, and additional land beyond the current Ginna boundary may be needed to construct a new

nuclear power plant while the current Ginna plant continues to operate. Therefore, the siting of

a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site would likely result in a

MODERATE to LARGE impact. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal alternative.

There would be no net change in land needed for uranium mining because land needed to

support the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply uranium for fuel for the

existing Ginna reactor.

* Ecology

A new nuclear plant at an alternate site would introduce construction impacts and new

incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

impacts likely would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced

productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Intake and

discharge of cooling water from a nearby surface-water body could have adverse aquatic

resource impacts. If needed, construction and maintenance of an electric power transmission

line would have ecological impacts. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. Overall, the ecological impacts of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle

cooling at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE.

A new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site would also result in

impacts to the ecology of the site. Most of the land area that would be used for a new plant at

the Ginna site is currently used for apple orchards, but the more natural wooded areas of the

site also would be adversely impacted. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology from

January 2004 8-37 JNUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

cooling tower drift. Overall, the ecological impacts of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle

I cooling at the Ginna site would be MODERATE and would be greater than renewal of the

Ginna OL.

* Water Use and Quality

New nuclear generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for cooling.

It is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used, but the

construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a closedcycle system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, characterized

primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids relative to the

receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g., chlorine). Treated

process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. All discharges would

be regulated by NYSDEC through an SPDES permit. There would be a consumptive use of

water due to evaporation from the cooling towers. Some erosion and sedimentation would

likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). The staff considers the Impacts to surface-water

use and quality of a new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system located at the Ginna

site to be SMALL.

Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

nuclear plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a nuclear plant at an

alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to groundwater

use and quality of a new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site are

considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a plant at an

alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater

withdrawn.

Air Quality

Construction of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna site or at an alternate site would result in

fugitive dust emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would come from

vehicles and motorized equipment during the construction process and after operation

commences. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel

generators. These emissions would be regulated by NYSDEC. Overall, emissions and

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-38 January 2004
Alternatives

associated impacts to air quality of a nuclear plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site

are considered SMALL.

* Waste

The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant either at the Ginna site or

at an alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. In

addition to the impacts shown in Table B-1, construction-related debris would be generated,

during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, waste

impacts of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna or alternate sites are considered SMALL.

* Human Health

Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant at either the Ginna site or an

alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Overall,

human health impacts of a new nuclear power plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site

are considered SMALL.

* Socioeconomics

The construction period and the peak workforce associated with construction of a new nuclear

power plant are currently unquantified (NRC 1996). In the absence of quantified data, the staff

assumed a construction period of 5 years and a peak workforce of 2500. The staff assumed

that construction would take place while the existing Ginna plant continued operation and would

be completed by the time Ginna permanently ceases operations. During construction, the

communities surrounding the plant site would experience demands on housing, transportation,

and public services that could have MODERATE to LARGE impacts. These impacts would be

tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from more distant communities.

In the GEIS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger

than at an urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to

the area to work (NRC 1996). Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. After

construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction jobs. The

replacement nuclear unit is assumed to have an operating workforce comparable to the

approximately 500 workers currently working at Ginna. Transportation impacts related to

commuting of plant operating personnel are considered SMALL to MODERATE. If a

replacement nuclear unit was built at an alternate site, the communities around Ginna would

experience the impact of Ginna operational job loss and Wayne County would experience the

loss of a tax base. These losses would have SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts,

given the fact that Ginna provides less than 10 percent of the total revenue in Wayne County

and slightly over 10 percent of the total revenue in the town of Ontario and Wayne Central

January 2004 8-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

School District (Section 8.1.7). Overall, the staff considers the potential impacts of a new

nuclear plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site to be MODERATE to LARGE.

* Aesthetics

The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant, other associated buildings,

the cooling towers, and the plume from the cooling towers would be visible during daylight

hours. Natural draft towers could be up to 160 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers could

be up to 30 m (100 ft) high and would also have an associated noise impact and condensate

plumes. Visual impacts of buildings and structures could be mitigated by landscaping and

selecting a color that is consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could be

mitigated by reduced use of lighting and appropriate use of shielding. There would also be a

significant aesthetic impact if a new electric power transmission line were needed. No exhaust

stacks would be needed.

Noise from operation of a replacement nuclear power plant would potentially be audible offsite

in calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the listener. Mitigation

measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, could be employed to reduce

noise level and keep the impact SMALL to MODERATE. Overall, the staff considers the

aesthetic impact of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site to be

MODERATE to LARGE.

The aesthetic impact of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site would

depend on the site selected. If the alternate site is in an industrial area, visual and noise

impacts would probably be SMALL; if the alternate site were a rural greenfield site, the impacts

could be MODERATE to LARGE. Regardless of the alternate site location, the impact could be

LARGE if a lengthy new electric power transmission line is needed to connect the plant to the

power grid.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

An historic and archeological resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property

that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the

plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and recording of

existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from

subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site.

Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archeological resources. The

studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant site

and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-40 January 2004
Alternatives

corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can

generally be managed and mitigated to a certain extent. Therefore, the staff considers the

impacts to historic and archeological resources of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna or

alternate sites to be SMALL to MODERATE.

Environmental Justice

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

nuclear plant built at an alternate site and would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby

population distribution. The environmental justice impact of replacing Ginna with a new nuclear

unit at the Ginna site would be SMALL. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income

populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating jobs.

Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

populations. However, Ginna is located near a relatively urban area with many employment

opportunities. Wayne County would experience a loss of property tax revenue that could affect

its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would likely have SMALL

environmental justice impacts, and would be similar to the no-action alternative (Section

8.1.10). Therefore, the staff considers the environmental justice impacts of a new nuclear plant

at either the Ginna site or an alternate site to be SMALL.

* Summary

The staff's conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of a new nuclear plant with closedcycle cooling are summarized in Table 8-6.

January 2004 8-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using ClosedCycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and at an Alternate Site

in New York State

Glnna Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact

Alternate Site

Land Use

Ecology

Surface-Water

Use and

Quality

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Requires approximately

200 to 400 ha (500 to

1000 ac) for the plant and

400 ha (1000 ac) for

uranium mining and

processing. May require

acquisition of adjacent

lands.

Uses undeveloped areas

at the current Ginna site.

Impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

Uses existing cooling

water intake system.

Closed-cycle system

would use less water than

current Ginna oncethrough system.

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown will have

impacts.

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comment

Same as Ginna site, plus

land for new transmission

line, rail spur, and cooling

water intake/discharge

pipelines. Up to 259 ha

(640 ac) assuming a

25-km (15 mi)

transmission line.

Impact depends on

location and ecology of

the site, surface-water

body used for intake and

discharge, and electric

power transmission line

route; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity;

impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

Impact will depend on the

volume of water

withdrawn and

discharged, the

constituents in the

discharge water, and the

characteristics of the

surface-water body.

Discharges would be

regulated by NYSDEC.

Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown will have

impacts.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-42 January 2004
Alternatives

Table'8-6.' (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment - Impact - Comment

Groundwater SMALL - No aroundwaterused at SMALL to

Use and

Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

the Ginna site. MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Fugitive dust emissions

and emissions from

vehicles and equipment

during construction. Small

amounts of emissions

from diesel generators,

vehicles, and possibly

other sources during -

operation.

Waste impacts for an

operating nuclear power

plant are set forth in

10 CFR Part 51,

Appendix B, Table B-1.

Debris would be

generated and removed

during construction.

Human health impacts for

an operating nuclear'

power plant are set forth in

10 CFR Part 51,

Appendix B, Table B-1.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Groundwater may be

used. Impacts SMALL if

only used for potable

water, impacts could be

SMALL to MODERATE,

depending on the site or

aquifer if groundwater is

used as makeup cooling

water.

Same as at Ginna site.

Same as at Ginna site.

Same as at Ginna site.

January 2004 8-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact. Comment Impact Comment

Socioeconomics

MODERATE

to LARGE

During construction,

impacts would be SMALL

to MODERATE. Up to

2500 workers during the

peak of the 5-year

construction period.

Operating workforce

assumed to be similar to

Ginna. Tax base would

be preserved. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Construction impacts

depend on location.

Impacts at a rural location

could be LARGE.

Aesthetics MODERATE

to LARGE

Transportation impacts

associated with

commuting construction

workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE.

Transportation impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

Containment buildings,

cooling towers, and the

plumes from cooling

towers would be visible

from offsite. No exhaust

stacks would be needed.

Daytime visual impact

could be mitigated by

landscaping and

appropriate color selection

for buildings. Visual

impact at night could be

mitigated by reduced use

of lighting and appropriate

shielding. Noise impacts

would be relatively small

and could be mitigated.

Wayne County would

experience loss of tax

base and employment

with SMALL impacts.

However, tax base and

employment at alternate

site would increase with

SMALL to LARGE

impacts, depending on

the location.

Transportation impacts

would be similar to the

Ginna site.

SMALL to Impacts would depend on

LARGE the characteristics of the

alternate site. Visual and

noise impacts could be

mitigated as at the Ginna

site. Impacts could be

SMALL if the plant is

located adjacent to an

industrial area.

Potential impacts will be

greater if a new electric

power transmission line

is needed.

Aesthetic impacts could

be LARGE if a nonindustrial, greenfield site

is selected.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-44 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Historic and SMALL Impacts can generally be SMALL to Same as Ginna site.

Archaeological managed or mitigated. MODERATE

Resources

Environmental SMALL Impacts on minority and SMALL Impacts will vary

Justice low-income populations depending on population

should be similar to those distribution and makeup

experienced by the at the site. Wayne

population as a whole. County would lose tax

Some impacts on housing revenue and jobs,

may occur during however the impacts on

construction. minority and low-income

population would likely be

SMALL.

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant, either at the Ginna site or at

an alternate site in New York state using once-through cooling, are similar to the impacts for a

nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are some

differences in the environmental impacts between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling

systems. In those impact categories that are related to land area requirements such as land

use, terrestrial ecology, and cultural resources, the impacts are likely to be smaller if the site

uses a once-through cooling system rather than a closed-cycle cooling system. However, the

impacts of a plant with a once-through cooling system are likely to be greater than a plant with

a closed-cycle cooling system in the areas of water use and aquatic ecology due to the need for

greater quantities of cooling water. Table 8-7 summarizes the incremental differences.

January 2004 8-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Altematives

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using OnceThrough Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an Alternate

Site in New York State

Impact

Category Impact

Land Use MODERATE to

LARGE

Ecology MODERATE

Surface-Water SMALL

Use

and Quality

Ginna Site

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

Slightly less terrestrial

habitat loss, no cooling

tower drift, but increase

water usage with

increased aquatic

ecology impacts.

Impact

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

No discharge of cooling SMALL to

tower blowdown. MODERATE

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on

receiving body of water,

but similar to current

Ginna plant.

No change SMALL

Alternate Site

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required because

cooling towers and

associated infrastructure

are not needed.

Impact would depend on

ecology at the site. No

impact to terrestrial ecology

from cooling tower drift.

Increased water withdrawal

with possible greater

impact to aquatic ecology.

No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown.

Increased water withdrawal

and more thermal load on

receiving body of water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

Reduced aesthetic impact

because cooling towers

would not be used, but

impacts could still be large

if lengthy transmission line

is required.

-

Groundwater

Use

and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL

No change

No change

No change

No change

Reduced aesthetic

impact because cooling

towers would not be

used.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-46 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-7. (contd)

Ginna Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Comparison with

Impact Closed-Cycle Cooling Closed-Cycle Cooling

Category Impact System Impact System

Historic and SMALL to Less land impacted SMALL to Less land impacted.

Archaeological MODERATE MODERATE

Resources

Environmental SMALL No change SMALL No change

Justice

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power

If available, purchased power from other sourcesbcould potentially obviate the need to renew

the Ginna OL. The New York State Energy Plan is designed to promotebcompetition in energy

supply markets by facilitating participation by non-utility suppliers. A regulatory structure is in

place to appropriately anticipate and meet electricity demands, and RG&E has restructured to

enable participation in the resulting wholesale electricity market. As an additional facet of this

restructuring'effort, retail customers in RG&E's service territory may choose among RG&E and

other sources (i.e., qualified energy service companies) to supply their power, resulting in

uncertainty with regard to future RG&E load obligations. In view of these conditions, RG&E

assumed in the ER that adequate supplies of electricity would be available, and that purchased

power would be a reasonable alternative to meet its load requirements in the event the OL for

Ginna is not renewed.

During 2001, RG&E supplied 9803 GWh of electricity to its customers, 25 percent of which was

purchased from other generators. The source of the purchased power that would potentially

replace Ginna's power is speculative, but may reasonably include new generating facilities

developed within RG&E's service territory, elsewhere in the state, or neighboring power pool

jurisdictions. The technologies that would be used to generate this purchased power are

similarly conjectural. However, considering the current and projected development of additional

generating capabilities in New York state noted above, natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units,

such as those described in Section 8.2, would be the most likely candidate.

RG&E does not anticipate that any additional transmission infrastructure would be needed in

the event RG&E purchased power to replace the Ginna generating capacity. From a local

perspective, loss of Ginna would not result in a load pocket that would require construction of

new transmission lines, although RG&E expects that planned reinforcement of its 11 0-kilovolt

distribution system would be implemented sooner to ensure local system stability. The

traditional strain on the New York state transmission system is west-to-east as a result of

January 2004 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

relatively low-cost generation in western upstate New York and higher demand in the east and

downstate. As noted by a recent study sponsored by the New York Independent System

Operator (Sanford et al. 2001), power imports from New England in the next few years are

expected to relieve this strain in the near term, and the addition of new generation within the

state is expected to reduce the frequency of encountering transmission constraints in the future.

Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available for replacement of the Ginna

generating capacity. In Canada, 62 percent of the country's electricity capacity is derived from

renewable energy sources, principally hydropower (DOE/EIA 2002). Canada has plans to

continue developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include large-scale

projects (DOE/EIA 2002). Canada's nuclear generation capacity is projected to increase

by 2020, but its share of electric power generation in Canada is projected to decrease from

14 percent currently to 13 percent by 2020 (DOE/EIA 2002). EIA projects that total gross U.S.

imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will gradually increase from 38.5 billion kWh in

year 2001 to 48.3 billion kWh in year 2005 and then gradually decrease to 24.4 billion kWh in

year 2020 (DOE/EIA 2003). On balance, it appears unlikely that electricity imported from

Canada or Mexico would be able to replace the Ginna generating capacity.

If power to replace Ginna generating capacity were to be purchased from sources within the

United States or a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of those

described in this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The description

of the environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS is representative of

the impacts associated with the purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the Ginna

OL. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of imported power

would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country.

The staff has assumed that any environmental impacts associated with the production of

purchased power would be evaluated under separate NEPA or comparable environmental

analyses, and therefore do not need to be reconsidered in relation to the Ginna OL renewal.

8.2.5 Other Alternatives

Other generation technologies are discussed in the following sections. As described in the

following sections, none of these alternatives is considered feasible as a replacement for the

490 MW(e) base-load capacity of Ginna.

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation

The EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in

the United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

compared to other available technologies (DOE/EIA 2003). Oil-fired operation is more

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-48 January 2004
Alternatives

expensive than coal, natural gas; or nuclear generation alternatives. In addition, future

increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive

than other generation alternatives. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady declinein its use

for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that construction of

a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 49 ha (120 ac) (NRC 1996). Operation of oilfired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment

and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant (Section 8.2.1).

8.2.5.2 Wind Power

Most of western New York is in wind power Class 2 or 3 regions (average wind speeds at 9-m

[30-ft] elevation of 4.4 to 5.6 m/s [9.8 to 12.5 mph]) (Elliott et al. 1986, DOE 2002a) with a

narrow band of Class 3 or 4 along the shore of Lake Ontario. In general, Class 3 or higher can

be used for commercial power production, but wind turbines are considered economical in wind

power Classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 5.6 to 9.4 m/s [12.5 to 21.1 mph]) (DOE

2002a).- Wind turbines typically operate at a 25 to 35 percent capacity factor compared to 80 to

95 percent for a base-load plant (NWPPC 2000). The largest commercially available wind

turbines are in the range of 1 MW to 1.5 MW, therefore at least 327 to 490 units would be

required to replace the Ginna generating capacity. Given the intermittent nature of the wind

resource (perhaps 30 to 35 percent availability), approximately three times this number would

be required to replace the KWh generated by Ginna.

As of January 2003, there were approximately 48 MW of grid-connected wind power facilities in

New York state, with an additional 410 MW of additional capacity in various stages of planning

(AWEA 2003). Statewide, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

(NYSERDA) estimates that there is a potential for approximately 17,000 MW of installed

capacity, of which approximately 3200 MW would be available for the peak summer load

(NYSERDA 2002). Access to many of the best wind power sites would require extensive road

building, as well as clearing (for towers and blades) and leveling (for the tower bases and

associated facilities) in steep terrain. Also, many of the best quality wind sites are on ridges

and hilltops that could have greater archaeological sensitivity than surrounding areas. For

these reasons development of large-scale, land-based wind-power facilities are likely to not only

be costly, but could have MODERATE to LARGE impacts on aesthetics, archaeological

resources, land use, and terrestrial ecology.

The offshore wind speeds in Lake Ontario are higher than those onshore, and could thus

support greater energy production than onshore facilities. Ten offshore wind power projects are

currently operating in Europe, but none have been developed in the United States. The

European plants together provide approximately 250 MW, which is significantly less than the

electrical output of Ginna (BWEA 2003). For the preceding reasons,- the staff concludes that

locating a wind-energy facility on or near the Ginna site or offshore as a replacement for Ginna

January 2004 8-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

generating capacity would not be economically feasible at this time given the current state of

wind energy generation technology. Development of an offshore wind-power facility could

impact shipping lanes, may disrupt the aquatic ecology, and would be visible for many miles,

resulting in considerable aesthetic impacts. These impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE.

8.2.5.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water,

and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. Neither photovoltaic nor thermal solar

power technologies currently can compete with conventional fossil-fueled electrical generation

technologies in grid-connected applications due to higher capital costs per kilowatt of capacity.

The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent (NRC 1996), and the

capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). Energy

storage requirements limit the use of solar-energy systems as base-load electricity supply.

There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land

requirements are high. Approximately 7000 ha (27 mi2) for photovoltaic technology (NRC 1996)

and approximately 2850 ha (11 mi2) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996) would be required to

replace the 490 MW(e) produced by Ginna. Neither type of solar electric system would fit at the

Ginna site, and both would have large environmental impacts at an alternate site.

The Ginna site receives less than 2.8 kWh of direct normal solar radiation per square meter per

day compared to greater than 7 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day in areas of the

western United States such as California or Arizona, which are most promising for solar

technologies (DOEIEIA 2000).' Because of the natural resource impacts (land and ecological),

I the relatively low rate and intermittent nature of solar radiation in the area, and the high cost,

solar power is not deemed a feasible base-load alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL. Some

onsite-generated solar power (e.g., from rooftop photovoltaic applications) may substitute for a

portion of the electric power from the grid. Implementation of solar generation on a scale large

enough to replace the Ginna generating capacity would likely result in LARGE environmental

impacts.

8.2.5.4 Hydropower

New York state has an estimated 1308 MW of undeveloped hydroelectric resource

(INEEL 1998). This amount is greater than needed to replace the 490 MW(e) generating

capacity of Ginna. However, as stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, hydropower's percentage

of U.S. generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become

difficult to site as a result of public concern about land requirements, destruction of natural

habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. DOE/EIA states that potential sites for

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-50 January 2004
Alternatives

hydroelectric dams have already been largely established in the United States, and

environmental concerns are expected to prevent the development of any new sites in the future

(DOE/EIA 2002). In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 200,000 ha (500,000 ac)

of land would be required to replace the 490 MW(e) produced by Ginna using hydroelectric

power (NRC 1996). Due to the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in

New York state and the large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource

impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Ginna, the staff

concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL. Any

development of hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Ginna would result in LARGE

environmental impacts.

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload

generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status of

the technology (NRC 1996). As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, geothermal plants are

most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where

hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. There is no feasible eastern location for geothermal

capacity to serve as an alternative to Ginna. The staff concludes that geothermal energy is not

a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste

A wood-burning facility can provide base-load power and operate with an average annual

capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent energy conversion

efficiency (NRC 1996). The energy conversion efficiency of a conventional fossil-fired plant is

on the order of 35 percent. The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant

barrier to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high delivered fuel cost and high

construction cost per MW of generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only

40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction

impact per MW of installed capacity should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired

plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996).

Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing

and involve the same type of combustion equipment.

Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and

loss of wildlife habitat), and relatively low energy conversion efficiency, the staff has determined

that wood waste is not a feasible alternative to renewing the Ginna OL.

January 2004 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal waste combustors incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam,

hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

fuel (DOE/EIA 2001 b). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. The initial capital costs for municipal solidwaste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities.

This is due to the need for specialized waste-separation and -handling equipment for municipal

solid waste (NRC 1996).

Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the

Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste

combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative

such as landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of

Clarkstown), which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be

delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills with lower fees;

and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the capital cost

necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities (DOEIEIA 2001 b).

Similar to the combustion of coal, municipal solid-waste combustors generate an ash residue

that is buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash

refers to that portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly

ash represents the small particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process.

Fly ash is generally removed from flue-gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers

(DOE/EIA 2001b).

Currently, there are approximately 102 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States.

These plants generate approximately 2800 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e)

per plant (IWSA 2001). Therefore, approximately 18 typical waste-to-energy plants would be

required to replace the 490 MW(e) base-load capacity of Ginna. Therefore, the staff concludes

that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to

renewal of the Ginna OL.

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

electric generators, including crops, crops converted to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and crops

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-52 January 2004
Alternatives

(including wood waste) that have been converted to a gas. In the GEIS, the staff stated that

none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or

of being reliable enough to replace a base-load plant such as Ginna (NRC 1996). For these

reasons, such fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced

electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and

separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide.

Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam

under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These are

commercially available today at a cost of approximately $4500 per kW of installed capacity

(DOE 2002b). Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-toelectricity and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies

and give the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and

combined-cycle operations.

DOE has a performance target that by 2003, two second-generation fuel cell technologies using

molten carbonate and solid oxide technology, respectively, will be commercially available in

sizes up to approximately 3 MW at a cost of $1000 to $1500 per kW of installed capacity

(DOE 2002b). For comparison, the installed capacity cost for a natural-gas-fired, combinedcycle plant is approximately $456 per kW (DOE/EIA 2001a). As market acceptance and

manufacturing capacity increase, natural-gas-fueled fuel cell plants in the 50- to 1 00-MW range

are projected to become available. At the present time, however, fuel cells are not

economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for base-load electricity

generation. Fuel cells are, consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

RG&E has only one other electrical generating plant designed for base-load service - the

257 MW coal-burning Russell Station. RG&E has no current plans to retire that plant, and

stated in the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002) that it is not aware of opportunities for delayed retirement

available to other energy suppliers in the state. For this reason, delayed retirement of existing

units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

January 2004 8-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

Since the 1980s, RG&E has participated in state-wide residential, commercial, and industrial

programs to reduce both peak demands and daily energy consumption. These programs are

commonly referred to as demand-side management (DSM). State-wide, these DSM programs

through 2001 have resulted in a cumulative summer peak reduction of approximately 1600 MW

between 1999 and 2000, and additional peak demand reductions on the order of 900 to

1300 MW are projected in the 2004 to 2006 time frame (RG&E 2002). These DSM-induced

load reductions are acknowledged in load forecasts, therefore they cannot be used as credits to

offset the power generated by Ginna. An additional 490 MW(e) of savings, or a 38- to 54-

percent increase in the state-wide reduction in peak demand by 2006, would be required to

offset the power generated by Ginna. Therefore, the conservation option by itself is not

considered a reasonable replacement for the Ginna OL renewal alternative.

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

Even though individual alternatives might not be sufficient on their own to replace the Ginna

generating capacity due to the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities,

it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective.

Ginna has an average net capacity of 490 MW(e). For the natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle

alternative, RG&E assumed one 540-MW unit in its ER as a potential replacement for Ginna.

The staff used this same assumption in Section 8.2.2.

There are many possible combinations of alternatives. Table 8-8 contains a summary of the

environmental impacts of an assumed combination of alternatives consisting of 245 MW(e) of

combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired generation (one 245-MW unit) at either the Ginna site or an

alternate site in New York State using closed-cycle cooling, 175 MW(e) purchased from other

generators, 40 MW(e) produced by new wind power facilities in western New York state, and

30 MW(e) gained from additional DSM measures. The impacts associated with the combinedcycle, natural-gas-fired units are based on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions

discussed in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the reduced generating capacity. For the combination

of alternatives, the staff assumed that a replacement gas-fired plant would use the existing

once-through cooling system, while a gas-fired plant located at an alternative site would utilize a

closed-cycle cooling system. While the DSM measures would have few environmental impacts,

operation of the new natural-gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions (compared to

the OL renewal alternative) and other environmental impacts. Installation of new wind power

facilities would have land-use, ecology, and aesthetic impacts. The environmental impacts of

power generation associated with power purchased from other generators would still occur, but

would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country as discussed in

Section 8.2.4. The environmental impacts associated with purchased power are not shown in

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-54 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-8. The staff concludes that it is very unlikely that the environmental impacts of any

reasonable combination of generating and conservation options could be reduced to the level of

impacts associated with renewal of the Ginna OL.

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

Generating (Combined-Cycle-Natural-Gas-Fired Generation, Wind Power,

and DSM) and Acquisition Altematives

Impact Category Impact

Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

Ginna Site

Comment

8 ha (20 ac) for gas-fired

plant power block, offices,

roads, and parking areas.

Additional impact at wind

power sites (at least 20 ha

150 acres]). Additional impact

for construction of an

underground natural gas

pipeline, electric power

transmission line, and

cooling-water

intake/discharge piping.

Uses previously disturbed

areas of Ginna site, plus gas

pipeline. Habitat loss due to

development of wind power

sites could have a

MODERATE Impact. Some

increase in bird mortality at

Altemate Site

Impact Comment

SMALL to Same as Ginna site.

MODERATE

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

wind towers. Impacts to

terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

Surface-water

Use and

Quality

Groundwater

Use and

Quality

SMALL

SMALL

Uses part of the existing

cooling system. Discharge of

cooling tower blowdown will

have impacts.

I .

Use of groundwater very

unlikely. I

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on location and

ecology of the sites, surfacewater body used for intake and

discharge, and transmission

and pipeline routes; potential

habitat loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity; impacts to

terrestrial ecology from cooling

tower drift. Some increase in

bird mortality associated with

wind towers.

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawal and discharge,

the constituents in the

discharge water, and the

characteristics of the surfacewater body. Discharge of

cooling tower blowdown will

have impacts.

Impact depends on the quantity

of water withdrawn.

-

January 2004 8-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Altematives

Table 8-8. (contd)

Impact Category Impact

Air Quality MODERATE

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Ginna Site

Comment

Sulfur oxides: 13 MT/yr

(1 4 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides: 43 MT/yr

(47 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide: 26 MT/yr

(29 tonslyr)

PM,, particulates: 50 MT/yr

(55 tonslyr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants. Additional

emissions from producers of

purchased power.

Minimal waste generated.

Impacts considered to be

minor.

During construction impacts

would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Possibly over

200 additional workers

needed during the peak

construction period followed

by reduction from current

Ginna workforce. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

SMALL aesthetic impact due

to the impact of plant unit and

stack for gas plant (similar to

Ginna plant). Additional

impact from wind turbine

towers.

Impacts can generally be

managed or mitigated. Wind

turbines often placed along

ridge lines that may have

higher likelihood of historic or

archaeological significance.

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.

Same as Ginna site.

Construction impacts depend

on location, but could be

significant if location is in a rural

area. Wayne County would

experience loss of tax base and

employment with potentially

SMALL to MODERATE impacts.

Impacts during operation would

be SMALL Transportation

impacts associated with

construction workers would be

MODERATE.

MODERATE to LARGE impact

from wind turbine towers as well

as the gas-fired plant, stacks,

and cooling towers and

associated plumes. Additional

impact that could be LARGE if a

lengthy new electric power

transmission line is needed.

Same as Ginna site.

Alternate Site

Impact Comment

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-56 January 2004
Alternatives

Table 8-8. (cont

Impact Category

Environmental

Justice

-

Ginna Site

Impact I Comment

SMALL Impacts on minority and lowincome communities should

be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. Some

impacts on housing may

occur during construction;

loss of Ginna jobs on minority

and low-income populations

most likely SMALL due to the

proximity of the plant to a

diverse urban job market.

d)

Impact

SMALL

-

Alternate Site

Comment

Impacts vary dependent on

population distribution and

makeup at site. Wayne County

would lose tax revenue and

jobs; however, the impacts on,

minority and low-income

populations would likely be

SMALL.

-

8.3 Summary of Alternatives

The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the Ginna OL, are SMALL for all

impact categories (except collective'offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned).

Altemative actions (i.e., no-action alternative [Section 8.1], new generation alternatives [from

coal, natural gas, and nuclear discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3, respectively],

purchased electrical power [Section 8.2.4], alternative technologies [discussed in Section 8.2.5],

and the combination of alternatives [Section 8.2.6]) were considered.

The no-action alternative would result in decommissioning Ginna and would have SMALL

environmental impacts for all impact categories except socioeconomics, which may have

SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The no-action alternative would result in a net reduction in

power production. The power not generated by Ginna during the license renewal term would

likely be replaced by (1) DSM and energy conservation,-(2) power purchased from other

electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than Ginna, or (4) some combination of

these options. This replacement power would produce additional environmental impacts as

discussed in Section 8.2.

For each of the new generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), the environmental

impacts would be greater than the impacts of license renewal. For example, the landdisturbance impacts resulting from construction of any new facility would be greater than the

impacts of continued operation of Ginna. The impacts of purchased electrical power would still

January 2004 8-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

occur, but would occur elsewhere. Altemative technologies are not considered feasible at this

time for replacement of the Ginna base-load power and it is very unlikely that the environmental

impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and conservation options could be

reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the Ginna OL.

8.4 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2003. Wind Project Data Base.

http://ww.awea.org/projectstnewyork.html.

British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). 2003. Accessed at

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/else.html on January 7, 2003.

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, (U.S. Supreme Court 1994).

Clean Air Act. 42 USC. 7401, et seq.

I Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2003. "North Anna Early Site Permit

I Application." Letter from D. A. Christian, Dominion, to J. E. Dyer, NRC, September 25, 2003.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-58 January 2004
Alternatives

Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F., Sandusky. 1986. Wind

Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2003. "Early Site Permit Application." Letter from

M. C. Kray, Exelon, to NRC, September 25, 2003.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1977, as amended 33 USC 1251, et seq.

(Also known as the Clean Water Act).

Gabbard, A. 1993. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger," Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed at

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html on April 10, 2002.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1998. U.S. Hydropower

Resource Assessment for New York. DOE/ID-1 0430(NY), Idaho Falls, Idaho. Accessed at

http://hydropower.inel.gov/state/ny/ny.pdf on January 7, 2003.

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2001. "About Waste to Energy." Accessed at

http://www.wte.org/waste.html on January 7, 2003.

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

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2002. 2002 State

Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed at

http:www.nyserda.org/sep.html on January 10, 2003.

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. "Northwest Power Supply Adequacy/

Reliability Study Phase I Report." Accessed at -

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-4a.pdf on January 7, 2003.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. 42 USC 6901, et seq., as

amended.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). -2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E - Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

Sanford, M. V., V. Banunarayanan, and K. Wirgau. 2001. Implications of CapacityAdditions in

New York on Transmission System Adequacy. MAPS study performed for the New York

January 2OD4 8-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Alternatives

Independent System Operator. Rev. 2. March2, 2001. Accessed at:

http://www.nyiso.com/services/planning.html#tpr

I System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2003. "Early Site Permit Application." Letter from

I W. A. Eaton, SERI, to NRC, October 16, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2000. Energy

Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands.

SR/CNEAF/2000-01, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/renew.html on January 7, 2003

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2001 a. Annual Energy

Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington DC. Accessed at

httpJ/tonto.eis.doe.gov/ftprootlforecasting/forecasting.htm

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001 b. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf on January 7, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOEIEIA). 2002. International

Energy Outlook 2002. DOE/EIA-0484(2002). Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieofindex.html on January 7, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOEIEIA). 2003. Annual

Energy Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2025. DOEIEIA-0383(2003), Washington, D.C.

Accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore-pub.html on January 7, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. "U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map." Accessed at

http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we.map.html on January 7, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. "Fuel Cell Technology." Accessed at

http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal-power/fuelcells/index.shtml on January 7, 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." Federal Register.

Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831. Washington, D.C. (December 20, 2000.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on

Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels." Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 99,

pp. 32214-32237. Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2000.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-60 January 2004
Alternatives

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal."

Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpVdisposal.htm on February 19, 2002.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. "Obstruction Marking and Lighting."

Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1 K. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/ai/circV.pdf on May

17, 2002.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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). 2002. Final Supplement 1 to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586,

Supp. 1. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.

January 2004 8-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
9.0 Summary and Conclusions

By letter dated July 30, 2002, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) submitted an

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

(OL) for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for an additional 20-year period

(RG&E 2002a). If the Ginna OL is renewed, New York State regulatory agencies and RG&E

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 OL is not renewed, the plant must be shut down at or before the expiration of the current

OL, which expires September 18, 2009.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs that an

environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

in 10 CFR Part 51, which identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

for renewal of a reactor OL; 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 (NRC 1996,1999).(a)

Upon acceptance of the Ginna application, 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 (67 FR 63171 [NRC 2002a]) on October 10, 2002. The staff visited the Ginna site in

November 2002 and held public scoping meetings on November 6, 2002, in Webster, New York

(NRC 2002b). The staff reviewed the RG&E Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002b) and

compared it to the GEIS, discussed it with other agencies, and conducted an independent

review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, the

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1:

Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the public comments

received during the scoping process for preparation of the draft supplemental environmental

impact statement (SEIS) for Ginna. The public comments received during the scoping process

and the staff's responses to these comments are provided in Appendix A, Part I, of this SEIS.

In August 2003, the staff held two public meetings in Ontario, New York to describe the I

preliminary results of the draft SEIS, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public I

(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.

January 2004 9-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Summary and Conclusions

I with information to assist them in formulating their comments. The staff considered all of the

I comments received on the draft SEIS. These comments are recorded and addressed in

Appendix A, Part II, of this SEIS.

I This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the cumulative impacts

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

alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding

I adverse effects. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC 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 OL) 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 a licensee

continues to operate a nuclear power plant beyond the period of the 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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-2 January 2004
Summary and Conclusions

within the scope of the generic determination in 51.23(a) and in accordance with

51 .23(b).(a)

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. In the GEIS, the NRC staff

evaluated 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 the

footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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 staff made the following findings:

(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 highlevel 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.

The staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS for all

69 issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is 'Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operationsgeneric determination of no significant environmental impact."

January 2004 9-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Summary and Conclusions

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 also 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 evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered 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 altematives. The

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

renewing the Ginna OL) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on projections

made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, natural-gas and

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

from Ginna is replaced. These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement

power generation plant is located at either the Ginna site or some other unspecified location.

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action -

License Renewal

RG&E and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and

evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license

renewal. RG&E did not identify any information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. During the course

of SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the continued operation of

Ginna. Continued operation for an additional 20 years was considered as a whole, and all of

the specific effects on the environment (whether or not "significant") were evaluated. The

staff's conclusion found that the operations and facilities at Ginna provide mitigation for all

impacts and no new mitigation measures are warranted. The staff relies upon the conclusions

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

RG&E's license renewal application presents analyses of the Category 2 issues that are

applicable to Ginna and, additionally, environmental justice. The staff has reviewed the RG&E

analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue and chronic

effects from electromagnetic fields. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are

related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at Ginna. Four Category 2

I issues are not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment.

RG&E (2002b) 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 Ginna for the license renewal period. In

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-4 January 2004
Summary and Conclusions

addition, any replacement of c6mrponents or additional inspection activities are within the

bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect the

environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas

and Electric Corporation (AEC 1973).

Ten Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and one related to 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 11 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. Although two of the SAMAs appeared to be cost beneficial, they do not relate to

adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore,

they need not be implemented as a 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.

Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

impacts on potentially affected resources.

The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

environment and long-term productivity.

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts

associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have

January 2004 9-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Summary and Conclusions

already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those

associated with refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.

The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL

significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The

adverse impacts of likely alternatives if Ginna ceases operation at or before the expiration of

the current OL will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit,

and they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of Ginna during its current

license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be

considered in this SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an additional

20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant maintenance

and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent offsite storage

space for the spent fuel assemblies.

The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are

the fuel and the permanent storage space. Ginna regularly replaces about one-third (44) of the

fuel assemblies in the reactor core at approximately 18-month intervals (RG&E 2002b).

The likely power generation alternatives if Ginna ceases operation on or before the expiration of

the current OL will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement

plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

Ginna site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now

well established. Renewal of the OL for Ginna and continued operation of the plant will not alter

the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of the

application to renew the OL will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in a

manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental

consequences of turning the Ginna site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-6 January 2004
Summary and Conclusions

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the OL for Ginna. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant,

and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no refurbishment and

no refurbishment impacts are expected at Ginna. Chapters 4 through 7 discuss environmental

issues associated with renewal of the OL. Environmental issues associated with the no-action

alternative, and alternatives involving power generation and use reduction are discussed in

Chapter 8.

The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

application for renewal of the OL), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),

alternatives involving nuclear, or coal- or gas-fired generation of power at the Ginna site and an

unspecified 'greenfield site," and a combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1.

Continued use of a once-through cooling system at Ginna is assumed for Table 9-1, but a

closed-cycle cooling system is assumed at an alternate site.

Substitution of a cooling tower for the once-through cooling system in the evaluation of the

nuclear and gas- and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in some greater

environmental impact differences in some impact categories. For example, use of cooling

towers would have a greater aesthetic impact than once-through cooling.

Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are

SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal for which a single significance level was'

not assigned [Chapter 6.0]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may

have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

LARGE significance.

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendation

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999), (2) the Ginna ER

(RG&E 2002b), (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the staff's

own independent review, and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received, the

recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental

impacts of license renewal for Ginna, including cumulative impacts, are not so great that

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

unreasonable.

January 2004 9-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
z Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative

m Methods of Generation(a)

IG)

.

Proposed No Action Coal-Fired Natural-Gas-Fired New Nuclear Combination of

14 Proposed NAct lt n Generation Generation Generation Alternatives -,Action- AlternativerCD Impact License Denial of Greenfield Greenfleld Greenfleld Greenf1eld g Category Renewal Renewal Ginna Site Site>} Ginna Site Site,) Ginna Site Site(" Glnna Site Site*>

iF -L Use : .sMALL-;;' SMALL,-:KP MODERATE -MODE ATESMALLto MODERATEA 5 'DA`SMALLto ;'-4SAto

( LI.RMEAto'L DERATE ARGE _TESM _j_ _Mu..TE:.

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to SMALL to

to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE

sSurface.Watar '~~SMALL /i SMA-L<2SMALLto' .'-'SMALLto. BUSMALL - -'$LtoiSMALL- k ;%SMALt , '>SMALL 14SAL

IUseand~y' *-.~ - MODERATE MODERATE-.' MODERATE DMODERATE

Groundwater SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to' SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL - SMALL to

Use and MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Quality

Air Quality - ', SMALL ' SMALL M M MODERAT O RATE -M DRATE M"MODERATE!

D Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

c '' 'n ealUM.!''SMALL. SMALLF _ ~;!i>' A M 

Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE - MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE to LARGE MODERATE

~Ae~hetcs *~SMll:, MAW~! - I ML: -,-p4SMALsto~ieticsQDERASMALL SA~o ODRT ~SAto MODERATE=7~'~ ;SMAlltoUIMODERATEui MODERATEI toLRE> '~~ ~ ~ '~~~' ..~~~ MODERATE, ;to ARGE;''MODERATEf~to LARGE,.-ji~ 3' MGA~EuI~;

Historic and SMALL SMALL SMALL to 'SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Dri

r_

0)

Ci)

Archaeological

Resources

; m aLSALL'- ASMALL. SMALL' '.L SSMA ? E SW,.

(a) Alternatives located at the Ginna site are assumed to utilize the existing once-through cooling system; alternatives located at an alternate site are assumed to use a

closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers.

(b) A greenlield site is assumed, for the purpose of bounding potential impacts, to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.

(c) Excludes collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not assigned. See Chapter 6 for details.

ZD

C

A)

030

40
Summary and Conclusions

9.4 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."

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating License. Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Application for Renewed Operating Lcense, Appendix E- Environmental Report. Rochester,

New York.

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

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

Docket No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. "Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register: Vol. 67, No. 197,

pp. 63171-63173. October 10, 2002.

January 2004 9_9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Summary and Conclusions

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Summaty of Public Scoping Meetings to

Support Review of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application,

December 17, 2002.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-10 January 2004
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

On August 1, 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received, by letter dated

July 30, 2002, an application from the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), filed

pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 54,

which would authorize the applicant to operate the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for

an additional 20-year period. The current operating license (OL) for Ginna expires on

September 18,2009. Ginna is a pressurized water reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric

Company and is located in Wayne County, New York. As part of the application, RG&E

submitted an Environmental Report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 51, which contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation

and submittal of ERs to the NRC.

Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The

GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated .with

license renewal, was issued for public comment. The staff received input from Federal and

State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens. As a result of the assessments in the

GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These

were designated as Category 1 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the

conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts in the absence of new and significant

information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS.- Category 2

impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to

be addressed in the applicant's ER.

The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decisionmaking for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials.

Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power,

or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the

Commission determined that the ER should not include a discussion of any aspect of storage of

spent fuel for the facility. This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982 and the Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

On October 10,2002, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register

(67 FR 63171), to notify the public of the NRC's intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to

the GEIS to support the review of the license renewal application for the Ginna OL. The

January 2004 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of

NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of a

Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local

government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process

by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than December 11, 2002. The scoping process included two

public scoping meetings, which were held at the Webster Public Library in Webster, New York,

on November 6, 2002. The NRC announced the meetings in local newspapers (Rochester

Democrat and Chronicle, Courer Gazette, Times of Wayne County, Wayne County Star, and

Finger Lake Times), issued press releases, and distributed flyers locally. Approximately

120 people atten'ded the meetings, including the NRC environmental review team, members of

the public, representatives from RG&E, State and local governments, and the press. Both

sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal

process and the NEPA process. Following the NRC's prepared statements, the meetings were

open for public comments. Fifteen (15) commenters (two of whom spoke at both meetings)

provided either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a

certified court reporter. In addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, the

NRC received four comment letters. The afternoon and evening meeting transcripts (accession

numbers ML023530107 and ML023530120) and comment letters are available electronically for

public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.htm (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be

addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and

I issues. The Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) identified the

following objectives of the scoping process:

* define the proposed action

* determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be

analyzed in depth

* identify and eliminate peripheral issues

* identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements

being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS

* identify other environmental review and consultation requirements

* indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-2 January 2004
Appendix A

* identify any cooperating agencies

* describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the

transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. All comments

and suggestionis received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered.

Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier

(Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to

the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted. Several commenters

submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening scoping meetings).

Table A-1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated

with each person's set(s) of comments. The individuals are listed in the order in which they

spoke at the public meeting, and random order for the comments received by letter or email.

Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed

supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS.

Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential

issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according

to subject area, the staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment.

The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

* A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general

(or specifically to Ginna) or that makes a general statement about the licensing renewal

process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2

issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to 10 CFR

Part 54.

* A comment about a Category 1 issue that

- provided new information that required evaluation during the review

- provided no new information.

* A comment about a Category 2 issue that

- provided information that required evaluation during the review

- provided no such information.

* A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS.

* A comment regarding Alternatives to the proposed action.

January 2004 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

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

Comment Source and

Commenter ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) ADAMS Accession Number

A Bernadette Anderson Afternoon Scoping Meeting(al

B Tim Judson Citizens Awareness Network Afternoon Scoping Meeting

C John Greenbaum Metro Justice Afternoon Scoping Meeting

D Andy Gutacker Afternoon Scoping Meeting

E Roland Micklem Lakeshore Environmental Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Action

F Michael Havens Wayne Central School District Afternoon Scoping Meeting

G Bob Mecredy RG&E Afternoon Scoping Meeting

H Susan Gateley Lakeshore Environmental Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Action

I Cathryn Thomas Town of Webster Afternoon Scoping Meeting

J Ron Fellows American Nuclear Society - Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Ginna Plant Branch

K Joel Van Schaffel Millwrights Local 11 63 Afternoon Scoping Meeting

L Ron Behan Rochester Building and Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Construction Trades Council

M Dr. N. R. Loomis Afternoon Scoping Meeting

N Charles Arnold Evening Scoping Meeting(b)

o Dick Clark Town of Ontario Evening Scoping Meeting

P Bob Mecredy RG&E Evening Scoping Meeting

Q Ron Fellows American Nuclear Society- Evening Scoping Meeting

Ginna Plant Branch

R Kimberly Merchant New York State Department of Comment Letter

Environmental Conservation

S Kathy Mitchell Seneca Nation Comment Letter

T Tom Peaslee Comment Letter

U Frank Guelli Town of Walworth Comment Letter

(a) The afternoon transcript can be found under accession number ML023530107.

(b) The evening transcript can be found under accession number ML023530120.

* A comment regarding safety issues within the scope of 10 CFR Part 54, but out of the

scope of 10 CFR Part 51.

* A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 1 0 CFR Parts 51 or 54),

which includes

- a comment regarding emergency response and planning

- a comment regarding the need for power

- a comment regarding operational safety issues

- a comment regarding safeguards and security.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-4 January 2004
Appendix A

* A comment that was actually a question'and introduces'no new information.

Each comment applicable to this' environmental review is summarized in Appendix A, Part I.

For reference, the unique identifier for each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table A-1

plus the comment number) is provided. In those cases where no new information was provided

by the commenter, no further evaluation will be performed.

The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (which is the SEIS) will take into

account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both

Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. .The

SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and

will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. :The

draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be available for public comment. The comment

period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, Tribal, State, and local

government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the

NRC's environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be

considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staff's Safety

Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRC's decision on the Ginna

license renewal.

Appendix A, Part I summarizes the applicable comments and suggestions received as part of

the scoping process, and discusses their disposition. .Parenthetical numbers after each

comment refer to the Commenter ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be

tracked to the commenter and the source document through the ID letter and comment number

listed in Table A-1. Comments are grouped by category. The categories are as follows:

A.1.1 Comments Regarding License Renewal and its Processes

A.1 .2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Ginna

A.1.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Ginna

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health

A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

January 2004 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal

A.1 Comments and Responses

A.1.1 Comments Regarding License Renewal and its Processes

Comment: But my other question is more in terms of the relicensing issue, and whether in

your understanding, or any of the NRC representatives understanding, if Ginna is relicensed,

whether that creates a larger window of opportunity for RG&E, or some other owner of Ginna,

to build a new reactor, without having to go through a site permitting process? Sure, it is just a

follow-up to my previous question. Because, you know, this is sort of a convoluted process that

I feel that we are going through with the relicensing, as well as other regulatory issues; But I

guess one of the things I'm wondering is, if Ginna were not to receive a license extension, then

it would have to shut down in 2009. And prior to that, you know, initiate a decommissioning and

site cleanup process, you know, through preparing plans for how they were going to do that,

that they would have to submit to NRC and begin preparing, you know, the reactor complex and

the site for that. And would that complicate, in any way, the submission of an early site permit

application to build a new reactor onsite, or to begin that kind of preparation, has that ever

happened before, and what is the anticipation? (B-3)

Response: T7e comment is in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

conducted to review a license renewal application. Any attempt to locate a new reactor on the

existing site would require a new site permit as well as a new operating license completely

separate from license renewal. The comment did not provide significant, new informnation;

therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

Comment: And my question is, there are a number of nuclear power facilities on the New York

side of Lake Ontario. Canada has 12. When you do the environmental impact statements do

you then also take into consideration what is the impact of this conglomerate of plants that exist

in this area? (A-4)

Comment: And if Ginna were being considered, today, in this place, it might not be built under

that legislation. Lake Ontario is now home to 16 nuclear plants, a tritium recovery facility, a

uranium refinery, and at least two low-level radioactive waste dumps at Lewiston and Port

Hope. Most of these plants were built after Ginna. Ginna is one of the oldest plants on the

lake. That is a big cumulative impact on the lake. (H-3)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-6 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: Also an environmental impact statement does, or should, consider what they call

secondary impacts. Which are something like you build a shopping mall, and then you attract

other businesses to set up alongside it, so that the initial traffic load from the mall becomes

greater 20 years down the road because of other things. And that may be some of what Tim is

driving at. By relicensing the plant you might encourage a future usage of that site, not

necessarily another nuclear plant, but some other industrial usage of this slightly contaminated

site that might not be compatible with the environment, or with the residential area. So I'm

concerned about thinking about those secondary impacts, what this woman referred to, those

20 year out impacts. (H-12)

Response: The comments are in regard to license renewal and its processes in generaL The

Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

conducted to review a license renewal application. This process includes a review of

cumulative impacts. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they

will not be evaluated further.

Comment: Another very big change since Ginna was built is deregulation. This is changing

the way these plants are operated. Ginna is coming up on 40 years now. 'So it does need

more care and monitoring. However, both the NRC and industry are trying to streamline

regulation and reduce costs. Pressures to reduce costs to industry, along with possibly a little

complacency, are what led to that hole in the reactor head at Davis-Besse. That could have

been a very serious accident on Lake Erie. One more change since the good old days of the

AEC, the regulatory Atomic Energy Commission of the 1960s. Today the NRC must function in

a political environment that stresses deregulation and less government spending. The NRC

has been like other agencies; it has been pressured to become more efficient. And for several

years it has endured reduced funding, and a shortage of skilled technical workers. In a speech

two years ago, I don't know what the situation is now, but two years ago the NRC chairman

said, despite efforts to hire new engineers, we have experienced a net loss of engineers over,

the past five years, about 8 percent of their workforce, engineering workforce. We are losing

expertise, and along with it, valuable institutional knowledge. That is a direct quote from his

speech. The net effect of this, and failures to catch things like that Davis Besse hole in the

head, is that there is less trust of institutions like the NRC, than there was of the AEC, 40 years

ago. And I think we see a little bit of that in this room today, less trusting public. (H-8)

Response: The comment is in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

conducted to review a license renewal application. This includes an appropriate number of

NRC and contractor staff to sufficiently review the plant and prepare a supplemental

environmental impact statement specific to the plant. The comment did not provide significant,

new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

January 2004 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Comment: The THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Office) would indeed be a consulting party

to the renewal Ginna operating license. Under Section 106 of the NHPA (National Historic

Preservation Act), the THPO has 30 days to respond to a notification of an undertaking.

Unfortunately, your November 1 letter to us informed us of a public scoping meeting on

November 6 - i.e., 5 days notice. Future consultation with us should occur on a government-togovernment basis. The Seneca Nation, being a sovereign entity, will not be classified as the

general public (see page 63172, bottom of left column of the Federal Register Notice of Intent).

(S-1)

Response: The NRC recognizes the Seneca Nation as a sovereign entity and will conduct

future consultation on a govemment-to-government basis. The comment did not provide

significant, new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

A.1.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Ginna

Comment: And let me say, with that, that provided that Energy East maintains the level of

support for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, that has been demonstrated by RG&E, I am in

support of relicensing the nuclear power plant. And I say that for three primary reasons. First

of all, it has been an excellent corporate neighbor. Secondly, it provides a substantial tax base

for the school district. And, thirdly, it provides a good standard of living for our families, and to

my students. (F-1)

Comment: The power plant has provided approximately $15.8 million in revenue over the last

five years. It provided $3,182,172 to the tax base just last year; 29.9 percent of the local taxes

that we collect come from Ginna. Consequently the loss of Ginna would be an economic

disaster for the school district, and taxpayers. (F-2)

Comment: Secondly, it has been a good corporate neighbor for us who live here in the Wayne

Central School District. And I live approximately eight miles from the nuclear power plant. (F-3)

Comment: I would also say that the plant has been a good neighbor. Mr. Biendenbach and

his people have allowed us to use their Manor House for training; to house some of the

programs for our special needs children. When we have a need RG&E has always been there.

After 9/11, when all of us were very concerned about the safety of the plant, Rick Wyatts, Joe

Widay, others volunteered to come to the school and run programs for us. They have been a

good corporate neighbor to us. (F-5)

Comment: So, in conclusion, Ginna has been good for the Wayne Central School District, its

community, and its children. And as long as Energy East maintains the existing level of care,

we are supportive of its relicensing. (F-7)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-8 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: We believe it is important to retain the option to operate the plant in the extended

period, thereby contributing to the overall power supply in the state and, importantly, to the

energy mix in the state. (G-5) (P-5)

Comment: Long-term is it a good idea to make the licensing, but if they are making their

decision, or a part of their decision is based on historically how has the facility run, and what is

the impression of people about it, my impression is that the facility is run in a very excellent

manner, and the people that we deal with to run it are very good, and caring, and professional

people. (1-4)

Comment: And, in closing, the American Nuclear Society's Ginna Plant Branch is obviously in

favor, and fully supportive of extending Ginna's license for 20 years. Thank you. (J-l) (Q-2)

Comment: They've done a very good job protecting the workers there, along with the

surrounding areas. The people always seem to come home in good shape, they have learned

a lot; they've been well educated while they were there. (K-1)

Comment: I'm here today to speak in favor for the renewal of the operating license for the

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. And I can only say that I hope that the NRC goes through with the

licensing, it would mean a lot to this community. Thank you. (L-1)

Comment: And I think we all should realize and appreciate what a well-rounded efficient plant

that RG&E has at Ginna. (L-3)

Comment: One of the concerns we talked about alternative sources of power. One of our

major concerns, after RG&E bought it, was not the nuclear side of things, but were they going

to put gigantic piles of coal about 600 or 800 feet behind our house. And then I found out, in

some of the early stuff, that it generated more radiation than did the plant. So we were ; -

supporters at the start. And I did, for the town, a great deal of work regarding the safety of all

this. (M-1)

Comment: We believe the license should be renewed because the positive factors outweigh

the negative. (M-3)

Comment: In closing, I'm 41 years old; I live 11 miles south of the plant. I'm proud to be in

close proximity to such facility as Ginna. (Q-1)

Comment: I am writing you in support of RG&E's application for an operating license

extension. I believe its operating record is worthy of relicensing. (U-1)

January 2004 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Response: Thle comments were supportive of license renewal at Ginna and are general in

nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be

evaluated further.

A.1.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Ginna

Comment: And what actually, you know, what is afforded to us at this point is the fact that

Ginna, you know, if it doesn't get relicensed has seven years to plan for a shutdown. And while

as an anti-nuclear person it is hard for me to say, you know, keep it running for another seven

years. It affords us an opportunity to plan for the phase-out, and to plan for what is going to

happen in terms of jobs, and in terms of property taxes, and in terms of the economy. We

would all be a lot safer; there is no doubt about that. So why not take the chance that we have

now, rather than let R. E. Ginna go forward, and charge the repairs for the process of

relicensing this reactor, for any retrofits that it goes through, and deal honestly with the question

of whether RG&E is going to sell this plant. (B-6)

Comment: Ginna should not be relicensed. (H-1 1)

Comment: Nuclear power is one of the more regulated industries around. The solution is not

to deregulate it, or to extend it, or relicense it, but to eliminate it, to phase it out, like they are

doing in Sweden and Germany. We could do it right here, we could start right here in Wayne

County. (H-14)

Comment: But with all due respect, to the NRC representatives here, I believe, and CAN

believes, that the NRC's review of this question of extending Ginna's operating life for another

20 years is really inadequate to protect the public health and safety. And that is because of

some of the questions that we've asked today, such as, you know, whether - it is important

what the material condition of the reactor is at this point. You know, it sounds really scientific,

we got a lot of really scientific answers to that, how it is going to be dealt with? But, essentially,

the NRC supports relicensing of reactors as a policy. And the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission appointed by the President, has given directives to the NRC staff to facilitate the

relicensing, and the construction of new reactors, and revised the rules on the relicensing

process to make that more possible, to make it easier. And so what we are stuck with is this

process in which it is really difficult for the public even to challenge the relicensing of a reactor

at this point. It is really difficult for the public to even intervene in this process, with all the

issues that are really relevant, like the questions that people have been raising today. So in

that sense, you know, it doesn't seem like this is the place to have our concerns addressed.

And there is a number of groups here who are going to be appealing to the Public Service

Commission in New York State to be involved in this process, and to oppose the relicensing.

And I know that when we are opposing the relicensing, essentially what we are saying is that

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-10 January2OO4
Appendix A

the reactor should shut down. And, you know, I live in Syracuse, I work in Oswego County, I

understand the terrible impact that people can conceive of when we talk about shutting down

plants in this region. (B-4)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are opposed to license renewal at Ginna

and are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information;

therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 aquatic ecology issues include:

Category 1

* Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

* Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

* Cold shock

* Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish

* Distribution of aquatic organisms

* Premature emergence of aquatic insects

* Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)

* Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge

* Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses

* Stimulation of nuisance organisms

Category 2

* Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

* Impingement of fish and shellfish

* Heat shock

Comment: Now, how do you determine whether or not the amount'of radiation that you

release into the lake, you obviously know what it is, how can you determine exactly what impact

it is going to have on the ecology of the lake, given the subtleties of the changes, and is it ever

considered that probably a lot of the deterioration of the lake environment - I'm talking about

now only of the internal motors, I'm not talking about the air, or anything of that. The

deterioration of the lake environment may be'due, partially of course, to nuclear plants, but also

to all the other discharges. And I don't see how you can make that kind of adequate evaluation.

Okay, so we have nuclear plants, and we have a lot of other things. I don't quite see how you

January 2004 A-11 . NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

can get an adequate environmental impact statement on - without really taking the whole

framework of the ecology there. (E-1)

Comment: I will just say one more thing, and then I will shut up. There used to be a species of

snail that was very prominent on the shores of Lake Ontario. And in my more studious days I

remembered the scientific name. I don't any more. All I know is that once it did exist, and now

it doesn't. (E-2)

Comment: Staff have determined that the existing entrainment study (conducted in 1977) is

out of date and should be updated as part of the application for NRC license extension of the

Ginna facility. The initial study was conducted to meet the requirements of the 401 Water

Quality Certification issued by the Department in 1974. The existing data is more than twenty

years old and Lake Ontario conditions have changed considerably in this time period - including

changes in populations of zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp.), alewives, gobies,

smallmouth bass, climate, etc. In addition, the 1977 study was for a very limited period of the

year. More recent entrainment studies required by the Department have included studies over

longer periods of time, some of which have demonstrated entrainment impacts at Lake Ontario

cooling water intakes. Therefore, an updated study is recommended in order for the

Department to evaluate the impacts of the facility due to entrainment. Subsequently, the

Department has incorporated an entrainment study into the Draft State Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (SPDES) Permit. RG&E has commented on the draft SPDES and the

Department has incorporated their comments. The draft SPDES permit is attached. The

requirement to conduct an updated entrainment study will also be included as a condition of the

new 401 Water Quality Certification. We recommend that the SEIS include a brief summary on

the 1977 entrainment study results and the proposal to conduct an updated study of in-plant

entrainment. (R-1)

Comment: We recommend that the SEIS include a brief summary on impingement report

results and the commitment of RG&E to continue to replace older screens. (R-2)

Comment: Department staff identified the potential for increased fish mortality due to the

return of the impinged fish to the discharge canal, which contains elevated temperatures from

the cooling water effluent. RG&E included a brief discussion on this issue in the Environmental

Report. Staff did not have enough information from this discussion to determine whether the

elevated temperatures in the discharge canal result in additional fish mortality. On Monday,

December 9, 2002, RG&E provided staff with a copy of the 316(a) Demonstration and

Supplement (March 1977) to see if the report addresses the Department's concerns. Staff

have not had the opportunity to review the report, however, they will be reviewing it over the

next few weeks. We will continue to discuss the issue with RG&E and NRC on this issue.

Depending on the information provided in the 316(a) report, we may either recommend further

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-12 January 2004
Appendix A

study, recommend an extension of the impinged fish return, or conclude that the concerns have

been addressed. In the interim, we recommend that the SEIS include a discussion regarding

Heat Shock. (R-3)

Response: The comments refer to the aquatic ecology near Ginna. These specific comments

as well as other aquatic ecology issues will be discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the

DSEIS.

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 human health issues include:

Category I

* Noise

* Radiation exposures to public (license renewal)

* Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal)

Category 2

* Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock)

Comment: All of these plants, when they are operating, all of these facilities, release some

radioactivity. Some of it has a very short half-life of days or weeks; some of it, like tritium, has a

longer half-life of 12 years; some is very long-lived. That brings me to point number two. When

the plant was new, we did not have 40 years of radiation being released. Radiation exposure

has cumulative health effects. That is why most skin cancers show up later in life. As power

plants operate they expose the population, and the environment, to an ongoing burden of

exposure. And just as an aside to this, outside of scoping, many scientists do not accept

threshold dose and hormesis as valid, no matter what the HPs (health physicist) say. So the

longer these plants operate basically the more dose, cumulative, the population receives.

Population around Ginna, number three, is much higher than it was when the plant was built.

This is no longer a rural area; it is now a suburban area. (H-5)

Response: The comment is noted. Radiation exposure to the public and workers was

evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. The NRC's regulatory limits

for radiologicalprotection are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful health

effects of radiation on humans. The limits were based on the recommendations of standardssetting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by national and

international organizations (International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP],

January 2004 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and National Academy of

Sciences) and are conservative to ensure that the public and workers at nuclear power plants

are protected. The radiation exposure standards are presented in 10 CFR Part 20, 'Standards

for Protection Against Radiation, "and are based on the recommendations in ICRP 26 and 30.

Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies of personnel exposed to occupational

levels of radiation (versus life-threatening accident doses or medical therapeutic levels) have

shown minimal effect on human health, and any effect was from exposures well above the

exposure levels of the typical member of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power

plant.

The comment provides no new information, and does not pertain to the scope of license

renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 socioeconomic issues include:

Category 1

* Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation

* Public services, education (license renewal term)

* Aesthetics impacts (refurbishment)

* Aesthetics impacts (license renewal)

* Aesthetics impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term)

Category 2

* Housing Impacts

* Public services: public utilities

* Public services, education (refurbishment)

* Offsite land use (refurbishment)

* Offsite land use (license renewal term)

* Public services, transportation

* Historic and archaeological resources

Comment: Thirdly, it has to do with the standard of living for my children. Ginna provides

approximately 500 RG&E jobs at its plant. In addition there are about 300 related jobs through

private contractors. Now, most of those people live in my school district, and they are parents

of my schoolchildren. My children live in decent homes, and have middle class values, and

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-14 January 2004
Appendix A

middle class opportunities because of Ginna. Because of this we believe we can offer the best

of both worlds. We live in a pleasant rural community, but we have the benefits of a suburban

type school district. (F-6)

Comment: But beyond that our employees give back to the community in a variety of ways..

They serve on school boards, and town boards, as scout leaders and sports coaches, they

support day care centers, and senior centers. They serve on ski patrols, and they train guide

dogs. Our employees raised money to donate a defibrillator to the Ontario Volunteer

Ambulance Service. We partner with the Wayne Central School District by providing them with

the space for their Eagles Ventures program, a program for those students who can benefit

from an alternative educational program, and setting. We continue to participate, on an annual

basis, in the science and exploration days of the St. John Fisher College, contributing to interest

in science on the part of the young people in the community, and we participate in the Annual

Day of Caring, among others. (G-8) (P-7)

Comment: It is used by more people every year, as a water source. I understand Newark may

be expanding the water district that will now tap into Lake Ontario water. I could be wrong, but

I do know that more and more municipalities are depending on Lake Ontario water. (H-4) -

Comment: But a lot of things, talking about the jobs, and talking about the economic impact.

I just can't imagine taking a facility with the assessed value that plant has out of a town just like

Webster, and what the impact would be. I mean, we could probably sit down and even crunch

numbers, but it would be significant. And it would be even more significant, would be my

guess, from my - what I see as a relative relationship between what the town of Ontario is like,

and what the town of Webster is like. So certainly you are going to have an impact there with

that reduced assessed value should that not have a plant, or some facility there. And, of

course, the job impact too. And I don't think we can really minimize it, in the economy these -

days. The jobs, I know a lot of people right here in Webster, and in the surrounding area, do

work, rely on their jobs at the plant. So there certainly are the economic factors that are a

certainty would be negative. (1-1)

Comment: The reason is very simple for us; it is jobs for our members who live in this

community. Since the plant was built the Rochester Building Trades have been involved with

the building of the plant, and supplementing the RG&E personnel when it comes to maintaining

this plant. -During shutdowns at the plant RG&E has always made sure that subcontractors

have hired local craftsmen to do their work. This has provided good paying, safe jobs for the

people that live in this community. (L-2)

Comment: Ginna provides jobs for our local residents. RG&E, now Energy East, is a

significant contributor to the tax base in the town of Ontario. This has enabled Ontario to

January 2004 A-15. NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

maintain a reasonable tax rate, and we hope this continues. RG&E has been a good neighbor.

They have been sensitive to the immediate neighborhood by keeping the rural setting of

orchards and acres of green space. (M-5)

Comment: In the past there has been a problem in establishing an assessed value of Ginna

for local property tax purposes. Although this is a local and state issue, the relationship

between Energy East and the town of Ontario is a key factor in establishing a fair assessed

value. Although the ultimate assessed value of the property lies with the local assessor, it is

hoped that the good relationship with the town established by RG&E will continue. Energy

East, albeit a new arrival, has yet to establish its credentials as a good neighbor, with

commitment to the health and welfare of Ontario, and the surrounding area. (M-8)

Comment: This past year the plant actually paid 30 percent of the tax bill. This revenue has

been very useful to the town in terms of developing the town, and also holding down the tax

rate. The 15 towns in Wayne County, Ontario has the lowest tax rate. I hope that with the

continued presence of the plant, it will continue to support a significant portion of our tax levy.

Or in lieu of that, the negotiations, some kind of a pilot agreement between the town and

RG&E, and/or the county and the school district, and RG&E. (0-6)

Comment: It is a responsive neighbor to my town and county. The plant is a substantial

taxpayer in my county and provides several hundred jobs. (U-3)

Response: The comments are noted. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category

2 issues and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the DSEIS. The comments did not provide

significant, new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

Comment: My major beef was what I call light pollution. And on cloudy nights, particularly in

the winter, the snow is orange, but it hardly has to do with the safety. (M-9)

Response: The comment is noted. Socioeconomic issues related to aesthetic impacts of the

plant during the license renewal term are Category 1 issues and were addressed in the GEIS.

The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

further.

Comment: Although the State Historic Preservation Office has deemed no effect for the

undertaking, the Seneca Nation THPO has concerns with the uncertainty of ground disturbing

activities related to the project. The location and the history of the area surrounding Ginna are

highly sensitive. The Seneca Nation THPO would like to be consulted, in the earliest planning

stages, on any ground disturbing activities that may occur. (S-4)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-16 January 2004
Appendix A

Response: The comment refers to Historic and Archaeological resources near Ginna. This

comment will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the DSEIS.

Comment: The following text is suggested as a replacement to the first sentence of the

second paragraph of 2.12.1 on page 2-41: 'The Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA),

which can produce 145 million gallons of treated water per day (mgd), was created by an act of

the New York State Legislature in 1950 and its legislation has been amended several times to

allow it to serve areas beyond Monroe County. Today the MCWA is a metropolitan regional

water purveyor, providing retail water service to most of Monroe County, several communities in

Genesee County and some small portions of Livingston and Ontario Counties. It exchanges

water with the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, provides wholesale water service to the Wayne

County Water and Sewer Authority (WCW&SA), the Town and Village of Victor, Ontario

County, three communities in Genesee County, and four adjoining communities in Orleans

County." (T-1)

Response: The comment refers to the water use near Ginna. Water use will be discussed in

Chapter 4 of the DSEIS. The comment is editorial in nature and will be considered in writing

this section of the DSEIS. Although the comment will be considered editorially, it provides no

significant, new information to the environmental review of Ginna; therefore, the comment will

not be evaluated further in that context.

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 land use issues include:

* Onsite land use

* Power line right of way

Comment: Department staff requested that RG&E provide an evaluation of the ongoing

coastal erosion onsite and at neighboring properties to the Environmental Report. A brief

discussion was provided. Department staff have concerns about the ongoing coastal erosion

on both sides of the shoreline protection. Subsequently, we have added a condition to the

recent Article 34 Coastal Erosion Control Permit to RG&E, to require a survey of the existing

shoreline.

We recommend that the ongoing coastal erosion issues be addressed in the SEIS. The survey

should be prepared in time for inclusion into the SEIS. We recommend that the Federal NEPA

process identify whether any additional shoreline protection is required to protect the facility

over the renewal permit term. (R-5)

January 2004 A-1 7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Response: The comment refers to land use issues near Ginna. This issue will be addressed

in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management

issues include:

* Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel

and high level waste)

* Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)

* Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)

* Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle

* Low-level waste storage and disposal

* Mixed-waste storage and disposal

* Onsite spent fuel

* Nonradiological waste

* Transportation

Comment: If plans go as scheduled, Yucca Mountain will then open up, as a storage facility,

and the waste will be trucked down 590, which is within two miles of my house, which is why I

have my potassium iodide. (C-1)

Comment: We touched on transporting nuclear waste, and also the containment chamber

safety requirements. What I'm trying to say here is that back in the '80s we had a way of

looking, had development money to work for isotope separation. Which says we can take

these rods and like a battery, make them over, and over again, maybe nine times on the

contract, but actually figure we could probably get about 20 uses out of them. Which means

the storage goes down, and you have to have them onsite. You can keep reusing them, and

recharging them. Did that whole science fall apart, or what? It was funded by - I was working

on that in Los Alamos, and also Lawrence Livermore had contracts for that. And it looked like it

had great hope. Did that ever turn out to be viable? (D-1)

Comment: And I don't know a lot of statistics, I can't quote a lot of this, but my big concern is

what happens to the waste from all of the thousands of nuclear power plants around the

country, that we keep accumulating the waste, and keep piling it up, and keep stockpiling it with

half-life of thousands of years, without any concern for what is going to happen to the people in

the future that will have to deal with it. (E-3)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-1 8 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: When the plant was built there was no spent fuel on the site. It was supposed to

be removed. Politics and logistics are leading other nukes to use dry cask storage onsite. Will

this plant, how long will it be there, what about security for it? (H-7)

Comment: Secondary is what happens to the waste products. We were assured, by the

Federal government, I don't recall it was - I believe it was the AEC at the time that this material

would be trucked away. And indeed, for a while, I believe it did go to West Valley, until its

closure. (M-2)

Comment: When Ginna started this operation, in 1970, the spent nuclear waste was trucked

out of this area to West Valley. This was changed several years ago, and the waste is now

stored onsite. We believe that the local citizens should know when this spent fuel will be

removed from the present site. The answer to this issue should be part of the permitting

process. The Federal government has the responsibility for this, and has committed billions of

dollars to the proper storage of spent nuclear fuel. When will this happen? (M-7)

Comment: Also, I'm very interested in whether or not the environment has been taken into

account in terms of what happens to exhausted fuel. (N-1)

Comment: Although the Department does not have concerns regarding State regulated.

hazardous waste storage, staff recommend that the future handling of the spent-fuel inventory

and containment be addressed in the SEIS. (R-4)

Comment: The environmental impact statement should analyze the ability of the plant to store

its spent nuclear fuel on plant property. The environmental impact statement should analyze

the risks of transporting the spent nuclear fuel to the Federal repository. This analysis should

include potential truck routes and rail routes, and depending on the routes, should be

coordinated with the Seneca Nation regarding the' impacts to cultural resources along potential

transportation corridors. (S-3)

Response: Onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel are Category 1 issues.

The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been

evaluated by the NRC, and as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically

determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact.

In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite

for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a

renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent

repository. The GEIS is based upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not

permanent. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS regarding license renewal for Ginna will

be prepared based on the same assumption. - The commerits did not provide significant, new

information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

January 2004 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

Comment: And I don't understand why we are taking this risk. I don't understand why we are

not talking about wind generation on Lake Ontario. I just - I think we need to look at the

alternatives. We are subsidizing the nuclear industry. Bush's energy plan calls for a $2.9 billion

subsidy to nuclear industry, and the solar industry's subsidy would be enough to build about two

miles of Federal interstate. So it seems like we need to look at the alternatives. And I'm not,

myself, and the hundreds of members of Metro Justice, are not willing to take the risk involved.

(C-3)

Comment: Virtually every new power plant in New York depends on natural gas as the fuel of

choice. And as we have learned, in the past several years, the price of natural gas can

fluctuate greatly. This means that the price of electricity from gas fired power plants, would also

correspondingly fluctuate. To further complicate matters, even for those new plants receiving

siting approval, plant developers are finding it difficult, to impossible, to obtain financing. The

New York state power plant siting law is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. And a

number of older plants may need substantial new investment, if it is available, to meet new

environmental standards. (G-7)

Comment: And today there are more efficient, cleaner, and safer ways to make electricity.

(H-2)

Comment: Finally, the world of energy production has changed since 1960. We really don't

need nuclear plants any more. There are cleaner, safer ways to produce power. Denmark now

gets about ten percent of its power from wind. Their goal is half by 2030. California just

passed a renewable energy requirement of 20 percent in 20 years. We could do this in New

York. There have also been huge improvements in cogeneration technology, which is very

much more efficient than the large centralized plants. I would just add, I scribbled this down

during the meeting, and then it was brought up by someone else, that a good environmental

impact statement does consider alternatives. I'm glad to hear that they will be considering

alternative ways of producing electricity. (H-10)

Comment: And as far as that tax base concern there could be other things, perhaps even

another generating facility, that would be safer and cleaner, that could pick up some of that

economic and tax concern, and it could even enhance the area's economic activity. (H-1 5)

Comment: And you heard about, a couple of years ago, how terrible it was to live out in

California, and be a resident, and try to run a business out there with the rolling blackouts, or

brownouts, or whatever they were having, and we have not had any of those types of

experiences, at least in this part of New York State, and not that I'm very widely aware of,

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-20 January 2004
Appendix A

throughout our state. And to think that we would have to find something to replace that. And if

we were not to relicense a lot of these facilities around the state, and the country, we would

have to find a whole lot of things to replace a lot of that energy that is being created, that is just

another side of what is to be looked at. (1-3)

Response: The comments are noted. The GEIS included an extensive discussion of

alternative energy sources. Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable

alternatives to renewal of the operating licenses for Ginna will be discussed in Chapter 8 of the

DSEIS. The comments did not provide significant, new inform ation; therefore, they will not be

evaluated further.

A.1.1O Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of

License Renewal

Comment: And I wasn't quite clear on how you are going to evaluate, as part of the renewal

process, the long-term degradation issues that are very prominent in nuclear power plants

across the country, Ohio being one, Virginiia another one. The cracks and the various issues'

that have surfaced and have caused great concerns in a number of communities across the

country, how do you propose to make the public aware of the process that you are going to be

using in evaluating degradation? (A-1)

Comment: That is, obviously fine, because that is part of the day-to-day inspection. I'm talking

about a 20 year out in the future evaluation by the NRC, how are you going to go about

evaluating long-term degradation on that basis? (A-2)

Comment: There has to be, in my view, if you are extending a plant that has an age of 30 plus

years, another 20 years, if you are giving approval for that, there has to be something concrete,

in my view, that has to be given to the public, that estimates the degradation factors that this

plant will experience, over time, and gives the public some comfort that these aging plants that

many, many people feel should be shut down yesterday, are actually able to stay online safely

for another 20 years. (A-3)

Comment: I'm with the Citizens Awareness Network. And just for clarity's sake, I wanted to

sort of test this. It seems like the answer to this woman's question is that, no, the NRC isn't, as

part of the relicensing process, going to do a systemic review of the aging and degradation of

the reactor. (B-1)

Comment: I understand that. I mean, what I'm saying is, you know, it seemed like the

question was whether as part of reevaluating the relicensing application, whether NRC does,

you know, an actual material condition inspection review, to determine whether this reactor

January 2004 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

could safely operate for another 20 years. And didn't this used to be included as part of the

relicensing process? And there were certain reactors that were preparing their applications that

determined that the reactor was already too degraded, like Yankee Rowe? (B-2)

Comment: And it is instructive to talk about the reactor vessel head, in terms of inspections

and replacements. In the early 1990s, based on French experience, we began to perform

additional inspections, visual inspections, on our reactor vessel head. In 1999 we took the

opportunity, with our extended ten-year end service inspection to do detailed, non-destructive

examinations, and visual inspections, of our vessel head. In each of those cases we saw no

degradation, no defects. We performed additional inspections, both non-destructive

examinations, and visual inspections, in our most recent refueling outage, in 2002. And, again,

saw no degradation, and no defects. Nevertheless, looking to the future, even just to 2009, we

reached the conclusion to replace that reactor vessel head to provide us an economic benefit,

and to give us additional margin and assurance. That vessel head will be replaced in the fall of

2003, our next refueling outage. (G-3)

Comment: Some of its components were designed to last its licensed life. There have been

many other age related failures besides this one. Nine Mile core shroud, that steam generator

rupture in 1982 at Ginna was not anticipated; embrittlement of the reactor vessel, these all

surprised the experts. There are probably going to be more surprises as these plants age.

(H-9)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRC's environmental review is confined to

environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant.

To the extent that the comments pertain to safety of equipment and aging within the scope of

license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the parallel safety analysis review

performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR

Part 51 and will not be evaluated further in this SEIS. The comments provide no new

information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental

review. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the license

renewal safety review for consideration.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-22 January 2004
Appendix A

Part 11- Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Draft

Report for Comment (NUREG-1 437, Supplement 14, referred to as the draft SEIS) to Federal,

State, Native American Tribal, and local government agencies as well as interested members of I

the public. As part of the process to'solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the staff: I

I

* placed a copy of the draft SEIS in the NRC's electronic Public Document Room, its I

license renewal website, at the Ontario Public Library, Ontario, New York, and at the I

Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York I

I

* sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested I

copies, and certain Federal, State, Native American'Tribal, and local agencies I

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 1

(68 FR 39940)

* issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and I

postings in public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS

* announced and held two public meetings in Ontario, New York, on August 7, 2003, to I

describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions I

I

* issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the' issuance of I

the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft I

SEIS

* established a website to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet.

During the comment period, the staff received a total of nine comment letters in addition to

comments received during the public meetings.

The staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the comment letters that are part of I

the docket file for the application, all of which are available in the NRC's electronic Public I

Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2, contains a summary of the comments and I

the staff's responses. Related issues are grouped together. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.3, I

contains copies of the public meetings transcripts and the comment letters. I

I

January 2004 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alphanumeric identifier (marker).

I That identifier is typed in the margin of the letter at the beginning of the discussion of the

I comment. A cross-reference of the alphanumeric identifiers, the author of the comment, the

I page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which the comment

I is addressed is provided in Table A-2. The nine written comment letters are identified by the

I letters L through T. The accession number is provided for the written comments after the letter

I date to facilitate access to the document through the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS)

I http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/login.html.

I

I The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

I

I (1) A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or

I specifically the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant) or made a general statement about the

I license renewal process. It may have made only a general statement regarding Category 1

I and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and does not relate to

I safety considerations reviewed under 10 CFR Part 54.

I

I (2) A comment regarding environmental issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 51.

I

I (3) A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or the

I DSEIS.

I

I (4) A comment regarding severe accident mitigation alternative analysis.

I

I (5) A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54).

I

I Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in

I this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the

I issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of

I these references can be obtained from the NRC Electronic Public Document Room.

I

I Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.2.1 through A.2.17), similar comments are

I grouped together for ease of reference, and a summary description of the comments is given,

I followed by the staff's response. Where the comment or question resulted in a change in the

I text of the SEIS, the corresponding response refers the reader to the appropriate section of this

I report where the change was made. Revisions to the text in this SEIS are designated by

I vertical lines beside the text.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-24 January 2004
Appendix A

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

Comment Page of Section(s) Where

.'

No. Speaker or Author

A-1 Michael Havens

A-2

A-3

A-4

B-1

C-1

C-2

C-3

D-1

E-1

F-1

F-2

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

G-1

G-2

G-3

G-4

G-5

H-1

H-2

H-3

H-4

1-1

1-2

Michael Havens

Michael Havens

Michael Havens

Robert Mecredy

Tim Judson

Tim Judson

Tim Judson

Dick Clark

Robert Mecredy

Susan Gateley

Susan Gateley

*Susan Gateley

Susan Gateley

Susan Gateley

Susan Gateley

Julie Clayton

Julie Clayton

Julie Clayton

Julie Clayton

Julie Clayton

Hugh Mitchell

Hugh Mitchell

Hugh Mitchell

Hugh Mitchell

Sandra Dusel

Sandra Dusel

Source

Afternoon Comment

Meeting ML032960576

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Afternoon Comment

Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

ML032960576

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting Evening Comment Meeting

Comment Addressed

A-51 A.2.3

A-51

A-51

A-51

A-53

A-53

A-53

A-54

A-55

A-57

A-57

A-58

A-58

A-58

A-58

A-59

A-59

A-59

A-59

A-60

A-60

A-60

A-60

A-60

A-61

A-62

A-62

2.2.8.6

A.2.14

A.2.3

A.2.3

A.2.15

A.2.15

A.2.12

A.2.7

A.2.3

1.0

A.2.10

A.2.1 0

A.2.1

A.2.15

A.2.1 0

A.2.2

A.2.15

A.2.12

A.2.1 0

A.2.13

A.2.2

A.2.13

A.2.12

A.2.2

A.2.3

A.2.3

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.I

I

I

I

January 2004 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I

Table A-2. (contd)

I Comment

No.

1-3

J-1

J-2

J-3

K-1

L-1

M-1

M-2

M-3

N-1

0-1

0-2

P-1

P-2

P-3

P4

P-5

Q-1

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-5

S-1

S-2

S-3

T-1

Speaker or Author

Sandra Dusel

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Heidi Siegfried

Maynard Grimm

Peter and Sandra Dusel

Peter and Sandra Dusel

Peter and Sandra Dusel

Leigh O'Brien

Mike Seagar

Mike Seagar

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Robert Hargrove

Kimberly Merchant

Kimberly Merchant

Kimberly Merchant

Kimberly Merchant

Kimberly Merchant

Andrew Raddant

Andrew Raddant

Andrew Raddant

Robert C. Mecredy

Source

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

Evening Comment Meeting

e-mail, September 16, 2003

ML032960401

e-mail, September 15, 2003

ML032960392

e-mail, September 15, 2003

e-mail, September 15, 2003

e-mail, August 25, 2003

ML032960383

e-mail, September 22, 2003

ML032960420

e-mail, September 22, 2003

Letter, August 15, 2003

ML032410481

Letter, August 15, 2003

Letter, August 15, 2003

Letter, August 15, 2003

Letter, August 15, 2003

Letter, September 18, 2003

ML032960540

Letter, September 26, 2003

ML032960545

Letter, September 26, 2003

Letter, September 26, 2003

Letter, September 26, 2003

Letter, September 26, 2003

Letter, September 15, 2003

ML032661229

Letter, September 15, 2003

Letter, September 15, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

ML032970502

Page ot

Comment

A-62

A-63

A-63

A-64

A-65

A-67

A-68

A-68

A-68

A-69

A-70

A-70

A-71

A-71

A-71

A-71

A-71

A-72

SectIon(s) Where

Addressed

A.2.15

A.2.14

A.2.15

A.2.14

A.2.10

A.2.9

A.2.3

A.2.15

A.2.9

A.2.2

A.2.3

A.2.15

A.2.14

A.2.14

A.2.15

A.2.8

A.2.15

A.2.1

A-73 A.2.12

A-74

A-74

A-75

A-75

A-82

A.2.11

4.1.1

4.1.3

Appendix E

4.1.1

A-83

A-83

A-85

4.1.3

A.2.9

2.1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-26 January 2004
Appendix A

I

Table A-2. (contd)

Comment

No.

T-2

T-3

T-4

T-5

T-6

T-7

T-8

T-9

T-1 0

T-1 1

T-12

T-13

T-14

T-1 5

T-1 6

T-17

T-1 8

T-1 9

T-20

T-21

T-22

Speaker or Author

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Robert C. Mecredy

Source

Letter, September 12,2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12,2003

Letter, September 12,2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12,2003

Letter, September 12,2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Letter, September 12, 2003

Page of

Comment

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-85

A-87

A-87

A-87

A-87

A-87

A-87

A-87

A-78

A-88

A-88

Section(s) Where

Addressed

Figure 2-3

Figure 2-4

2.2

2.2.3

2.2.5

2.2.8.2,2.2.8.3

2.2.9.2

A.2.17

4.1.1

4.1.3

4.1.2

4.4.5

A.2.6

4.4.5

4.8.4

5.1.1

8.1

8.2.1.1

8.2.1.1

A.2.16

A.2.17

-

A.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

A.2.1 General Comments Concerning License Renewal Process

A.2.2 Comments in Opposition to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

A.2.3 Comments in Support of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

A.2.4 Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality

A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

January 2004 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I A.2.6 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources

I A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

I A.2.8 Comments Concerning Decommissioning

I A.2.9 Comments Conceming Land Use Issues

I A.2.10 Comments Concerning Human Health/Radiological Issues

I A.2.11 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

I A.2.12 Comment Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

I A.2.13 Comment Concerning Alternatives To License Renewal

I A.2.14 Comments Concerning Safety Issues

I A.2.15 Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of Environmental Review for

I License Renewal: Safeguards and Security, Need for Power, and General

I A.2.16 Editorial Comments

I A.2.17 General Comments

I A.2.1 General Comments Concerning License Renewal

I Comment: I feel that the experts here are too focused on their particular green box on the lake

I shore and I am concerned that the impact statement is not addressing adequately the

I cumulative effects of the great atomic lake here. We have 16 nukes. We have a tritium

I recovery facility. We have a uranium refinery. We have at least two low-level radioactive

I dumps, maybe more, depending on how you calculate the content of them at Lewison, at the

I harbor, Port Hope, some of the other places around Port Hope. Some of these were built after

I the Ginna plant and I do - I said this before and I'm going to repeat it. I think that this plant was

I built before NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, was a law and I don't think that plant

I would be built today with a thorough impact statement. But, of course, it's here and we're going

I to keep it going, obviously. I think part of that NEPA process is not being addressed

I adequately which is a cumulative impact of all of these plants. (F-1)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-28 January 2004
Appendix A

Response: The comment is noted. As part of the requirement to assess offsite dose I

consequences of plant operation, the licensee samples Lake Ontario water and fish. Water I

from sampling stations near the site and a control station are sampled weekly. Fish from the I

site and a control station 24 km (15 mi) away are sampled and analyzed twice a year. Although I

the purpose of these studies is to determine if there are any unmonitored releases from the I

plant, the analysis of the plant and control samples is an indication of the overall level of I

contamination in Lake Ontario. Review of recent control samples indicates that radioisotope I

levels in Lake Ontario would not result in adverse health consequences to members of the I

public who drink water and consume fish from the lake. The commenter thought the plant was I

built before NEPA was enacted in 1969. The plant began commercial operation in 1969. The I

construction and early operation of the facility did not benefit from a full NEPA review; however, I

a NEPA review resulting in the preparation of an environmental impact statement was

performed and issued in December 1973. The text of Section 1.0 has been changed in

response to this comment.

Comment: I believe the generic environmental impact statement for the renewal of these

licenses, this one size fits all process, is flawed. (F-4)

Response: The process of addressing a general program, such as nuclear power plant license I

renewal, in a programmatic EIS, and analyzing a site-specific application related to the general I

program in a subsequent supplement to the programmatic EIS is referred to as tiering. The I

concept of tiering was promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) in its 1978 1

regulations implementing the requirements of NEPA. The Council has stated that its intent in I

formalizing the tiering concept was to encourage agencies to eliminate repetitive discussions I

and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decisions at each level of environmental review. If I

tiering is utilized, the site-specific supplement contains a summary of the issues discussed in I

the programmatic EIS and the detailed discussions from the programmatic EIS are incorporated I

by reference. Thus, the supplement does not duplicate material found in the programmatic EIS. I

The Council has indicated that tiering can be a useful method of reducing paperwork and

duplication, and should be viewed as a means of accomplishing the NEPA requirements in an I

efficient manner.

The NRC's environmental review process, set forth in 10 CFR Part 51, implements the

requirements of NEPA as promulgated in the CEQ regulations. The NRC review process

provides for the preparation of generic environmental impact statements to avoid the time and I

expense of repeated reviews of essentially the same material, as provided for in CEQ

regulations. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS) reached generic conclusions for 69 environmental issues associated with license I

renewal. These are identified as Category 1 issues in the GEIS. In conducting its site-specific I

review, the NRC staff considers all the information collected, including public comments

provided during the scoping phase, to determine whether there is any new and significant

January 2004 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I information related to any GEIS Category 1 issues. If new and significant information is

I identified, the NRC staff will perform a site-specific evaluation of the impacts related to that

I information. Otherwise, the staff relies on the conclusions of the GEIS for the Category 1

I issues. The NRC staff performs site-specific analyses for Category 2 and uncategorized issues

I that are applicable to each plant that applies for license renewal. T7e comment did not provide

I significant, new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

I Comment: Based on our review, EPA does not believe that renewing the operating license

I would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, EPA does not object to

I the preferred alternative, renewing the operating license for Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. (Q-1)

I Response: The comment is in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

I Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

I conducted to review a license renewal application. The comment did not provide significant,

I new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

I

I A.2.2 Comments in Opposition to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

I

I Comment: I'm opposed to the renewal of this license. I just hope that this doesn't get

I approved for the renewal of this license. (G-1)

I Comment: The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction, and operation of nuclear

I reactors utilizing fission process including, in this case, relicensing. (H-1)

I Comment: The Sierra Club supports the systemic reduction of society's dependence on

I nuclear fission as a source of electric power, and we recommend a phased closure and

I decommissioning of these operating nuclear fission electric power reactors. (H-4)

I Comment: As the Ginna nuclear plant's license comes up for renewal, this is the perfect time

I to say no to a short- and long-term dangerous form of energy production. I would much rather

I conserve (and/or pay more for) energy than support the ongoing use of this power source.

I Please shut down the plant before an accident occurs. (N-1)

I Response: The comments are noted. The comments are opposed to license renewal at Ginna

I and are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information;

I therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-30 January 2004
Appendix A

A.2.3 Comments in Support of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Comment: I'm here to support the relicensing of the Ginna nuclear power plant. And I say that I

primarily for three reasons. First of all, the Ginna plant has been an excellent corporate

neighbor. It also provides a great tax base for the school district, and lastly, it provides a good I

standard of living for the parents of our children that are here. (A-1) I

Comment: Lastly is the standard of living that it provides my children. The Ginna nuclear

power plant itself provides about 500 jobs. Additionally, there's about 300 related jobs through I

private companies. That provides a standard of living to the people who work there, most of I

which the people who live here in our community and provides decent houses; it provides I

middle class values and opportunities for our children. In fact, I have to say that those of us

that live here in Ontario would say that we kind of have the best of both worlds. We live in a

very rural atmosphere, yet we have the economic base of a more suburban area. So from my I

perspective, Ginna has been a good corporate neighbor. It provides a great economic tax I

base, and it also provides a good standard of living for our children, and I wholeheartedly look' I

forward to continue support of Ginna and hope that there's success with the relicensing. (A-4) I

'I

Comment: As you've heard, the NRC's preliminary conclusion is that there's no reason from I

an environmental impact statement here not to renew the license. And we concur with that I

preliminary conclusion. It should be noted, and it's important to note, that as we continue to I

operate, we will continue to set as a priority safe and environmentally responsible operation. I

We'll continually monitor and measure our performance against standards, and we'll search out I

ways to improve our performance. (B-1)

Comment: The NRC's preliminary conclusion of the report is that there is no reason in their I

view from an environmental impact standpoint not to renew the license, and we concur with that I

conclusion. (E-1)

Comment: So what are our choices? Fossil fuels or nuclear power? I choose nuclear power. I

And I don't mind having it right next door. (I-1) - I

Comment: As far as environmental impact, the land that you keep around that plant is

wonderful. It's a wonderful habitat. You should see what walks through my yard from next

door. It's incredible. It's like being in the middle of a nature show. (1-2)

Comment: We are generally in favor of the renewal of the operating license. (M-1)

Comment: I am not opposed to the renewal of the plant's license. (0-1)

January 2004 A-31- NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Response: The comments were supportive of license renewal at Ginna and are general in

I nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be

I evaluated further.

I A.2.4 Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality

I Comment: A modified SPDES permit is dated 7/1/03. This should be reflected in Section

1 2.2.3, page 2-19, line 3. (T-5)

I Response: The comment is noted, and the wording in Section 2.2.3 of the Supplement has

I been changed to reflect this information.

I Comment: In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the 401 WQC [Water Quality Certification]

I will be issued within a year of the receipt of the application from RG&E, or by October 7, 2003.

I The Department has issued a public notice for the 401 Water Quality Certification (see

I attached). The Department has made the decision that the comments raised in this letter do

I not affect our ability to issue the 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, we have made a

I tentative determination to issue this certification by October 7, 2003. (R-5)

I

I Response: The comment is noted, and the wording regarding the 401 Water Quality

I Certification in Appendix E of the Supplement has been changed to reflect this information.

I

I A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

I

I Comment: The Environmental Report prepared for this project indicates that fish, fish eggs,

I and larvae entrainment and impingement have been evaluated by RG&E and that the problem

I is not significant. However, the Service requested additional studies be conducted at this

I facility to document existing fish mortality. The previous entrainment study was completed in

1 1977 and is too old to accurately reflect current conditions. Recently, the New York State

I Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) has directed RG&E to conduct additional studies to

I determine the extent of the problem. We concur with the NYSDEC that additional current

I information is needed to fully assess fish mortality at this project. (S-1)

I Response: As noted in Section 4.1 of this Supplement, RG&E is proceeding with further

I entrainment and impingement studies. The results of the studies are not available for inclusion

I in this Supplement to the GEIS. The SEIS references the requirements of the July 1, 2003,

I SPDES permit. NYSDEC is actively involved with RG&E concerning these studies and will

I evaluate the results to determine if additional mitigation is warranted.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-32 January 2004
Appendix'A

Comment: The Service previously suggested that RG&E evaluate the use of a filter system to

minimize fish impingement and entrainment. However, no evaluation of such a system was

presented within the GEIS document. A filter boom, such as the Gunderboom System, can

prevent fish larvae and eggs from entering the water intake pipe. Fish larvae, eggs, and debris

are removed and released downstream of the boom with small bursts of air along the length of

the filter. This system is currently being used at three other major power plants'in New York

and has been determined to be the Best Technology Available, where its use is feasible.

Again, it is recommended that RG&E fully evaluate a filter system for use at this facility and

document this evaluation in the GEIS. (S-2)

Response: As noted in Section 4.1 of this Supplement, RG&E is proceeding with further fish

entrainment and impingement studies. The results of the studies are not available for inclusion

in this Supplement to the GEIS. The SEIS references the requirements of the July 1, 2003,

SPDES permit. The staff acknowledges the use of filtering systems as an option to decrease

fish entrainment and impingement. . These systems need to be evaluated considering flow,

fouling, and ice conditions found in Lake Ontario as well as the seasonal activity of the fish, fish

eggs, and larvae. NYSDEC is actively involved with RG&E concerning these studies and will

evaluate the results to determine if additional mitigation is warranted.

Comment: Section 2.2.5, page 2-22, line 14. Consider adding the word "as" between

uchanged' and "much", to be consistent with Environmental Report Figure 2.2-1. (T-6)

Response: The comment is noted, and the wording in Section 2.2.5 of the Supplement has

been changed to reflect this information.

Comment: Section 4.1.1, page 4-10, line 14. The most recent modified SPDES permit dated

7/1/03, is not included in Appendix E of NUREG-1437, Supplement 14. Also, the entrainment

study listed in that sentence is to be conducted in 2004, not'2003.' A copy of the 7/1/03

modified SPDES permit is being provided as Attachment D. (T-10)

Response: The comment is noted, and Appendix E and the wording in Section 4.1.1 of the

Supplement have been changed to reflect this information.

Comment: Section 4.1.3, page 4-14,line 10 - delete the word "proposed"; line 11, delete "for

review and comment"; line 13/14, delete "if incorporated into the SPDES permit"; line 14,

change 2004 to 2005. Also, the reference should change to the modified SPDES permit being

provided as Attachment D. .(T-11)

Response: The comment is noted, and the wording in Section 4.1.3 of the Supplement has

been changed to reflect this information.

January 2004 A-33- NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Comment: Table 4.2-1. RG&E has further reviewed historical Ginna impingement data, and

I we are including a slightly revised Table 4.2-1 as follows: (Table 4.2-1 Annual Percentages of

I Lake Ontario Alewife and Smelt Populations Impinged at Ginna Station attached. Please see

I original comment letter at end of Appendix A.) This results in the following minor changes to

I Section 4.1.2, page 4-12; line 2 - 0.0008 percent should be 0.0009 percent; line 4, three

I alewives should be five alewives. (T-12)

I

I Response: The comment is noted, and the wording in Section 4.1.2 of the Supplement has

I been changed to reflect this information.

l

I Comment: The Department considers that the conclusions made at the bottom of GEIS

I page 4-10 and top of GEIS page'4-13, which states, 'no new measures are warranted to

I mitigate the impacts of entrainment and impingement," are premature. As noted in the GEIS,

I the Department is requiring RG&E to conduct an entrainment abundance study, since no such

I studies have been done in over 20 years. In addition, over the past few years, the Regional

I Fisheries' Office has seen a large increase in the smallmouth bass populations along the South

I shore of Lake Ontario. Department regional and central office Habitat and Fisheries staff have

I subsequently modified the SPDES permit to include a one-year entrainment study, with results

I dictating the possible need of a longer term study. Impingement has been studied on a regular

I basis since the plant went on line. The impact to alewife and smelt have been well

I documented. Department staff have acknowledged the statement of minimal impact on a lakeI wide population level of alewives and smelt, but have concerns over species shifts and local

I populations. With the above mentioned increase in the smallmouth bass, coupled with reports

I of bass being caught in deeper water, the Department has required continuing the impingement

I monitoring. RG&E has agreed to continue the impingement monitoring program. RG&E has

I also been on a schedule to upgrade their traveling intake screens with measures to improve the

I survival of impinged fish. These upgrades are expected to continue in the future. Based on the

I results of these studies, and other relevant information, the Department will determine whether

I the intake meets best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental

I impacts, and whether any mitigation is required. EPA's proposed Phase II Rule (Federal

I Register, Vol. 67, No. 68, Tuesday, April 9, 2002) requires existing facilities to reduce

I impingement mortality by 80-95 percent and entrainment abundance by 60-90 percent. After

I EPA issues a final rule and the results of the studies are submitted, the Department will

I determine whether additional mitigation measures are required.- (R-3)

I Response: As noted in Section 4.1 of this Supplement, RG&E is proceeding with further fish

I entrainment and impingement studies. The results of the studies are not available for inclusion

I in this Supplement to the GEIS. The SEIS references the requirements of the July 1, 2003,

I SPDES permit. NYSDEC is actively involved with RG&E concerning these studies and will

I evaluate the results to determine if additional mitigation is warranted.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-34 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: Upon review of the Ginna Station 316(a) demonstration, the Department has not

found any assessment of the effects of discharge temperatures on impinged fish, referred to on

page 4-13 of the Draft Supplement 14. The 316(a) demonstration looked at thermal impacts to

fish within the waterbody, however, it did not evaluate the effects upon impinged fish returned

through the cooling water discharge canal. The Department is concerned that exposure of fish

to the increased temperatures in the discharge canal (up to 280F) could have adverse effects

on some species, particularly in combination with the physical stresses due to the impingement

process. Therefore, the Department is requiring this study to determine whether a dedicated

fish return line is needed to mitigate additional impacts to impinged fish. RGE has agreed to

conduct a literature review of the subject. Depending on what is found in the literature search,

RG&E has agreed in principle to conduct an additional study. The Department therefore

considers the assessment that "no new mitigation measures are warranted" made on GEIS

page 4-14, to be premature. (R-4)

Response: The text of this Supplement to the GEIS has been updated to remove the.

reference to an evaluation in the 316(a) study of heat shock to impinged fish. The staff

recognizes that further studies may result in additional mitigation. However, based on the

information currently available, the NRC staff concluded that losses to aquatic organisms from

plant operations are SMALL and additional mitigation is not warranted at this time.

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources I

Comment: Section 4.4.5, page 4-29, line 25, lines 31 and 32 and page 4-30,' lines 27 and 28.

As the owner of the Brookwood Manor House, RG&E is not aware of any party that has

prepared a nomination form for listing the Brookwood Manor House on the National Register ofI

Historic Places (NRHP) and submitted it to the New York State Review Board. Federal

regulations under 36 CFR Part 60.6 require that the State notify property owners of the State's

intent to bring the nomination before the State Review Board. Furthermore, owners of private

property are given an opportunity to concur in or object to the nomination. Since the property

has not formally been determined to be eligible for listing, RG&E suggests revising the

sentence on page 4-29, line 25 to read "The Ginna site includes one undocumented structure

that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP." A confirming change should also be made

on Page 2-45, line 10, by including the word "potentially" between "be" and "eligible". (T-1 3)

Response: The comment is noted. A historic structure does not need to be nominated to the

NRHP in order to be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP; it need only be determined to

meet the requirements for listing. However, since no formal evaluation of the Brookwood

Manor House has taken place to date, the text has been changed to reflect the current status ofI

the Brookwood Manor House as potentially eligible for the NRHP.

January 2004 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Comment: Section 4.4.5, page 4-30, line 28. RG&E suggests that this sentence be replaced

I with uCare should be taken during development projects to ensure that cultural resources are

I not inadvertently impacted." (T-1 4)

I Response: The NRC has determined that the area of potential effect for a license renewal

I action is the power plant site and its immediate environs. Because there have been no

I archaeological surveys of the Ginna site and the Brookfield Manor House has not been formally

I evaluated for historical significance, the effects of future development at the Ginna site are

I unknown. If cultural resources are not to be inadvertently adversely affected by future

I development, the presence or absence of cultural resources must first be determined. There

I were no changes made to the text of the Supplement because of this comment.

I Comment: Section 4.8.4, page 4-42, lines 26 and 27. For the reasons provided in comment

1 12, revise text to read, "Related to historic resources, there is one undocumented structure

I potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP on the Ginna site, and the transmission line..."

I (T-1 6)

l

I Response: The comment is noted, and the wording in Section 4.8.4 of the Supplement has

I been changed.

I

I A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

I

I Comment: And let me talk a little about the economic tax base, first of all. Over the last five

I years, the Ginna nuclear power plant has provided us with more than $15 million worth of

I revenue. And in fact, just this last year they provided more than $3.1 million of tax revenue for

I our children. Now that represented about 21.9 percent of the tax revenue generated for our

I school district. That means that about one in every five dollars is spent from tax revenue for

I our children comes from that one plant. Conversely, the loss of that would be disastrous both

I for our school children and also for the tax payers would have to make up the difference. (A-2)

I Response: The overal impact that the Ginna tax payment has on the Wayne Central School

I District is described in Table 2-11 and Section 2.2.8.6. Although the percentage of total tax

I payments to total school district revenues is reflected in Table 2- 11, Ginna tax payments as a

I percentage of school tax levies are not shown. Table 2-11 and Section 2.2.8.6 have been

I changed to reflect this information.

I

I Comment: I did have a comment in the socioeconomic portion of the draft environmental

I impact statement that had to do with taxes. It suggests in here that you should compare the

I dollars in taxes with the total revenue that the town collects in terms of determining what the

I impact would be if it went away. I'm suggesting that's the improper comparison to make. You

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-36 January 2004
Appendix A

ought to compare the amount of taxes RG&E pays with the total taxes the town pays. Compare I

the taxes of RG&E with the total taxes, not the taxes with the total revenue. Because if you I

look at the amount of taxes compared with the total revenue, it's a much smaller percent, and in I

here you suggested that the impact, if it went away, would be small and so you don't have to I

mitigate that. I'm suggesting that if you compare taxes with total taxes, if it went away the I

impact would be at least moderate and so you might have to consider mitigation in that sense. I

(D-1)

Response: In Chapter 8 of this Supplement, the socioeconomic impact of closing the Ginna I

plant is determined, in part, by comparing the amount of taxes RG&E pays with the total I

revenues of the local jurisdictions. This type of comparison is required by NUREG-1437 -

(Regulatory Guidelines for Completing License Renewal Environmental Impact Statements, I

section 4.7.2.1 ). In order that the socioeconomic impacts from one plant to another be made in I

a consistent manner, it is important that the tax payments of the plant be compared with the I

total revenues of the local jurisdictions. This is because the manner in which local jurisdictions I

choose to use and categorize fees versus taxes, or how jurisdictions create and define budgets, I

dedicated funds, and public trusts, for example, may vary significantly from one jurisdiction to I

another. A reasonable comparison to make is to observe the total revenue generating capacity I

of the jurisdiction, reflected by total revenue, with the tax payments made by each plant. There I

are also several instances in this Supplement where the distinction is made between how the I

amount of taxes RG&E pays would impact the Town of Ontario, both in terms of total taxes and l

as a percentage of total revenues. In Section 2.2.8.6, for example, the first paragraph includes I

a statement about how the tax payments for Ginna average 13.2 percent of the total revenue I

collected and 37.2 percent of total property taxes for Ontario for the period from 1995 to 2001. I

There were no changes made in the Supplement because of this comment. I

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Decommissioning

Comment: Fourth, what is the current status of the decommissioning fund? Is it fully protected I

from drawdowns for other purposes and is the amount sufficient for environmental sound

closure? (PA4)

Response: The comment is noted. The total cost of decommissioning a reactor facility -

depends on many factors, including the timing and sequence of the various stages of the I

program, type of reactor or facility, location of the facility, current radioactive waste burial costs, I

and plans for spent fuel storage. The NRC estimates costs for decommissioning a nuclear I

power plant range from $300 to $450 million. I

NRC regulations regarding accumulation and disbursement of the decommissioning funds I

provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available for the decommissioning process. I

January 2004 A-37. NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Accounts for decommissioning are segregated from the licensee's other assets and remain

I outside of the licensee's administrative control. NRC requires nuclear power plant and large

I materials licensees to report to the agency the status of their decommissioning funds at least

I once every 2 years, annually within 5 years of the planned shutdown, and annually once the

I plant ceases operation. Additional information regarding decommissioning is available on the

I NRC website at httr://ww.nrc. ov/reactors/decommissioninc.html.

l

I In accordance with the regulations, RG&E submitted its most recent reports on the status of

I decommissioning funding for Ginna on March 30,2001, and March 31,2003. The NRC staff

I provided its summary of the 2001 power reactor decommissioning funding reports in a report to

I the Commission on November 5, 2001 (SECY-01-197). The staff concluded that all power

I reactor licensees appeared to be on track to fund decommissioning by the time they

I permanently shut down their operating units. The NRC staff's summary of the 2003 power

I reactor decommissioning funding status reports will be provided in a report to the Commission

I that is currently under review. There were no changes made in the Supplement because of this

I comment.

I

I A.2.9 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

I

I Comment: As a tax payer, it is a very bad idea to sell land to developers. We do not need to

I spend more money for site protection. The license should be held up until these guys

I remember who they are working for, "the taxpayers." (L-1)

I Comment: We urge that, should the renewal be granted, a stipulation be added blocking the

I sale of any of the plant's property for development, or should such sale occur, the deed be

I encumbered from development for the operating life of the facility. (M-3)

l

I Response: The comments are noted. 10 CFR 50.83 states that licensees seeking NRC

I approval to release part of a power reactor facility or site for unrestricted use (partial site

I release) shall evaluate the effect of releasing the property to ensure that there is no reduction in

I the effectiveness of emergency planning or physical security. Additionally, the licensee must

I demonstrate that the property proposed for unrestricted release meets the site release criteria

I contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendices D and E. More information is found in 68 Federal

I Register 19711-19727 (April 22, 2003). There were no changes made in the Supplement

I because of these comments.

I

I Comment: Shoreline erosion from waves and storm events has occurred at the eastern end of

I the project site. Existing protection measures have not been completely effective. However,

I the extent of the erosion has been limited to one or two small areas over a 30-year period.

I Rochester Gas and Electric should consider the use of measures other than hard structures

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-38 January 2004
Appendix A

(i.e., riprap) to control the erosion problem. Instead of hard structures, biotechnical erosion

controls should be used for this project, if feasible. These measures are the most effective

means to limit erosion and also provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and invertebrates. This

technique uses vegetation to control erosion in a buffer between the water and upland. If hard

structures are necessary, RG&E should use articulated concrete block or riprap in combination

with planting erosion controlling vegetation. This vegetation should include native plant species I

which will benefit wildlife such as dwarf willow (Salix cottetih), grey dogwood (Comus racemosa), I

silky dogwood (Comus amomum), arrowwood viburnum (Vibumum dentatum), and other I

appropriate species. The use of vegetation will be more beneficial for wildlife and be more I

aesthetic than bare riprap. (S-3) I

Response: The comment is noted. Shoreline erosion was discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the I

DSEIS as well as in this final SEIS. Shoreline erosion due to the revetment at Ginna is not I

quantitatively significant. The NRC staff are not recommending any additional plant-specific I

mitigation measures at this time. There were no changes made in the Supplement because of I

this comment.

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Human Health/Radiological Issues

Comment: I'm going to skip a lot because - but I do want to say that radiation exposure is a I

cumulative health effect and that's why radiation induced cancer show up later in life. As power I

plants operate, they expose the population and the environment to an on-going burden of I

exposure and I'm not singling out Ginna; I'm talking about perhaps the most nuclearized body I

of water certainly in North America, if not anywhere, Lake Ontario. The longer these plants I

operate, the more dose collectively the population receives. I think that what we should do as I

part of this relicensing process here, for Ginna, is to have a comprehensive lakewide

assessment of all radiation releases, that's U.S. and Canada. (F-2)

Comment: I've complained before about the adequacy of the data available, how difficult it is I

to access the radiological release data from this plant and I asked back in November what I

about the Canadian plants and the NRC response was well, I guess we could obtain it, which I

kind of implied to me that it wasn't readily available and maybe even to a medical researcher, I

let alone to a citizen. So I think that's a problem. (F-3) I

Comment: I'd like to see at least a thorough and rigorous assessment of the radiological I

releases and basically that is kind of what I'm going to wind up with except that I think if we are I

going to take a look at the long term at what effect these power plants are going to be in the I

long run, if it's going to operate for many, many more years and all these other plants are going I

to through their renewal process and doing the same, we should at least get good data out I

there and be able to assess the effects on the population and if such data were provided, then i

January 2004 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I the truth of science would answer our questions and wouldn't it be nice to know that really the

I effects are minimal and really I don't have to worry at night about the long term consequences.

I (F-6)

I Comment: Also, the possible cancers or so many cancers that people are suffering from now

I and we know it could be from pesticides. It could be from a million different things, but one of

I them could be from the nuclear situation going on with Ginna and with the different plants. (GI 4)

I Comment: There are regular releases that happen constantly that are considered low level

I that do have to be reported and I used to get up until recently e-mails that with all the gobblyI gook that had to go to the NRC and it would get forwarded to me and I do see that in your

I report, you do mention that there were some releases of various strontium and different things

I like that, so I mean it is happening. I would hate to live next to the plant and not be aware of

I that when there's a repository where you can get that information. (K-1)

I

I Response: The comments are noted. Several commenters expressed concern over lakewide

I levels of contamination. As part of the requirement to assess offsite dose consequences of

I plant operation, the licensee samples Lake Ontario water and fish. Water from sampling

I stations near the site and a control station are sampled weekly. Fish from the site and a control

I station 24 km (15 mi) away are sampled and analyzed twice a year. Although the purpose of

I these studies is to determine if there are any unmonitored releases from the plant, the analysis

I of the plant and control samples is an indication of the overall level of contamination in Lake

I Ontario. The analysis of control samples does not indicate radioisotope levels that would result

I in adverse health consequences to members of the public that drink water or consume fish from

I Lake Ontario.

I

I Radiation exposure to the public and workers was evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be

I a Category 1 issue. The NRC regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect

I workers and the public from the harmful health effects of radiation on humans. The limits were

I based on the recommendations of stadards-setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect

I extensive scientific study by national and international organizations (the International

I Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRPJ, the National Council on Radiation Protection

I and Measurements, and the National Academy of Sciences) and are conservative to ensure

I that the public and workers at nuclear power plants are protected. The radiation exposure

I standards are presented in 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation, " and

I are based on the recommendations in ICRP 26 and 30.

I Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies of personnel exposed to occupational

I levels of radiation (versus life-threatening accident doses or medical therapeutic levels) have

I shown minimal effect on human health, and any effect was from exposures well above the

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-40 January 2004
Appendix A

exposure levels of the typical member. of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power

plant.

The comments provide no new information and do not pertain to the scope of license renewalI

as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.2.11 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

Comment: On page G-6 of Appendix G it is stated that: UA summary listing of those changes

that resulted in the greatest impact on the total CDF was provided in response to an RAI

(RG&E 2003b), and include: ...." One of those changes is found on page G-7 and states:

"Added fires, internal floods, and shutdown risk models to the fault trees to enable their solution

and risk ranking. Removed loss of spent fuel pool cooling and fuel-handling accidents and

analyzed separately, because they do not lead to core damage." This implies that loss of spent

fuel cooling has already been analyzed or will be done separately. If this is correct, the

Department would like to see this analysis. If this analysis has not been done, the Department

recommends that Spent Fuel Cooling Water Loss be evaluated and added to Appendix G of

Supplement 14 as a part of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. (R-2)

Response: Loss of spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling and fuel handling accidents are separately

analyzed within the Ginna probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). In the latest revision to the

Ginna PSA, these events and their respective frequencies were removed from the list of ,

contributors to core damage because they do not lead to damage to the fuel within the reactor

core. Fuel handling accidents involve releases from only a limited number of fuel assemblies

and would be inconsequential relative to a core damage accident. Accordingly, SAMAs that

address these events are not expected to be cost-beneficial and were not pursued. Although

loss of SFP cooling accidents could, in principle, lead to significant radiological releases,; - I

previous studies have shown that there is considerable time available to recover SFP cooling

prior to a radiological release, and that the risk associated with such events is very small. -In

view of the low level of risk and the numerous, relatively straight-forward means typically,

available for adding water to the SFP, additional, cost-beneficial measures to further reduce the I

risk from loss of SFP cooling accidents are not expected to be identified in a SAMA I

assessment, and were not pursued in the Ginna evaluation. There were no changes made in I

the Supplement because of this comment. -

A.2.12 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste

Management Issues -

Comment: And when you weigh that against the risk of having this reactor operating in'the I

community and generating more high level waste, it is sort of bizarre that the NRC treats safety I

January 2004 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I and the creation of nuclear waste as having the same environmental impact as not doing it,

I which is essentially what comes out in the SEIS if you read it is that when evaluating the option

I of not relicensing and the reactor shutting down in 5 years, that the NRC says by the way

I there's a low environmental impact in that because it means it would all stop. And then in

I looking at the risk of going forward in terms of having accidents, in terms of generating you

I know another 200 tons of high level radioactive waste that will be stored in the community,

I that's a low impact too. (C-3)

I

I Comment: The foresight of the future as far as spent fuel, the dangers there. It will be going

I across the country in trucks. It will stay here, and the spent fuel is dangerous stuff. (G-3)

l

I Comment: The resolution of significant safety problems inherent in reactor operations such as

I the disposal of spent fuels, storage of spent fuels and so on, this is an earthquake zone. If the

I containment pool were to crack, due to earthquake, the liquid runout, what would happen?

I Would there be a meltdown of those so-called spent fuel rods and so on? The federal

I legislation to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be there to license both

I military and nonmilitary in radioactive waste management facilities. This isn't necessarily

I relicensing the plant, but waste management facilities. And this relates also to the shipment of

I this waste off-site because there is a risk, as we've heard of the material remaining on site.

I You've been trying to address the risk, but then we get into the question of shipping. What do

I you do with this? We've brought up that already. And a question about some of the costs

I there. (H-3)

I

I Response: The comments are noted. Transportation, onsite storage, and long-term storage of

I spent nuclear fuel are Category 1 issues. The safety and environmental effects of long-term

I storage of spent fuel were set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule. Although outside the scope

I of this SEIS, the staff would like to provide the following brief response. NUREG- 1738,

I Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,

I provides an analysis of the consequences of the SFP accident risk. Earlier analyses in

I NUREGICR-4982, Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Issue 82, and

I NUREG/CR-6451, A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR

I Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants, included a limited analysis of the offsite

I consequences of a severe SFP accident occurring up to 90 days after the last discharge of

I spent fuel into the SFP. These analyses showed that the likelihood of an accident that drains

I the SFP is very low, although the consequences of such accidents could be comparable to

I those for a severe reactor accident. The staff performed a further analysis of the offsite

I radiological consequences of beyond-design-basis SFP accidents using fission product

I inventories at 30 and 90 days and 2, 5, and 10 years. The accident progression scenarios that

I lead to large radiological releases following the drainage of a SFP require many nonmechanistic

I assumptions. This is because the geometry of the fuel assemblies and the air-cooling flow

I paths cannot be known following a major dynamic event that might drain the water from the

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-42 January 2004
Appendix A

SFP. In addition, no credit is taken for preventative or mitigative actions and large uncertainties I

exist in the source term and consequence calculations. Because of these uncertainties, the I

staff developed bounding risk curves in NUREG-1738 that capture both frequency and I

consequences of a beyond-design-basis SFP drainage event (the risk curves are provided in I

Figures l-1 and l-2 of NUREG-1738). The results of the study indicate that the risk is low I

because of the very low likelihood of a zirconium fire even though the consequences from a I

zirconium fire could be serious. For more information, please reference the Decommissioning I

GEIS, Appendix I. The comments didnotprovide significant, new information; therefore, they I

will not be evaluated further. There was no change to the Supplement text.

Comment: The Draft Supplement indicates that onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent

nuclear fuel are Category 1 issues (Page A-19). Therefore, site-specific information on spent

fuel storage is not provided in the Draft Supplement 14 for the Ginna facility. As the

Department recommended in the enclosed letter on the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (letter from Barbara Youngberg, NYSDEC, to the Chief, Rules and Directives

Branch, September 18, 2003), certain aspects of on-site storage of spent fuels are site specific I

and should be addressed in the site-specific supplements. These include the current status of I

storage capacity at a facility and the plans for storage of the additional spent fuel to be

generated during the term of the renewed facility. We understand that the GEIS will not be

revised prior to the preparation and issuance of the final Supplement for the Ginna facility;

therefore, at this time, spent fuel is a Category 1 issue. However, the Department felt it was

important to raise this point and to recommend that this information be disclosed for the Ginna I

facility. Therefore, we recommend that the type (wet or dry), capacity, and remaining life of the I

current storage for spent fuel be disclosed. In addition, as we stated in our previous letter

dated December 11, 2002, the Department recommends that the amount of spent fuel to be I

generated over the life of the extended license be estimated and the proposed plans for

containment of this fuel during the license term be disclosed. (R-1)

Response: RG&E stated in the Ginna ER that about 44 fuel assemblies are discharged from I

the reactor core at approximately'18-month intervals. As noted in Section 2.1.4 of this I

Supplement, sufficient SFP capacity remains to store the projected spent fuel discharges I

resulting from operation through the spring of 2010. The NRC staff can not conjecture at this I

time as to the method that will be selected by 'RG&E for accommodating further spent fuel I

discharges beyond that point. Licensees currently have few options: onsite dry storage in I

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation or reracking to'increase 'fuel density in the SFP. I

Options that may become available in the future include 'remote interim dry storage or

permanent disposal in a high-level repository. The safety and environmental effects of longterm storage of spent fuel onsite'have been evaluatedby the NRC, andas set forth in the

Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that such storage could be

accomplished without significant environmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the

Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the I

January 2004 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I licensed operating life, which may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end

I of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent repository. The GEIS is based upon the

I assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent. The plant-specific draft

I supplement to the GEIS regarding license renewal for Ginna was prepared based on the same

I assumption. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore they will not

I be evaluated further.

I A.2.13 Comments Concerning Alternatives To License Renewal

I

I Comment: Alternative energies should be pursued as well as conservation. (G-5)

I Comment: We favor alternate energy generation systems'such as solar and wind and so

I on. (H-2)

I Response: The comments are noted. The GEIS included an extensive discussion of

I alternative energy sources. Environmental impacts associated with vanrous reasonable

I alternatives to renewal of the operating license for Ginna are discussed in Chapter8. Section

1 8.2.5 provides evaluations of conservation, as well as power generation using solar, wind, and

I other alternative technologies. The comments did not provide significant, new information;

I therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

I A.2.14 Comments Concerning Safety Issues

I Comment: In terms of being a good corporate neighbor, while I must admit it is scary for all of

I us to think about an accident at the plant, and especially for me, who is responsible for about

1 2900 children, I also realize that the Ginna nuclear power plant is recognized nationally, is one

I of the best run plants. Also, we are confident in plant manager Joe Widay and people like Rick

I Watts and the others who operate the plant. And in fact, particularly post-9/1 1, we feel very

I comfortable it's a secure site with the addition of the National Guardspeople. We also run

I annual evacuation drills and feel we are prepared for an emergency should it happen. (A-3)

I

I Comment: My primary concern with a plant that's 34 years old is what's happened with the

I parts that have been bombarded by radiation. So Ginna does have some reactor vessel

I embrittlement. Many of the pipes in the plant that have been exposed to radiation have a

I certain amount of weakening as a result of the embrittlement problem. And why embrittlement

I is a big problem and has been dealt with and has to be continually dealt with is because the

I margins in case of a loss of coolant accident decreased. And a major loss of coolant accident

I can result in the actual vessel breaking. (J-1)

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: And so what we found out is that we do not - we are not using sufficient technology I

to inspect or look at cracks in seal welds around control rods, and there's hundreds of cracks I

that are going undetected. (J-3)

Comment: First, regarding the problem of reactor vessel and reactor piping embrittlement, we I

know that as a reactor ages, safety margins are diminished. How extensive is embrittlement at I

Ginna and what steps have been and are being taken to address this problem and ensure the I

safety of the public in case of system failure? What costs will be incurred? Do we have any I

experience regarding the embrittlement problem based on a reactor operating beyond its I

40-year life expectancy? (P-1)

Comment: Second, we know that the NRC has known about seal weld cracking and leaking I

around the reactor vessel head control rods since the Beznau-1 incident in Switzerland in 1971 1

and that the NRC has ignored the problem of holes in the reactor vessel head due to boric acid I

corrosion for 30 years until Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor vessel developed a hole through its

214-mm thick head, extending to the 4.8-mm stainless steel clad. We know that hundreds of l

cracks in weld seals go undetected because the best available inspection technology is not I

used. What is that current condition of the Ginna reactor vessel head? Since this is a problem I

germane to all pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and Ginna has operated for 34 years, will it I

become necessary to replace the reactor vessel head and, if so, at what cost to the customer? I

(P-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRC's environmental review is confined to I

environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. I

To the extent that the comments pertain to safety of equipment and aging within the scope of I

license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the parallel safety analysis review I

performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR I

Part 51 and will not be evaluated further in this SEIS. The comments provide no new I

information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental I

review.

A.2.15 Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of Environmental

- Review for License Renewal: Safeguards and Security, Need for Power,'

'and General

Safeguards and Security '

Comment: I think it fails to adequately address many of the changes that have taken place in I

society like the terrorism concernm, the fact that we have basically an open border on Lake I

Ontario. (F-5) I

January 2004 A-45- NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Comment: Terrorism, which we thought didn't exist before and it exists and who knows what

I they're going to do to these nuclear plants and if they are indeed strong enough to withstand

I that. (G-2)

I

I Comment: Another area of concern we should all be really concerned with is not so much the

I reactor vessel being in some way damaged or breached by some sort of terrorist accident, it's

I the nuclear SFP and what would happen if somebody set up some sort of mortar or howitzer

I out in the farm field or out on the lake and was able to penetrate the SFP and there was a loss

I of coolant? There's more radiation to be released in the SFP than in the reactor itself. (J-2)

I Comment: Although the NRC has excluded the issue of terrorist attacks from licensing hearing

I because it is "unquantifiable," it remains a viable concern to all nuclear facilities and the general

I public. (P-3)

I Response: NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented

I initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of

I aircraft against commercial nuclear power plants and independent spent fuel storage

I installations. Malevolent acts remain speculative and beyond the scope of a NEPA review.

I NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided to them by other Federal

I agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security levels.

I The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities. These

I matters will continue to be addressed through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and

I generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities and many activities conducted at

I nuclear facilities. The NRC has taken a number of actions to respond to the events of

I September 11, 2001, and plans to take additional measures. However, the issue of security

I and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is not unique to facilities that have

I requested a renewal to their license and, therefore, was not addressed within the scope of this

I Supplement. The comments did not provide significant, new information and they do not

I pertain to the scope of license renewals set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54; therefore, they will

I not be evaluated further.

I

I Comment: So my only concern is that there is in process now sale of some of that land to a

I developer to be developed with an entire row of houses that face the plant. And my major

I concern about that is because of the new environment of terror in this world. My husband is a

I Colonel in the United States Army Reserves. His expertise is armament and particularly those

I used by other countries and terrorist groups, that sort of thing. His feeling is that as things

I stand right now it would be very difficult for anyone to get anything in there large enough, close

I enough to do any significant damage except maybe make a smudge on the wall. If there were

I houses closer in, that might provide a platform for terrorists. Now how close, well, maybe not

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-46 January 2004
Appendix A

where they're putting - want to put the houses now, but we'd like to see as much land as

possible around that. (1-3)

Comment: What we find disturbing, in this era of heightened terrorism awareness, is that a

portion of the power plant grounds are under contract for sale to be developed as a high density I

housing project. This area is currently farm field and orchard, easily monitored by security I

personnel. It is not difficult to imagine one of these new homes,- in line of sight of the facility, I

being used as a base to launch a terrorist attack on the facility. As much of the facility's I

security cost, in the form of full time on site National Guard and state police, is being borne by I

the taxpayers, any reduction in security, in addition to the increased risks, will be directly borne I

by the public. (M-2) I

Comment: I believe that the presence of a development in such proximity to the plant will I

increase the risk of an attack on the plant, increase the number of people at risk from an I

incident at the plant, and increase the cost of trying to maintain security there. There is no I

reason to incur all of these costs to benefit a developer. (0-2) I

I

Response: The NRC issued a final rule on April 22, 2003, to standardize the process for I

allowing a power reactor licensee to release part of its site for unrestricted use. The final rule I

identifies the criteria and regulatory framework that a licensee will use to request NRC approval I

for a partial site release. The rule requires licensees to evaluate proposed site releases to - I

ensure that there is no reduction in the effectiveness of site security. Additionally, the licensee I

must demonstrate that the property that is proposed for unrestricted release meets the site I

release criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendices D and E. The comments did not I

provide significant, new information and they do not pertain to the scope of license renewals set I

forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54; therefore, they will not be evaluated further. I

I

Need for Power

Comment: One of the things that have come that seems fundamental and we actually looked I

into this that there's actually in terms of the end of the regions energy needs, there's no need I

for Ginna for electricity. (C-1)

Response: The need for power is specifically directed to be outside the scope of license I

renewal (10 CER 51.95 (c)(2)). The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an I

operating license) is to provide an option that allows for powergeneration capability beyond the I

term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating I

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

than NRC) decision makers. The comments did not provide significant, new information and I

January 2004 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I they do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54;

I therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

I

I General

I

I Comment: And what that means in a lot of ways is this whole question about trading benefits

I to the community versus risks is really sort of irrelevant in a lot of ways, because if you look at

I what's going to happen if Ginna is relicensed, and it is going to be sold. That's another one of

I the dead elephants in the room. Ginna is not going to be owned by RG&E much longer if this

I license extension is granted. (C-2)

l

I Comment: Finally, if extending Ginna's operating license is based on public safety and sound

I economics, why is RG&E planning to sell the plant? (P-5)

I

I Response: The comments are noted. The NRC decision on whether or not to relicense the

I facility is in no way based on the licensee's decision to sell the facility. The decision is and

I should be based on successful completion of an environmental and safety review of the effects

I of operating the plant for an additional 20-year term. There were no changes made in the

I Supplement because of these comments.

I

I A.2.16 Editorial Comments

I

I Comment: There is a typographical error on page 2-1, line 29. 0.9 km should be 2.4 km.

I (T-1)

I

I Comment: Minor changes should be made to Figure 2-3, as provided in Attachment B. (T-2)

I

I Comment: Minor changes should be made to Figure 2-4, as provided in Attachment C. (T-3)

l

I Comment: In Section 2.2, page 2-17, line 25-27, reference is made to a land transaction. This

I has not occurred; therefore, this sentence should be deleted. (T-4)

I

I Comment: Reference 2002b, listed in Section 2.2.8.2, page 2-31, line 25 and Section 2.2.8.3,

I page 2-33, line 4, should be 2002d. (T-7)

I

I Comment: Section 2.2.9.2, page 2-45, line 6. 388 acres should be 338 acres. (T-8)

l

I Comment: Section 4.4.5, page 4-30, line 15. Add same footnote reference as on page 4-29.

I (T-15)

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-48 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment: Section 5.1.1, page 5-2, lines 21 and 22. Section 5.1.1 does not discuss the

environmental impacts of the design basis accident that were evaluated during the initial

licensing process as indicated by the sentence beginning on line 21. Suggest deleting words

"in this section and." The revised sentence would read 'The results of these evaluations are

found in license documentation such as the applicant's..." (T-17)

Comment: Section 8.1, page 8-2, line 8. The parenthetical reference should be NRC 1996 vs.

NRC 1999. (T-18)

Comment: Section 8.2.1.1, page 8-16, line 19. The parenthetical reference should be

EPA 2002b. (T-1 9)

Response: The comments are noted, and wording or figures in the identified sections of the

Supplement have been changed to reflect this information.

Comment: Section 8.2.1.1, page 8-17, lines 34 and 35. The loss of workforce and receipts

associated with a temporary construction project would not negatively impact a community,

since after the project is completed employment levels would return at least to pre-construction I

levels. Although employment associated with large construction projects can stress housing

and public services, as the NRC correctly states, the increased jobs and receipts normally have

a positive, though temporary, economic effect. Consider revising the sentence to read, uDuring

construction, the nearby communities would experience a temporary increase in receipts and

employment due to the influx of construction jobs." (T-20)

Comment: Table F-1, page F-2, line 5. Note that the NRC determined that the Category 2

issue related to microbiological organisms (public health) is not applicable to Ginna because the I

'issue applies only to heated effluents discharged into a small river." This conclusion is I

consistent with the NRC's analysis found in the GEIS Section 4.3.6. NRC regulations at I

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) require an analysis of the impact of license renewal on public health I

from thermophilic organisms if "the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or I

discharges into a river having an annual average flow'rate of less than 3.15 x 1012 ft3/year

(9 x 101' m3/year)." For conservatism, and because Ginna was the first plant located on the I

Great Lakes to submit an application to renew an operating license, RG&E elected to provide I

an analysis of the issue in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Report. (T-21) I

Response: The comments are noted. There were no changes made in the Supplement I

because of these comments.

January 2004 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I A.2.17 General Comments

I

I Comment: Section 4.1, page 4-3, line 28, and page 4-8, line 38. Based on previous

I applications and reading of the GEIS, Microbial Organisms (occupational health) is a

I Category 1 issue that is not limited to closed-cycle cooling. Therefore, this issue and the

I corresponding GEIS Section (4.3.6) should be added to Table 4-1, and a brief discussion of the

I issue should be added to Section 4.1. (T-9)

I

I Comment: Table F-1, page F-2, line 8. Consistent with Comment 9, Microbial Organisms

I (occupational health) should be removed from this table and addressed in Chapter 4. (T-22)

l

I Response: This Category 1 issue is only applicable forplants using cooling towers. The NRC

I staff is currently undertaking an effort to update the GEIS and will consider revising the GEIS

I and 10 CFR Part 50, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B- 1, to clarify this issue. No changes were

I made in the Supplement because of these comments.

I A.3 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters, and Comment

E-mails Received on the Draft SEIS

I Transcript of the Afternoon Public Meeting on August 7, 2003, in Ontario, New York

I

I [Introduction, Mr. Cameron]

I [Presentation, Mr. Tappert]

I [Presentation, Mr. Arrighi]

I [Presentation, Mr. Schaaf]

I [Presentation, Mr. Neitzel]

I [Presentation, Mr. Rubin]

I [Presentation, Mr. Schaaf]

I

I Facilitator Cameron: Okay, thanks Bob. Let's go to Mr. Michael Havens first from the Central

I School District, in Wayne County, right?

I

I Mr. Havens: Wayne Central.

I

I Facilitator Cameron: Wayne Central. Okay, thank you.

I Mr. Havens: Good afternoon. First I'd like to thank the NRC for coming out here to Ontario.

I You seemed to have chased the rain away and we appreciate that after about a week of

I unrelenting rain, and also for the opportunity for all of us to speak here about the relicensing of

I the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-50 January 2004
Appendix A

As has been said, my name is Michael Havens. I'm the superintendent of the Wayne Central

School District, located primarily here in the town of Ontario and also the town of Walmouth,

although we are in parts of the town of Webster, parts of town of Merriam, Williamson, and

Penfield.

A-1 The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is located within our school district. As a matter of fact, it is

approximately six miles from our high school, our middle school, and two of our three

elementary schools. I say that and say that I'm here to support the relicensing of the Ginna

Nuclear Power Plant. And I say that primarily for three reasons.

First of all, the Ginna plant has been an excellent corporate neighbor. It also provides a great

tax base for the school district, and lastly, it provides a good standard of living for the parents of

our children that are here.

A-2 And let me talk a little about the economic tax base, first of all. Over the last five years, the'

Ginna nuclear power plant has provided us with more than $15 million worth of revenue. And in

fact, just this last year they provided more than $3.1 million of tax revenue for our children.

Now that represented about 21.9 percent of the tax revenue generated for our school district.

That means that about one in every five dollars is spent from tax revenue for our children I

A-3 comes from that one plant.

Conversely, the loss of that would be disastrous both for our school children and also for the

taxpayers who would have to make up the difference.

Secondly, in terms of being a good corporate neighbor, while I must admit it is scary for all of us I

to think about an accident at the plant, and especially for me, who is responsible for about I

2,900 children, I also realize that the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is recognized nationally, is one I

of the best run plants.

Also, we are confident in plant manager Joe Widay and people like Rick Watts and the others I

who operate the plant. And in fact, particularly post-9/1 1, we feel very comfortable it's a secure I

site with the addition of the National Guardspeople. I

We also run annual evacuation drills and feel we are prepared for an emergency, should it I

happen.

A-4 Lastly is the standard of living that it provides my children. The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant I

itself provides about 500 jobs. Additionally, there's about 300 related jobs through private I

companies. That provides a standard of living to the people who work there, most of which the I

people who live here in our community, and provides decent houses, it provides middle class I

values and opportunities for our children. I

January 2004 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I In fact, I have to say that those of us that live here in Ontario would say that we kind of have the

I best of both worlds. We live in a very rural atmosphere, yet we have the economic base of a

I more suburban area. So from my perspective, Ginna has been a good corporate neighbor. It

I provides a great economic tax base and it also provides a good standard of living for our

I children, and I wholeheartedly look forward to continue support of Ginna and hope that there's

I success with the relicensing. Thank you.

I

I Facilitator Cameron: Thank you very much, Mr. Havens. We're going to go to Mr. Robert

I Mecredy next, who is the Vice President of Nuclear Operations for Rochester Gas and Electric

I to tell us a little bit about their vision and rationale for the license renewal application, and then

I we're going to go to Mr. Tim Judson from Citizen's Awareness Network.

I

I Mr. Mecredy.

I

I Mr. Mecredy: Thanks, Chip. I am Bob Mecredy, Vice President of Nuclear Operations for

I RG&E and have responsibility for the operation of Ginna. I appreciate the opportunity to

I comment. RG&E submitted its application, our application, for a license renewal just about a

I year ago. We're seeking the license renewal in order to preserve the option to operate Ginna in

I the renewed period. And this recognizes the fact that Ginna and the electricity it produces can

I be a valuable asset to the community and, in fact, to the State.

I

I Because Ginna produces about half the electricity on an annual basis that is used in the RG&E

I service territory. So it's not an insignificant contribution to the local area.

I

I The NRC is seeking comments here as part of the review, and this is but one step and once the

I safety review has been commented on will be forthcoming and we look forward to reviewing the

I NRC's safety review when it is issued here in the next several months.

I

I RG&E and the employees of Ginna take seriously and always have our responsibility to operate

I safely and to minimize the impact of the plant and our operations on the environment. An early,

I relatively small, but yet very visible example of that intention that's paid to the environment is

I the attention paid to the aesthetics of the plant and the design provides that the plant blends

I into the environment. And we continue that attention not just to the aesthetics, but also to the

I overall environmental well being.

I

I We continue to monitor our safety and the environmental performance. We learn from others.

I We search for ways to improve our performance. There also is ongoing independent oversight

I by the NRC and by others.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-52 January2OO4
Appendix A

In our application, we did conduct an environmental review using our own experts and

specialists and outside experts. And our conclusion was that operation in the extended period

would be acceptable from an environmental standpoint.

B-1 As you've heard, the NRC's preliminary conclusion is that there's no reason from an

environmental impact standpoint here not to renew the license. And we concur with that'

preliminary conclusion. It should be noted and it's important to note that as we continue to

operate,-we will continue to set as a priority safe and environmentally responsible operation.

We'll continually monitor and measure our performance against standards, and we'll search out

ways to improve our performance. Thank you.

Facilitator Cameron: Okay. Thank you, Bob.

Next we're going to hear from Tim Judson from Citizens Awareness Network.

Mr. Judson: Thanks, Chip. We appreciate the opportunity to give comments. My name is Tim

Judson. I'm with the Central New York chapter of the Citizens Awareness Network. I actually

live in Syracuse, New York. But I'm here today because of the sort of the regional concern

about the impact of this relicensing decision. And it is actually going to be the first in a series of

relicensing decisions that goes on in our area. The next ones to come up actually they're going I

to apply to relicense both the Nine-Mile Point reactors come October. I

I

And you know, when I was here at the meeting in November, the first of these meetings about I

this environmental review. You know, seeing that there were a lot of sort of dead elephants I

sitting around the room that no one was really talking about. It is interesting that those dead I

elephants are still there and they're still not being talked about. As the NRC is sort of SEISing I

C-i and GEISing its way through this decision, one of the things that have come that seems I

fundamental and we actually looked into this that there's actually in terms of the end of the I

region's energy needs, there's no need for Ginna for electricity.

In fact, there's an article that was published in the Syracuse Post Standard two years ago that I

laid out that Central and Western New York actually generate about 50 percent more power I

than we ever need, even on the hottest day. And Ginna represents less than 10 percent of that I

surplus, and it is less than 3 percent of the total energy generation in the region. And it is really I

remarkable in looking at this whole issue of whether it makes sense to preserve this option, the I

NRC didn't even seem to take that into account that there's this massive surplus of energy in I

our area.

C-2 And what that means in a lot of ways is this whole question about trading benefits to the

community versus risks is really sort of irrelevant in a lot of ways, because if you look at what's I

going to happen if Ginna is relicensed, and it is going to be sold. That's another one of the I

January 2004 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I dead elephants in the room. Ginna is not going to owned by RG&E much longer if this license

I extension is granted.

I

I The rate payers are going to end up paying about 3 billion dollars for electricity from this reactor

I over 20 years. You know, we can't actually improve our safety and our environment by shutting

I down this reactor and spending $3 billion on other things. We can't conserve 3 percent of our

I energy in this region for the cost of $3 billion in electricity? We can't afford to pay for a

I thorough and good clean up of the site from all the radioactive waste that's there? And we can't

I make up for the loss of property taxes to the school district with $3 billion?

I

I This really seems like the kind of questions that need to be addressed. And maybe it is not the

I NRC that can do that. Maybe this is something that the community needs to do and that the

I region needs to do and actually needs to happen through the state. But these are fundamental

I issues to this whole question of whether to relicense. And when you weigh that against the risk

CT3 of having this reactor operating in the community and generating more high level waste, it is

I sort of bizarre that the NRC treats safety and the creation of nuclear waste as having the same

I environmental impact as not doing it, which is essentially what comes out in the SEIS if you

I read it is that when evaluating the option of not relicensing and the reactor shutting down in 5

I years, that the NRC says by the way there's a low environmental impact in that because it

I means it would all stop.

I

I And then in looking at the risk of going forward in terms of having accidents, in terms of

I generating you know another 200 tons of high level radioactive waste that will be stored in the

I community, that's a low impact too. And so, of course, the NRC is going to go along with the

I relicensing because, of course, you know they can't distinguish between operating a reactor

I and shutting it down.

I So there's a lot of ways in which the supplemental environmental impact statement seems like it

I really misses the point.

I

I And it is geared more to passing the buck on to the Public Service Commission, which is

I perhaps what needs to happen. But what is really essential at this point is that there be an

I evaluation of this and maybe it is the community that needs to do it. But we're all on this boat

I together and we all have to take it on.

I

I Facilitator Cameron: Thank you, Tim.

I

I Is there anybody else that wants to speak? Any other questions on issues that we didn't cover

I or anything that the NRC wants to add at this point for public information?

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-54 January 2004
Appendix A

Okay, thank you all for coming out and being with us today. I'm going to ask John Tappert to

close the meeting out for us real quickly.

John?

Mr. Tappert: And I, too, would add my voice to thank you for coming out today and sharing

your thoughts with us.

We have a number of staff and contractors with us here today, so if you'd like to ask anyone a

question on a one to one basis we'll be staying after the meeting. Thanks again.

(Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

Transcript of the Evening Public Meeting on August 7,2003, in Ontario, New York

[Introduction, Mr. Cameron]

[Presentation, Mr. Tappert]

[Presentation, Mr. Arrighi]

[Presentation, Mr. Schaaf]

[Presentation, Mr. Neitzel]

Moderator Cameron: Thank you for that clarification, Bob.

Do we have some further questions for Duane about the preliminary findings in the draft

environmental impact statement?

And if things occur to people later, we'll come back to that. Any other questions right now?

Yes? Dick, please introduce yourself. Everybody knows you, butMr. Clark: I'm Dick Clark. I'm the Supervisor for the Town of Ontario. I want to start by saying

that I'm pleased that the NRC found a place in the town to discuss this issue of Ginna and not'

in one of the neighboring towns.

I did have a comment in the socioeconomic portion of the draft environmental impact

D-1 statement that had to do with taxes. It suggests in here that you should compare the dollars in

taxes with the total revenue that the town collects in terms of determining what the impact

would be if it went away. I'm suggesting that's the improper comparison to make. You ought to

compare the amount of taxes RG&E pays with the total taxes the town pays. Compare the

taxes of RG&E with the total taxes, not the taxes with the total revenue. Because if you look at

the amount of taxes compared with the total revenue, it's a much smaller percent and in here

January 2004 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I you suggested that the impact, if it went away, would be small and so you don't have to mitigate

I that.

I

I I'm suggesting that if you compare taxes with total taxes, if it went away the impact would be at

I least moderate and so you might have to consider mitigation in that sense.

I

I Now that's really the only comment I wanted to make.

I

I Moderator Cameron: Okay, thank you very much, Dick.

I

I And Duane, if you need further information about what Mr. Clark has said, please talk to him

I after the meeting.

I

I And let's get on to the last two parts of the NRC presentations right now and the first of that is

I to talk about severe accident mitigation alternatives, okay?

I

I We have Mark Rubin to discuss that, and then we'll go to you for any questions there. We'll do

I a summary of how you submit comments. We've already heard from the Town of Ontario in

I terms of one of their comments on the draft environmental impact statement and we'll go out to

I others of you who wanted to make comments in a few moments.

I

I [Presentation, Mr. Rubin]

I [Presentation, Mr. Schaaf]

I Moderator Cameron: Okay, thank you very much, Bob. And now we want to hear some more

I from all of you and we do have several people who want to talk tonight and we're going to go to

I first-we heard from Mr. Dick Clark, Supervisor, Town of Ontario. We're next going to go to

I Mr. Bob Mecredy who is the vice president of Nuclear Operations for Rochester Gas and

I Electric to give you some background on why the company submitted the application for license

I renewal and next we'll go to Susan Gateley after that.

I

I Bob?

I

I Mr. Mecredy: Thank you. I appreciate the NRC holding the public meeting both in the

I afternoon and in the evening to give members of the community an opportunity to attend and

I participate.

I RG&E submitted an application for license renewal just about a year ago. Our rationale or the

I reason for that was to preserve the option to operate the plant in the renewed period. This

I recognized the potential contribution that the plant could make to the electric supply grid in New

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-56 January 2004
Appendix A

York State and recognized the fact that Ginna does provide almost half of the electricity on an

annual basis that the customers in our service territory would use.

An actual decision on whether the plant would operate into the renewed period is contingent on

a number of factors. First and foremost, of course, is the decision of the NRC and other

agencies relative to granting a license. Without that, of course, we would not.

It would then depend on other factors, perhaps public policy, economics and others.

The employees of Ginna and RG&E take very seriously and always have our responsibility to

operate safely and to minimize the impact of our operations on the environment. One of the

early visible examples is the attention paid to the aesthetics, the way the plant blends into the

environment, albeit it is a large industrial facility. That attention and the broad attention to

safety and environment continues. I

I

We continue to monitor our safety performance and our environmental performance. We learn I

from others and from our own experience and we search for ways to improve our performance. I

There also is an on-going independent oversight by the NRC and by others: As you've heard I

one element of our application process was to review the environmental impact of operation for

the extended period and we concluded that the operation would be acceptable.

E-1 The NRC's preliminary conclusion of the report is that there is no reason in their view from an

environmental impact standpoint not to renew the license and we concur with that conclusion.,

As we continue to operate in the future, now to 2009 and potentially beyond that, we will.

continue to set as our priority safe and environmentally responsible operation. We'll continue to I

monitor and measure our performance and we'll search out ways to improve that performance. I

Thank you, Chip.

Moderator Cameron: Thank you, Bob. Susan, are you ready to talk to us?

Ms. Gateley: I was kind of curious, is there anybody here that's not from Ginna or the NRC, I

raise your hands? I'm kind of curious. One, two, three,-four, five, six, seven, eight. Who aren't I

either R.E. Ginna employees or-okay. I was just kind of curious.

I'm a freelance writer and I used to live right next to the plant. In fact, I could walk to the plant if I

I wanted to and I sail around the lake so I know Lake Ontario as a yachting person, and I said in I

F-1 November and I'm going to basically say again that I feel that the experts here are too focused I

on their particular green box on the lake shore and I am concerned that the impact statement is I

not addressing adequately the cumulative effects of the great atomic lake here. We have 16 1

January 2004 A-57. NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I nukes. We have a tritium recovery facility. We have a uranium refinery. We have at least two

I low level radioactive dumps, maybe more, depending on how you calculate the content of them

I at Lewison, at the harbor, Port Hope, some of the other places around Port Hope. Some of

I these were built after the Ginna plant and I do-I said this before and I'm going to repeat it. I

I think that this plant was built before NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act was a law

I and I don't think that that plant would be built today with a thorough impact statement. But, of

I course, it's here and we're going to keep it going, obviously. I think part of that NEPA process

I is not being addressed adequately which is a cumulative impact of all of these plants.

I I'm going to skip a lot because-but I do want to say that radiation exposure is a cumulative

F y health effect and that's why radiation induced cancer show up later in life. As power plants

r operate, they expose the population and the environment to an on-going burden of exposure

I and I'm not singling out Ginna, I'm talking about perhaps the most nuclearized body of water

I certainly in North America, if not anywhere, Lake Ontario. The longer these plants operate, the

I more dose collectively the population receives.

I

I Now it is true that if you go to the websites and do the research on the Internet, most

I epidemiological studies do not show cancer clusters around power plants. They do not show

I evidence of health effects, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that many of these studies do

I not have a good understanding of the exposures that the population receives. So this is a

I problem when you're structuring an epidemiological study, looking for cancer clusters. If you

FJ3 don't know what the people have been exposed to, and I've complained before about the

I adequacy of the data available, how difficult it is to access the radiological release data from

I this plant and I asked back in November what about the Canadian plants and the NRC

I response was well, I guess we could obtain it, which kind of implied to me that it wasn't readily

I available and maybe even to a medical researcher, let alone to a citizen. So I think that's a

I problem.

F04 So I'm going to just skip down to my conclusion. I believe the Generic Environmental Impact

I Statement for the renewal of these licenses, this one size fits all process is flawed. I think it

F-b fails to adequately address many of the changes that have taken place in society like the

I terrorism concern, the fact that we have basically an open border on Lake Ontario. I think that

I what we should do as part of this relicensing process here, for Ginna, is to have a

I comprehensive lake-wide assessment of all radiation releases, that's U.S. and Canada. I think

I this should be made. This study should be conducted by independent and academic

I researchers. It should be rigorous and it should be interdisciplinary. The study team should

I include biologists, maybe an epidemiologist with no industry ties. It should not just have HPs

I and engineers.

I

I When the database is complete, I think the study results should be published in a peer

I reviewed journal, not buried in a file somewhere and I think the database should be updated

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-58 January 2004
Appendix A

monthly, not quarterly, and made available to researchers in the U.S. and Canada as well as to

the public.

I think a good model for this study that's not ever been done for Lake Ontario is the current

assessment that's going on right now of organochlorines that's being done with atmospheric

deposition that's being done by researchers from Pottsdam and Oswego researchers. I think

that's a good model. If we can look at PCBs, why can't we look at radiation in the same way?

F-6 I'd like to see at least a thorough and rigorous assessment of the radiological releases and

basically that is kind of what I'm going to wind up with except that I think if we are going to take

a look at the long term at what effect these power plants are going to be in the long run, if it's

going to operate for many, many more years and all these other plants are going to through. I

their renewal process and doing the same, we should at least get good data out there and be

able to assess the effects on the population and if such data were provided, then the truth of

science would answer our questions, and wouldn't it be nice to know that really the effects are

minimal and really I don't have to worry at night about the long term consequences.

Of course, we still have Osama out there, you know. There are still a few other issues besides

routine radiological releases, but I guess I'm just going to wind up by saying that since mostly

I'm talking to the NRC, please-I'm sure you do this, but every day wake up and think about

that culture of complacency that's led to the loss of two space shuttles. Think about that every

day because I know you're doing it, but keep thinking about it, okay?

Moderator Cameron: Thank you very much, Susan, for those comments.

Julie Clayton, Julie. Would you like to speak now?

Ms. Clayton: Sure. My name is Julie Clayton. I live in Brighton, the Rochester area. I'm a

mother and a teacher and a citizen of the area. I just wanted to say that we've always been risk I

takers, people are risk takers. Every day we go over bridges, we're flying in airplanes, we're l

driving cars which is probably one of the biggest risks, but we take our risks every day.

Even so, I'm opposed to the renewal of this license. There are a number of reasons.

G-1 Terrorism, which we thought didn't exist before, and it exists, and who knows what they're going I

G-2 to do to these nuclear plants and if they are indeed strong enough to withstand that. The I

G-3 foresight of the future as far as spent fuel, the dangers there. It will be going across the country I

in trucks. It will stay here and the spent fuel is dangerous stuff. We just can't deny that that's I

dangerous.

The possible cancers, as the previous speaker just said.

January 2004 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
I

Appendix A

GL4 Also, the possible cancers or so many cancers that people are suffering from now and we know

I it could be from pesticides. It could be from a million different things, but one of them could be

I from the nuclear situation going on with Ginna and with the different plants.

I Not very long ago our country's economy was dependent on slavery, the North and the South

I depended on slavery. Well, things have changed and slavery was done away with and the

Gr5 United States adapted. Just as slavery was not a good idea, I feel that the nuclear energy is for

I our present or for our future. Alternative energies should be pursued as well as conservation.

I

I I think Upstate New York should be the innovator, the beacon with doing away with nuclear

I energy because the risks far outweigh the benefits and I just hope that this doesn't get

I approved for the renewal of this license.

I

I Thank you.

I

I Moderator Cameron: Thank you very much for those comments, Julie.

I

I Let's see if there's others. We'll get over to you in one second.

I

I Hugh, you said you might want to talk. Do you want to come up? All right.

I

I Mr. Mitchell: Yes, for the record, I'm Hugh Mitchell. I'm the Regional Chairperson of the Sierra

I Club. I'm not an expert in this area at all, and I have to confess that we do not locally have aI committee that actively works on it. I've been off and on on the issue for 20 years myself, but I

I did want to read into the record and help educate local people and especially NRC members.

I I'm sure you're all doing a good job with this high level technology, concerning-I'm reading into

I the record some brief comments. It won't be long.

I

Hil The Sierra Club conservation policies related to nuclear power and relicensing applies in this

I case of nuclear facilities. The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of

I nuclear reactors utilizing fission process including, in this case, relicensing. Number one, this

Hj2 would be pending development of adequate national and global policies to curb overall

I excessive energy use, and we favor alternate energy generation systems such as solar and

I wind and so on.

I

H13 Number two, the resolution of significant safety problems inherent in reactor operations such as

I the disposal of spent fuels, storage of spent fuels and so on, this is an earthquake zone. If the

I containment pool were to crack, due to earthquake, the liquid runout, what would happen?

I Would there be a meltdown of those so-called spent fuel rods and so on?

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-60 January 2004
Appendix A

Number three, establishment of adequate regulatory machinery to guarantee adherence to the

foregoing conditions and I know that since this policy was written quite a while back, there's

been a great deal of effort to upgrade regulatory machinery and this is a good example of it

tonight. I appreciate all the hard work you people are doing.

But we do have Three Mile Island to consider. We always have to do all of our thinking in terms I

of the fact that it almost happened here in the United States. Chernobyl happened in Russia. I

Three Mile Island came within a very, very close fact of meltdown, so it can happen. Our I

technologies can fail. I

I

Sierra Club continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power I

plants or relicensing. I

I

H-4 Further, the Sierra Club supports the systemic reduction of society's dependence on nuclear I

fission as a source of electric power and we recommend a phased closure and I

decommissioning of these operating nuclear fusion electric power reactors. I

I

Finally, in this area, consistent with these policies that I've just mentioned, we're concerned with I

protecting public health and safety. I

'I

The Federal legislation to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be there to I

license both military and nonmilitary in radioactive waste management facilities. This isn't I

necessarily relicensing the plant, but waste management facilities. I

-. ~~~~~~~~~~~I

And this relates also to the shipment of this waste offsite because there is a risk, as we've I

heard of the material remaining on site. You've been trying to address the risk, but then we get I

into the question of shipping. What do you do with this? We've brought up that already. And a I

question about some of the costs there. I

- I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And finally, the question of decommissioning. If this were denied the license, which it doesn't I

look like it's going to be, but if it were, then there's a question, a lot of questions related to I

decommissioning the plant and I won't get into extensive information about this one, but one I

little section I wanted to mention is that most of the debris from dismantling is not low-level I

waste. More than 99 percent is, using 10 CFR part 63 definitions B, C, or greater than C in I

radioactivity. Control rods and fuel assembly parts, for all intents and purposes, are high level I

radioactive waste. I

I

So there's a whole policy which you can find on our website related to what to do with that. I

Thank you very much.

January 2004 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I Moderator Cameron: All right, thank you, Hugh.

I

I Sandra?

I

I Ms. Dusel: Hi, my name is Sandra Dusel. I live directly next door to this power plant. One of

I the finest neighbors I've ever had. Quiet, doesn't come borrow anything. Great.

I

I People have voiced concerns tonight about radiation. But nuclear power plants do not release

I radiation. I would much prefer to have Ginna next door than a coal-fire plant. Coal-fire plants

I do release radiation to the air continuously. However, we're not getting anything from Ginna.

I

I While it would be nice to have our country run on alternate energy sources, right now those

I aren't viable for large scale generation. If you want to use solar or wind, you've got to do it

I yourself. They're just not viable on a large scale.

I

I-1l So what are our choices? Fossil fuels or nuclear power? I choose nuclear power. And I don't

I mind having it right next door.

I

142 As far as environmental impact, the land that you keep around that plant is wonderful. It's a

I wonderful habitat. You should see what walks through my yard from next door. It's incredible.

I It's like being in the middle of a nature show.

I

143 So my only concern is that there is in process now sale of some of that land to a developer to

I be developed with an entire row of houses that face the plant.

I And my major concern about that is because of the new environment of terror in this world. My

I husband is a Colonel in the United States Army Reserves. His expertise is armament and

I particularly those used by other countries and terrorist groups, that sort of thing. His feeling is

I that as things stand right now it would be very difficult for anyone to get anything in there large

I enough, close enough to do any significant damage except maybe make a smudge on the wall.

I

I If there were houses closer in, that might provide a platform for terrorists. Now how close, well,

I maybe not where they're putting-want to put the houses now, but we'd like to see as much

I land as possible around that. The last rumor I heard was that that sale was being reviewed by

I the NRC and as neighbors of Ginna that is our only concern.

I

I Thanks.

I

I Moderator Cameron: Thank you very much, Sandra, and we'll take a look at that last comment

I also that you made in terms of the land sale.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-62 January 2004
Appendix A

Is there anybody else who didn't get a chance to fill out a yellow card who would like to talk?

Great. Come on up.

I

Mr. Mitchell: I don't know what happened to my card that I submitted.

Moderator Cameron: I don't know either, but you're here and that's the important thing.

Let'sI

Mr. Mitchell: I'm Peter Mitchell. I'm a citizen in Rochester, New York. Brief comments. Major

concerns are regarding-we're talking about the environment around Ginna, but we cannot talk

J-1 about the Ginna environment without talking about safety factors and possible accidents. And

my primary concern with a plant that's 34 years old is what's happened with the parts that have

been bombarded by radiation. So Ginna does have some reactor vessel embrittlement.

Many of the pipes in the plant that have been exposed to radiation have a certain amount of

weakening as a result of the embrittlement problem. And why embrittlement is a big problem

and has been dealt with and has to be continually dealt with is because the margins in case of a I

loss of coolant accident decreased. And a major loss of coolant accident can result in the I

actual vessel breaking.

A second problem is germane to all nuclear power plants and that is the fact that as in Three I

Mile Island, developing a hydrogen bubble, any loss of coolant accident where the fuel is I

exposed leads to a melting of the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods which produced hydrogen I

which ends up producing a hydrogen bubble. It's a problem germane to nuclear power. I

J-2 Another area of concern we should all be really concerned with is not so much the reactor. I

vessel being in some way damaged or breached by some sort of terrorist accident, it's the I

nuclear SFP and what would happen if somebody set up some sort of mortar or howitzer out in I

the farm field or out on the lake and was able to penetrate the SFP and there was a loss of I

coolant? There's more radiation to be released in the sent fuel pool than in the reactor itself I

and anybody who knows about the WASH 740 study that had been buried for a number of I

years before it was brought to light through the Freedom of Information Act, a major release of I

radiation has devastating effects and deaths and health effects for years and years to come I

and destruction of land that is no longer useable for years and years. I

I

The last area of major concern that you should be looking is one that has unfortunately been I

buried and not looked at by the NRC for over 30 years until recently. But we knew about it back I

in 1971. We knew about it because of a-I'm just looking at the spelling here. It's I

B-E-Z-N-A-U, the Beznau 1 Reactor in Switzerland. There, they had a problem with the reactor I

head being eaten away by boric acid because of the seal cladding, seal welds around the I

control rods cracking and leaking boric acid and then back in 1979, my apologies again. I'm I

January 2004 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I think of the Davis-Besse reactor out in Ohio. There, we had a major eating of the reactor head.

I The actual head of the reactor was 514 millimeters eaten away by boric acid right down to the

I stainless steel lining of the vessel itself which is only 5.14 millimeters.

I And so what we found out is that we do not-we are not using sufficient technology to inspect

J13 or look at cracks in seal welds around control rods and there's hundreds of cracks that are

I going undetected.

I

I Now I'll just mention one name here and that is Dr. Steven Hanauer. He was a senior official at

I the NRC and he kept a file on unreported accidents and safety deficiencies that was uncovered

I by the Union of Concerned Scientists through the Freedom of Information Act. And basically,

I what was in that file showed that the NRC had been basically ignoring for 30 years the problem

I of these cracks in weld seals around control rods.

I

I So we need to look very closely at Ginna in terms of what we have on the reactor head there.

I

I Finally, I'll just say that each one of you as members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are

I like me, humans who have a family, who have friends, who have children, who have a heart

I and we cannot let our decisions we swayed by control and power and economics when we're

I part of the human family.

I

I So I expect each one of you to look at the truth without rationalization in terms of what your job

I is or who you are in terms of power within the system.

I

I It's your responsibility to yourself, your own personal growth, to your family, your children, to

I society, to look at the truth and act on the truth. And I would hope that we continue to grow as

I individuals towards being people of the truth so that our society can be a rich and healthy one.

I

I Thank you.

I

I Moderator Cameron: Thank you, Peter. I apologize for misplacing your card and I'm glad we

I got a chance to hear your comments.

I

I Thank you very much.

I

I Mr. Mitchell: No problem.

I

I Moderator Cameron: All right. Anybody else before I ask the NRC staff if they have anything at

I all?

I

I No, okay. Yes? Come on up and just please introduce yourself to us.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-64 January 2004
Appendix A

Ms. Siegfried: My name is Heidi Siegfried and I just moved to the Rochester area in April, so

I'm not really familiar with this plant and I came up here just to learn more about the problems

associated with it. I did live in Oswego, New York, where we had three plants and I lived there

for the next seven or eight years and we had cracks in the core shroud and we worked a lot

with Union of Concerned Scientists to help folks understand better what our problems were.

And I've actually, I've visited nuclear-the SFP in one of the facilities there. I don't know if I

would be allowed to any more. But I was glad to see that they had life preservers hanging from

the walls in case you would fall in.

I guess my concern also is the regular releases that we see from these plants, the low level

K-1 ones which are not being addressed in this proceeding because you're only looking at the

SAMAs which is the severe accident, but in fact, there are regular releases that happen

constantly that are considered low level that do have to be reported and I used to get up until

recently e-mails that with all the gobbly-gook that had to go to the NRC and it would get

forwarded to me and I do see that in your report, you do mention that there were some releases I

of various strontium and different things like that, so I mean it is happening. I would hate to live I

next to the plant and not be aware of that when there's a repository where you can get that l

information. I

I

And I think the NRC just even listening to when you do look at the SAMA and that you use this I

mathematical model to just toss out all the concerns, I think that's just an indication of if we I

could get you to look at these lower level releases how you would probably toss them out just I

as well. But I mean what's really critical there is what the variables are that you're using to look I

at, to measure human life and to place importance on things.

I think eventually science, if people are not shut down like sometimes depleted uranium I

researchers are getting shut down all the time, we'll finally be able to prove some of this I

causation and I don't think Price Anderson is going to be the one that's going to have the I

liability. I don't know who will, but just as with tobacco and now we're trying gun lawsuits and I

now they're trying fat and sugar lawsuits. Eventually, I think the science will be able to pull out I

causation from these regular releases and that we will get some liability and I wish the NRC

would be involved in looking at that liability, but I think it's kind of a vain hope.

Thank you.

Moderator Cameron: Thank you.

Ms. Siegfried: There's somebody's thing here. Key chain or something.

Moderator Cameron: Thank you very much, Heidi and we'll find the owner of that.

January 2004 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I I just would thank all of you for your attention and your courtesy and your comments and

I questions tonight.

I

I I'm going to ask John Tappert, as our senior official to close this out.

I

I Mr. Tappert: Thank you, Chip. And just to echo Chip's thoughts I just want to thank everyone

I who came out and took time out of their evening to come here and share their comments with

I it. It is an important part of our process and we appreciate all of the thoughtful views that you

I shared with us.

I

I We will be staying after the meeting, the NRC staff and our contractors. A lot of you raised a lot

I of issues and if you would like to discuss them further, we'd be happy to discuss them on a one

I on one basis.

I

I So thanks again for coming out and drive safely home.

I

I (Whereupon, at 9:10 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

I

I A.4 Letters and E-Mails Received on the Draft SEIS

I

I See the following pages.

I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-66 January 2004
Appendix A

I GinraEiS- Sale of land to developers Page 1

From

To:

Data:

SubJect

Maynard Grirmrn -gvldeocomcasLnetr

<GlnnaEIS~nrc~gov>

Tue. Sep 16.20031,215 AM

Sale of land to developers

pi 0 I 0/,//,p A--

-" 63

,.leo /P -5

6 zfz a 7 9, 4,

(D

L-1 MAs a bx payer, It I a very bad Idea blsl land to developers. We do

NOT need to spend more money for site protection. The rioense should be

held up until these guys remember vwho they are woddng for. 'he

payerf

Regards

Maynard Dennis Grimm

c:~FAZ* A_'* Af e9 - /f' ' " 9/Z5

January 2004 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

I-G~mElS- CorMment On LICens Renewral of Mhe R. E. 01nria NuclCi-r Power F=n Pane 1 I

From:

To:

Date:

Subject

Pete Dusel <pdusaltsprntnaiLcarn> cGinna"ElSnre.goa

Mon. Sep 15 2003 8:44 PM

CorMnenion Licinse Renewal of the R. E. Ghnna Nulear Power F

M-1 We Dve directy to the west of the RE. GhIna nucdear power pbrit, located In Ontario NY., and awe generally In favor of tVe renewal of the

operating icense. We are wring this letter to expes ourconcemn

ermone aspect of

that operating icense renewa.

What fnd disturbing, n this era of heightened leroism

M-2 awarems. Is that a portion of thw power plant grounds are under contacd

for sale to be developed as a high density housing projecL This area

Is currenty farn Wid and orchard, easily monitored by security personnel. nis not

dhrflt to iragine one of these new horesh In lne of sight of the

facdity. being used as a base to launch a terrorist attack on the faciibty.

As much of the facilties security cost, In the forn of dul tire on site

Nabonal guard and slate polce. Is being borne by the taxpayers, any

reduclon hI eurty, In addition lo the Increased risks, will be dreetly

borne by the pubfic.

ThTs honnation Is per Debbie Wegman. CFO and Real Property Asset

manager of Rochester Gas and Eectric Ms Wepn may be reached at (585)

771-2134 In our ltest conversation with her, she Indicated that Ws

sale is sk pending. WMe the sale of this land would be Income to

RG&E, hI the overall scope of theil r franc A woid have negNgible impacb

We urge that shosld the renewal be granted, a stipulation be added

M-3 bbcing the saa of any of the plants property o developrnent, or shoud

such sale occur. the deed be encaubered from development for the operating

life ofthe cit.

One thing Peters 29 years of seviae In the US Arny has taught

hint, Is to not willingly reduce the dear area around a faofTly you

want to protecL

Sincerey.

Peter and Sandra Dusel

1 1 19 La Road

Ontaro, NY 14519

'lant

d 377st 

,e

,- XŽ3s = --PAo.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-68 January 2004
Appendix A

C- :'

I GinnaEIS - icense renewal Pagel I

From:

To:

Date:

Subjecce

'Leigh OlBien" cirnobrien~riaxedw-

<cGlnnaEIS~nrcqov>

Mon. Aug 25,2D03 12:44 PM'

license renewal

N-I As the GInna nudear planrs Icense comes up forrenewal, this Is the

perfect time to say no to a short- and long-tebrn dangerous form of

energy production. As a resident or Monroe County, I would rnuch rather

conserve (and/or pay more for) energy than support the ongoing use of

this power source. Please shut down the plant before an accident occursl

Leigh L OBrlen

6 Line SL

Pittsford, NY 14534

e F, r Oe 37 Ol

S

Leigh M. O~rien, D.Ed.

Associate Professor, Education

Nazareth College

4245 East Ave.

Rochester. NY 14618-3790

Phone 5851389-2599

Fax 685/389294

E-call: LMOBRIEN@nazedu

Website: http:4AJww-pubiw.edLr9000/iobrien

C Y e- 4eŽ'5 . 6 1' c 0

January 2004 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

. L----- ------- D--- 4 a 1 bUffna=8. - rn CSIUWd wrnmemIL NI3 raV. a I

From:

To:

Date:

Subject,

Seager. Mikl <rrkesagerxelustcorn

GinnaE3SWnrc.gov cGInnaEIS1nrcsova

Mon. Sep 2Z 2003 6:0W PM

License Renewal ornrment

4/3 jAA-~'

,o 91 -

/01/

I am writing In regard to the proposed renewal of the

operating license for the GlInna nudear power plant

As aresidentofthevllageof Webster I amrwlthn the

10-mile radius covered by tho emergency planning zone, and

so have a vested Interest In the security and safely of the

plant

aI m not opposed to the renewal of the planfs Ecense.

However I am very concerned by the plan to sel a large part

of the land surrounding the plant to be converted fror

agricultural use to a residential developmenL

0-2 I believe that the presence of a development in such prdinly to the plant wE Increase the risk of an atlack on the plant

Increase the number of people at risk from an incident at the

plant and increase the cost of trying to maintain security there.

There Is no reason to Incur all of these costs to beneft a developer.

The Rochester metropolitn area has almost no population growth.

and there Is a large stock of housing already avaIlable In the

area. There Is no pressure to build still more developments In

the area. I request that the license board require that as a

condition of renewing the Ginna license, there should be no

additional development of the surrounding land.

Sincerely.

ike Seager

Mike Seager

55 Orchard Street

Webster NY 14580

585414 6511

maI1om mce_seagerealum.rpLedu

/ ,-= 9Z7A-(' /:

ee-e-Ohs_ Ab " -05

cases , g 6,e,;S)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-70 January 2004
Appendix A

Chieft Wes and Directive Branch

Division ofAdministrative Services

Office of Adminisration

Malistop T46D 59

U. S. Nudear Reglatory Conmmission

WashigtoaD.C. 20555-0001

71'WJI6,--- - r -,

'. .4 ,'I r.: . .113 .

.Z' .. -' 

:- -"7,

Su&ject License Renewal ofthe RE Gm Nuclear PowerPlt I

DearChict

I ask foryour investigation and close scrutiny into five concerns pertaining to the appropriateness of

renewing RE Ginn's license for an additional 20 years.

Flast regarding the prblem of reactor vend and reactor piping embrittement, we know tha as a

reactor ages, afety mans are diminished. How exensive is cmbrittlement at Gla and what steps

have been and au being taken to aess this problem and insure the safety ofthe public in case of

system fallure? What cofts wil be inared? Do we have any experience regarding the embrittlement

problem based on a reactor operating beyond its' forty year life epectncy?

Second, we kmow that the NRC has known about seal weld cracing and leaing uMd the reactor

vessd bead contr rods ince the Beznau-l incident in Switziand in 1971 and that e NRC has

ignored the problem of holes in the reactor vessel bead due to boric acd corrosion for 30 years until

Ohio's Davis-Besse rewtorvessel develop a hale through its 214mm tick head, extending to the

4.8mm stainless steel dald. We know that 100's of cracks in weld seals go undetected because the best

available inspection technology is not used. What Is dat current condition of the Ginna reactor vessel

head? Since this is aproblem Bne to all Pr ized WaterReactors (PW 's) and Ginna has

opeatdforthity-fouryea, will itbecomencessaryto plcthe ractrvess head, and if so, at

what cost to the customer

id, alithough the NRC has excluded the issue of terrorist attas from licensing bearing because it

is unquantilable, it remains a viable concern to all nuclear facilites and the generl public. We all

kow that dnclear fcilitis reprsnt targets of opportnity for trorists to inflict m civilian

causalities and widespread long-term economic damage. At Gina, the spent fuel pool has less

protection mdis t at grcster~k than the mtorvessl itW hat measures are being taken so insue

that mortar attack from farmland or Lake Ontario or uir attadckbypnewill be prevented? What is the

cost to the consumer?

For, what is the cturent status of the decommissioning fund? Is it fully protected from

drawdowns for other purposes and is the amount sufficient for environmental sound closure?

P-1

P-2

P-3

P4

p-5

I

And finally, ifextending G

why is RG&E planning to sell

0 As servants ofthe public in

country and forhumankind, it i

reaclingyourdecision.

W tw"."msE *l

inna's operating liceose is based on public safety and sound economics,

the plant?

to e t and concerned citizens who want the Ighest and best foryour

is my bope that you will use both a sound mind and anopen heart in

71ank you,

. rzkfTP~U

R ~ ¶ c 0

8,1Sf2003

January 2004 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

* UNITED STATES ENVRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 2

290 BRtYOiAYW

D wmoI t4EWYORK.NY 10007.18SB

SEP 1 8 2003

Robert G. Schaaf

OWFN 11 F-1

US. Nuclear Regulatoxy Commission

Wahington, D.C. 20S5S-001 Class: LO

Dearlr. Sc:aa

nhe Enviro enetal Pi&&ior Agency (EPA) hs reviewed te draft supplemental envimninental

impact sta t (ES) on renewing the operating license for Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

(CEQ # 030299) (NUREG-1437. Supplement 14). This review was conducted in accordance

with Section 309 of the Clean AirAct, as amended (42 US.C. 7609 12 (a] 84 Stat. 1709), and

the National Environmental Policy Act

Th draft supplemental ETS was prepared in reponse to an application submitted to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Rochester Gas and leoctric Corpoatdon to renew the

operating license for Ginna Nuclear Power Plant for an additional 20 yea The document

evaluates the impats associated with license renewal (rfe d alternative) and other

alternative The alternatives include the no-action alternative (not renewing the operating

license), and three altenative methods of rplacing th c nt power generation (coal-fired,

natral gas-fired, nuclear). Tnh no-action alternative would result in the loss of 490 Megawatts

(MW) net electrical output when the current operating license exputs in September 2009. Based

on our review of the draft supplemental EIS, EPA offers the following comments.

Based on our review, EPA does not believe that renewing the operating license would result in Q1

significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, EPA does not object to the preferred

alternative, renewing the operating license for Gna Nuclear Power Plant.

Thank you for the opportunity to commenL Should you have any questions concerning this

letter, please contact Mak Westrate of mytaff at (22) 637-3789.

Sincerviyyours,

R obet. an lti-ei rgasBac

Strategic Planning Programnch

ftackRydbCy1h" .Attmdvf Vogoible ON Zmed Wm on ftecycd ftapind*ws 10% Fesam~~l1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-72 January 2004
Appendix A

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation _ Division of Environmental Permits, Region 8 _ 6274 East Avon-Uma Road. Avor, New York 14414-9519

Phone: (585) 226-2486 a FAX. (585) 225-2830

Websitet www.docstt.nyAus

September26, 2003

Mr. Robet 0. Scimf

Projct Mannae

lce3a Renewal cdEvironmentsl Impacts Propam

Division o Pegulatory provement m s

Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation

US. N Regulatory Comnissin

Mall Stop o-1Il

-Washingto, DC 20555-0001

Rc: Department Review and Comment

Supplement 14, Generic Bnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)for License Renewal of Nuclea

Pa regarding the R.E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14)

Ontario (), Wayne (C)

Dar Mr. Schaaf:

Department staff the meeting Ca August 7,2003 to discuss the Suppleet 14, Generic

EnviroP mental Impact Statement (EIS) for I e Renewal of Nuclear Plants regarding the RLB. GCia

NuceaPowrPlt (DftNUREG-1437. Supkent 14). We found the meedng vy informative and

belpful in our review of the draft supplemental IS. Staff have riewed the document and we offer the

following comments for your consderastio

Storage of Spent Fue

The Draft Supplement indicates that oske age and offtc disposal of pent nucla fuel are Category R-1

I {Ises (Page A-19). Th adore, site-specific Information on spent fuel store Is not provided In the

Draft Supplement 14 for the Ginna faciliy. As the Department recommended In the eco letter on the

Genetic Environmental Impact Statement (etter fom Barbara Youngberg, NYSDEC to the aCief, Rules

and Directives Branch, September 18, 2003), certain aspecta of o4se pge of spent fuels em site

specific and should be In the site specific supplements. hbese include the cturret sta of

storSe capacity at a facility and the plans for sorage of the additional spent fuel to be generated during

the term of the renewed facility. We understand mtat the fIS will not be revised prior to the preparation

and issuance of the final Supplement for the Ginn facility, therefor at this time, Spent Pad Is a

Cate issue.. Howev, the Department felt It was Impotant to raise this point and to recommend

that this infonnation be disclosed for the Ginns facility. 7berefore, we recommend dth the type (wet or

January 2004 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Mr. R. Schaaf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission

Page 2

Septcmber 26.200

dry), capacity, and remaining life of the current storage for spent fuel be disclosed. In addition, as we

stated in our previous letter dated December 11, 2002, the Department rommends that the amount of

spent fuel to be generated over the life of the extended license be estimated and the proposed plans for

containment of this fuel during the license term be disclosed.

Severe Acddkent Mtgatlpo Alternative (Appendix G):

On page 0-6 of Appendix a it Is stated that OA summary listing of those changes that resulted In the

gratest Impact on the totaCD was pvide in sposeo an RA (RGE 203b), andind e -" R-2

One of those changes Is found on page G-7 and states: Added fires, internal foods, and shutdown risk

models to the fault trees to cnable their solution and risk kin Removed loss of spent fuel pool cooling

and fuel-handllpg accidens and analyzed separately, because they do not lead to co damage".

Ihis implies that loss of spent fuel cooling has already been analyzed or will be done separately. If this is

crrct, the Department would like to ae thi aysiL If this analysis has not been done. the Department

recommends that Spent Fuel Cooling Water Loss be evaluated and added to Appendix 0 of Supplement

14 as a put of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.

Implinement and Enhraiment (Sections 4L1 and 412):

TM Department considers that the conclusions made at the bottom of GEtS page 4.10 and top of GEIS page R-3

4.13,wbich statsnonew s srewrantedomidptetheimpatsofentainmetandimpingenmetI

are premstu.

As noted in the GMlS, the Department is muiring RG&E to conduct an entrainment abundance study, since

no suchudies havebeen done in ove20years In addition, oerhepastfewyars, the Regional Fshaia'

Ofiice has seen a large increase in the smallmouth bas populations along the South shor of Lae Ontario.

Depaurnent regional and central office Habitat and Fisheries staff have subsequently modified the SPDES

permit to include a one-year entrainment study, with results dictating the possible need of a longer term

stdy.

Impingement has been studied on a regular basis since the plant went on line. The impact to alewife and

smelt have been well documented. Department staff have acknowledged the statement of mimal impact

on a lake-wide population level of alewives and smet, but have concerns over species shifis and local

populations With the above mentoned increase in the smallmouth bass coupled with reports of bass being

caught in deeper water the Department his required continuing the Impingement monitoring. RG&E has

agred to cocuue the Impingement nmitoring program.

RG&E has also been on a schedule to upgrade their traveling intake screen wth measures to improve the

survival of impinged fish. Thcse upgrades are expected to continue in the future.

Based on the results of thae studies, and other relevant Information, the Department will determine whether

theintake besttechnology available (BTA) formninng advse enviment inmp , andwhethe

any mitigation is required.

EPA'sproposed Phase IURule (Fedeal Register/VoL 67, No. 68/Tuesday, Apil9,2002) requirs existing

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-74 January 2004
Appendix A

Mr. R. Schawf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatoy Commission

Page 3

September26 2003

falities to reduce impingement mortality by 80-95% and entrainent abndance by 60-90%. After EPA

issues a final rule and the mslts of the studies-art submitted, the Department will determine whether

additional mitigation measures ar required.

leat Shock (Section 4.13)

Upon review of the Ginna Station 316(a)d monatratio, the Department has not found any assessment of the R-4

effectsofsditen at s on impinge fis etd to on page4-13 of theDraft Supplement 14. The

316(a) demonstration looked at thermal Impacts to fish within the watebody. however, It did not evaluate

the effects upon impinged fish returned through the cooling water discharg canal. The Department is

concerned that cxposure of fish to the Increased temperatures in the discharge canal (up to 28 degres F)

could have adves effects on some peci, padc yIncombination with the physcal st due to the

impingegmnt prcesLsbemfroretheDeprm trqigthisstdytodet erminw cadedicated fish

return line is needed to mitigate additioa Impacts to impinged fis RGE has agreed to conduct a literature

review of the subject. Depending on what is found in the literature search, RG&E has agreed in principle to

conduct an additional study. The Department therefore considers the assessment that 'no new mitigtion

measures am warranted: made on GEIS page 4-14, to be prema

bsuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification:

In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the 401 WQC will be Issued within a year of the receIpt of the R-5

spplicadon from RG& orbyOctober7,2003. heDpm ntbhas issedapablicnotce forf te4Ol Waer

Quality Certification (see attached). Tbe Department has made the decision that the comments raised in this

letter do not affect our ability to Issue the 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, we have made a

tentative determination to Issue this cetification by October 7,2003.

Pleasecontactme directlyifyou have any questions regarding the regulatory discussion above orthe athed

commnsK

Sincerely.

Kimberly ddan

Environmental Analyst 1

Enclosures:

Public Notice for 401 WSter Quality certification

LetterfronBarbamYoungbergNYSDECtothe hidef. Rules and Directives Branch, September 18.

2003

January 2004 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Divislain of Environmental Permits

NYSDEC MEGM;b 8 HEDUARTER. w, ,.t

6274 AST AVON-LIMA RD.

AVON, NY 14414

(385) 226.2466

Septanber 19. 2003

ROCHER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP

89 EAST AVS

ROCHESTmE. NY 14649

Re: DEC DM 8-5434-0IM0010

ROCHBJER GAS MA NUCLEAR POWER PLT

DearAppcan-,

Plcw be advised dthyo application fors DEC permit(s) Is complete and a technical review

has comnceda Notice and the opportunity for pablkc crme is rired for is appicatio. Enclosed

is a Notic o(fCowakte Appcatdon Fot your prjct Plee hate Notice pbed In the newspaper

identified below once darlas the week of 09MMM on any day Mooday dtough Friday.

WAYNE COUNTY MAIL

2010 EMPRE BOULEVARD

WEBSTER. NY 145W0

Only dth Notice of Complete Applcatio that Info m paoscnted between de horizontal

lines, on the enclosed pqes(s) houd bepblied. Do tpriit this letmr or dze Inmaion cordained

below te second bold horiztotal line. Please reqau the 2ewspaper peblisb to provide you with a

rootPuMlicaonforftNotice. po cic pto i N Ub o fof Pulkampsoupdy torwad it to ts

office. You mustp de he Pr of Polioubefore a aldecison an bera dcz your

pplacation Yoawerespo ne for paying e cost f publhing te NoeitheInewspaper.

Notification of ds complete application is 30 being prvided by Nsis Deportment In the

NYSDBCEnvronzntal Notice Bulletin.

This .oificatioa does not signify approval of your applicaros fo permit. Additonal ifomation

may be requesed fomn you at a future date, If necsmy o reach a deasion on your application.

Your project is caOed mnor under The Uniform Procedre Act Accordingly, a decision Is due within

45 days of the dae of this notice umless a public hearing i beld, wich mny extend this time frane. If a

public bearing is neceary, you wil be nodfied.

If you have any quetions please conta atte cbove ad r pboce umber abve.

DiSoERLY frnMZ alPeM

Divition of Eavro etal Permits

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-76 January 2004
Appendix A

THIS IS NOTA PER?,Irr

New York Stant Department of Environmental Conservation

Notice of Complete Application

Dow 09/19r2003

Appwtm ROCHEMSER GAS & ELECMC CORP

89 EASTAVE

ROCES. NY 14649

raciW, ROCESTER GAS GINNA NUMEAR POWER PLT

1503 LAKE RD

ONrARIO, NY 14519

Apkzm fiID. 9-5434- 10010

Penns)AppUeifvr I -Sectio 401 - Ck= WirAct Wter Qaiy CeIcfisio

Po sjecttik in ONTARIO fn WAYNE COUNTY

RCI&E submitted a 401 Water Quality Certificafioo Applicat to the Departmeni In October 2002 In

assoclatio with the federal rellening of the Ginna Nuclear Power Pant by the U.S. Nudcear Regulatory

Comissixn (NRC) for a twenty-year perlod Tbe Department baa made a tenative deteminatioa to Issue the

401 Water Quality Certification for dth proposed additional twenty-year tLe Ihe Department will reevaluate

1be facility on a five-year bmis for resewal of the SPDES permit- Mre file is available for review sod comment

at the NYSDEC Region 8 Office.

&me E d rviaw( == DFnteubm

Project is n subject to SEQR because it a Type 1 action.

SE2R UMaSduy None Deilpated

Swet Mitrwic PtsadmAct (.WM )DPaoria.

The proposed activity Is not subject to review In accordance with SIPA. The permit type

Is exempt or the activity is being wrviewed In accordace with federal historic preservatio

regulations.

CW tdM4 t

This project is located in a Coastal Mamgcmcnt aea and Is subject to the Waterfront

Revitalidon and Coastal Resaiurces Act.

January 2004 A-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Ainaaab~li For PWbll Ccmawa

Cftnm~m on Ws project =us be

zubMhne ja Wdfi~g W dW CWMeC

ft hierd=Ia CV'OW M

consdPerw^

xnMBERLY A MERCFE

NYSDEC

62M EAS AVON-LIMA RD

AVON, NY 14414

(585) 226.2466

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-78 January 2004
Appendix A

* New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials

Burau of Hazardous Waft A RAdation UMa"amen 8th Floor

* Radiation Section

M5 Broaway, Atar, Now York 12233-7255

Phone: (518) 402-9 FAX (518) 4-O848*

Webs wwwc*atyw.

September 18, 2003

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch

Division of Admins ive Services

OfM=ic ofAdministration

Mailstop T-6 D 59

US. Nuclear Regulatory Commisaon

M aishington. DC 20555.O001

Re: Notice of ntent To Pt an Enviroamen Impact Statement for the icnse

Renewal of Nuclear Power plants and To Conduct Scoping Process

(Augst 22, 2003, FR33209)

(Corrmnerperiod extension publisbed September 10, 2003. FR50811)

The New Yori State Department of Evronmental Conservation has reviewed the

Generic Envionmental Impact Statement For License Renewal Of NuclearPowerPlants

(NUREG-1437), Addendum L and Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of Pat S5

in response to the above-referenced notice. we offer the following coumments for the

United States Nuclear Regulatory Coxnission's (NRC) consideration:

Stoae of Spent Fuel

Section 6.4.6.7 of the Genetic EIS (GM3S) concludes, 'On-site storage of spent

fuel during the term of a renewed operating license is a Category 1 issue." Therefoze.

site-speCfic Infonmation on spent fuel storage is not provided in the Supplemental EIS

for Individuad plants. While there ane geeric apects to on-site fud storage that are

adequately dissed in the GEIS, we reommend that certain Issues associated with the

on-,ste storage of spent fuels be addressed In the Supplemental EIS prepared for each

facility. These include fte current status of storage capacity at a facility and the plans for

storage of the additional spent fuel to be generated during the kemn of the renewed

license. These ar clearly impacts of continued operation and will vary from facility to

facility. The GETS should not preclude the discsure of this infomnation during the

license renewal proCss by deeming all discussion of on-site storage as a Category 1

issue. S

On-Slit Storag of Law-Level Randioactive Wagte

January 2004 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

NYSDEC C maint Licene Renewal G£1S Page 2

Regarding the potntial for on-site storage of lowlevel rudioactive waste

(LLRW), on page 6-44 of Volume I the NRC stats,

However, recognizing that the 5-year limt has not influenced the

development of new waste disposal facilities and that the states continue to

nmke slow progress. NRC has eliminated in its guidance any language that

the 5-year term is a limit beyond whic storage would not be allowed.

lThe NRC also saes on page 6-S4.

If compact and unaffliated states are able to site dispos facilities and

accept waste in normal increments (Le, in accordance with the assigped

allocations for each plant in the conpact or naffiiated state), there

should be no significant issues at environ ental impacts associa with

interim stonge of LLW generated by nuclear power plansi with renewed

Biese. .. if off-site dispal facilties are unavailable to accept waste in

normal increnents, then on-site interim sunrage may have to take place

longer than th 5-year time f1ame once envisioned by NRC, and additional

on-site storage capacity may be needed.

The NRC has recognized in this document (page 6-56) that access to off-site disposal

facilities may be uncertain for nuclear power plants daring the period for which renewed

licenses ae granted, but states on page 655. SHowever. for most nuclar power plants,

new LLW disposal facilities am scheduled to open well before the expiration date for

current liccnsea."

Since the dae of the GtlS filization (1996), the situation regarding future

capacity for LLRW disposal has changed. It can no longer be assumed that additional

disposal facilides will be developed during the term of the renewed licenses We

recommend that the NRC update the discussion of on-site LLRW storage in the GEMS.

NURE4-1437, Volume 1, Addeuduam I states the following on page Al-17:

On June 22,1999, the Nevada Attorney General filed a petition with the

Commission which requested the NRC to amend regulations governing

safeguards for shipments of spent nuclear fuel against sabotage and

tertrorsm and to initiate a cnprehensive assessment. In particular, the

petition indicated that NRC should factor into its regulations the changing

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-80 January 2004
Appendix A

NYSDEC Comments oa Ucee Remewal GS Pae 3

natme of Ihreats posed by domestc teoists the increased availability of

advanced weaponry and the greater vulherability of laer shipping casks

traveling across the country. If, as a result of reviewing this petition, the

NRC reaches conluslIons thdt are incondsten with the esults or

asstmrnpons in the present rulemnaig, the Commission will need to

revisit the analysis presented her.

This is the only referenoe to trorists or terrorsm In the document.

In the past two years, thee has been a significant change in the potential for, and

public concart abhunt terrorist activiaes. We recommend that the GES acknowledge

this change and addrss the Wlicadons fur license renewal, as these issues are very

Rikely to be raised in licn rtnewal proeedinp for individual plants. This should

include not only spent fuel shipments. but also nuclear reactors and any storage facilities

for on-site spent fuel and LLRW.

Thank you for the opportnity to comment.

Sincerely,

Marbara Youngberg

adiet, Radiation Section

cc: J. Spath, NYSERDA

A. Salame-Alfle, NYSDOH

G. MisIdn. NYSDOL

D. White, NRC Reg. I

January 2004 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

United States Department of the Interiof' - , OFICE OF7HSECRETARY - z I i

Offi aoflcaYk Popk C kam . - .

9MCSt"tNW-MS342MM nb - ,T

WASDION, D.C. 20240

Ct2

September 15,2003

(ERM 31/565)

Pao-Tsin Kvo Program Director

License Renewal & Environmental Impacts Program

Div. of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Offce ofNuclar Reactor Regulation

U.S.Nuclear Regulaor tCmmison

WrashiotDC 20555{-OM1

Dear MW. Kno:

lbe Department of the Interior (Departmn as reviewed the Generic Environmental Impact Statent (GEIS) frU License Renewal of lVIUcler Power Plants, Suppl 14 (NUREG-1437,

Supplement 14), dated June 2003, regarding reliccg of the E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant. lbe applnt, Rochester ltc (RG&E), proses to renew the o g Iic---- whrtlfacilityw chie will exp Decmber l, 2009. his projet is located inte

Town of Onlario, Wayne County, New Yo.

lbe Nuclear Reulatory CommissIon (NR) has requested comments on the GEIS which

evahutes potential impacts from the relicensing of the R.E Ginms Power Plant for an additional

20-year peiod.

This report of the Department Is suheitted for et Dlnnn8 poses under the National

Environmental Policy Act Comments p a =tthe S ies Act of 1973 (87 Stat.

884, as znended;16 U.S.C lS31 ct scq. werpe ioursubmitt bd thceDeprte's U.S.

Fsh and~ ildlifcvS ern(Svice)Inactcr d FcbnfUyy25, 2 0 02 ThScrvicalso

provided comme tn a letr dated Janua' 6 , 2003, on e project studies during the public

SCopin period. Additional comments m b poed Pursuant to, and in accordance with,

provisions of the Fash and Wildlif Coordination Act (48 StaL 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et

seq.) in the futwe, if applicable, as well as other legislation.

No physical modifications are anticipated or operating changes proposed at this time to the

Ginna facili. or duning the 20-year term of the newt Lc Howev, the Service previously

idadfied fish ent and impingement as problems associated with power plant water

intake systems. The intake system of the G(a plant is known to impinge at least 30,000 fshh

eery yar based on studies ad monitoring by RG&E. In addition, sude completed more than

20 years ago indicate that ~proxi ray 8 million fish eggs and 17 million laral fish were

entrind anully within plat's cooling sysem

he E ronmental Report p otates that fb, fish eggs. and larvae S-I

entrainment and impingemnt bn E nd thas the problem is not

significawt However, the Service r additional studie be conducted at this facility to

-)S =,CI2@ 3

/S>-°-3 = hf Z5

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-82 January 2004
Appendix A

dom sting fish- mortality. The previous entrainment study was completed in 1977 and is

too old to accurately refect crnt conditions. Recently, the New York State Department of

Conservation (NYSDEC) has directed RG&E to conduct additional studies to determine the

extent of the problem. We concur with the NYSDEC that additional current information is

needed to fully assess fish mortality at this project

Ths Service previously suggested that RO&E evaluate the use of a filter system tominim; fish S-2

and entrainment. Howver, no evalulation of sch system was presented within

the 0~S document. A filtes boom, such as the 0n Ssskocma prevent fish larvae and

eggs from entering the water Intake pipe. Fish lar1ae, eggs , a removed and released

downsrea of tbe boom wiith smal bursts of airalong tlhc length of the filter. This system is

curenty eng used at three other major power plat in NewYork and has been dtermined to

bc the Best Technology Avalablei I Its use Is feasibl1 Again, itIs recommended that

ROGE fully evaluate a filter system for use at this facility and document this evaluation in the

GEIS.

Shoreline on from waves and storm events has occurred at the eastern end of the project site. Exiting protection measures have not bee completely effective. Howeve, the extent of S-3

the erosion has been limited to onc or two small areas over a 30-year period. Rochest Gas and

Electric should consider the use of measures other than hard structures (ie. rar to contrl the

erosion obem. Jnstead of hard structures, biotechmical erosion controls should wed for this

project, if feasible. These measures are the most effective means to limit erosion and also

pnode babitat for fish, wildlife, and invertebrates. This technique uses vegetation to control

erosion in a buffer between the water and uplandx. If hard sutur are necessary, RO&E should

wse articted concrete bloccc in cixv eombaon with planting erosion contllin8

vegetation. This vegtion shoul ude ave plant species which will benefit wildlife such

as dwarf willow (a eotefii, tr gre dogwood (Cormur rucem ), silky dogwood (Conn

amomwu), arrowwood viburnu (bmn denanim). and other approiate species. The use

of vgon will be more beneficial for wildlife and be more ashetic tlhan bare iprap.

The Department aprecies the opporamity to comment on the GEIS document. We hop these

comments ar usei duing your p*Ject review and will continue to work with your agency duing the rdicensing pxocess and completion of the GElS.

Please contact Timothy Sullivan at the Service's New Yoik Field Office, at 607-753-9334 if

there are aMy questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely.

A-nrew L Rddant Is3

Regional Environmental Officer

cc: NYSDEC, Avon, NY (Enviromental Permits) EPA, Water Programs Division, New York, NY

FWS, NYFO, Cortland, NY (1. Sullivan)

January 2004 A-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Robot: C. Macrady

A lca '~~~~~~~~~~ F) ~~~~Vie Pm, dfnt

X '.*. ;- Nudear5Oer7dwu

._. . -t15

Chief, Rules and Dizetves Branch

Divisiona o(Adw save Savices

Office of Administration, Mafistop T-6D59 ( 3)

U. S. Nuclear RegMAty Comm son_ WashNonn. D.C. 2D555-0001

Subject Comments regarding NUREO-1437, Supplemnt 14

R. E. GinANuclear PowaPlant

Docket No. 5S-244

Dear Stint

Rochester Gas md Electric Is providing comments egarding NUREG-1437, Supplement 14.

issued June 2003. Ples consider these comments when developing the Final Supoemental

Eavironmental Impact Stitement for the Ginna Station License Reiwl Apoiication.

Vaytr yors,

Robert C Mey

Attachments

on: Mr. Robet 0. Scha(Mail Sto 0-IFi)

Ofe of]Iuclear ReglWy Regulation

US. Nuclea guitoY Commission

One White Flit North

1 IS5S Rockville Pike

Rockyille, MD 20852

A s *quI opperlweiky employer

Bg Enat Avenue I Rodester, NY 14849

tel (585) 546-2700

-..W.fl I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-84 January 2004
Appendix A

AITACMMAEN.A RG&E COMMENS ONNREaO-1437, SUPPLEMENT 14

Comment 1: There is a typoasphc errr on pae 2-1, line 29. 0.9 kn should be 2.4 km. T-1

Comment 2.' Inor changes should be made to Fiurc 2.3, as provided in Attwtnent B . T-2

Comment3: Minor changes shoud be made to Figurc 2-4, as puoided in Attacbment C. T-3

Commcu 4: In Section 2.2, page 2-17, line 25-27, rcfa encq Es made lo a land trnsction.

lhis has not rcd; therefore, this sentence should be delted. T-4

Comment S: A modified SPDES pemit is dated 7V103. This should be reflected in Secion T-5

223,page2-19, line 3.

Comment6: Section 22.5. page 2.22. line 14. Consider adding the wod "as bctween

aged and -much-, to be coisistent with Eawirwnmental Pxcort Figure 22- T-6

1.

Comment 7: Reference 2002b, listed in Section 22.82, poep 2-31, lInc 25 and Section

22-8.3, page 2-33, liHe 4, should be 2002d. T-7

Comment 8: Section 2.292, poge 245, line 6.388 acres should be 338 acres. T-8

Comment 9; Section 4.1,pge 4-3, line 28, and pape4s,> I 3. Based on previous

appliation and feads of the GEIS, Microbial OrgsLs (occptol helth) T-9

is a Catego I issue, that is not imited to closed-cycle cooling Theefore, Ibis

issu and the correspoodfn GElS S6tion (43.6) should be added to Table 4-1,

and abiefdicusson of the issue should be add to Section 4.1.

Comment I0: Section 4.1.1, papg 4-10, line 14. Ihemostecn m odfiedSPDES pcemit dated

7/1/03, Is not included InAppendi E ofNUREO-1437, Supplement 14. Also, T-1 0

the entrainment study listed in that sentence is to be conducted in 2004, not

2003. A copy of the 7/1103 modified SPDES permit is being provided as

Atachment D.

Comtnent 11: Section 4.1.3, page 4-14, line 10 - delete the word "proposd; line 11, dWete

"for review vd comment" line 13114, delete -ifioptd into the SPDES T-i I

permit; line 14, change 2004 to 2005. Also, the reference should change to the

modified SPDES permit being provided is Athwhment D.

Comment 12: Table 42-1. RO&E has furt= reviewykwed itoc Gt daa, T-12

and we are inchudg a slightlyrevised Table 4.2-1 as follows:

Attuacment Page of`4

January 2004 A-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Table 4241

Anzmal P nags of LAke Ontar Alcrifc ad

Smet Puolahons bmphtged at GM Station

Yr Afewife (%) Smelt (

19S3 0.00108 0.00010

1924 0.00492 0.00363

1985 0.00360 0.00168

19S6 0.00106 Q.00232

197 0.0009: 0.00045

1988 0.00366 0.00175

19E9 O.0012Z 0.00010

1990 0.00359 0.00067

1991 0.00035 0.00023

1992 .00262 0.00033

1993 0.00046 0.0000O

1994 0.00054 0.00027

1995 0.0014 0.00013

1996 0.00163 0.00127

1997 0.00172 0.00038

199S 0.00032 0.00023

1999 0.00026 0.00018

2000 0.00014 0.00220

=I 03 01

MIN 0.00003 0.M

AVG 0.00149 O.OO05

MAX 0.00492 0.00363

Sow= Ref 42-5. Rev. I

Wis mhlts in the following m es to Setion4.1.2,pge4-12; line2- 0.0008 perct

sbould he 0.0009 pect line 4, Ihree alewives should be five alewives.

Atachment A Page 2 of 4

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-86 January 2004
Appendix A

Comment 13: Section 4.45, page 4-29, 1ine 25, lins 31 and 32 end page 4-30, lines 27 and 28.

As the owoer of the Brookwood Mae=r House, RO&E is not aware of aiq party

ft has prepared a nomination form folistig the Brookwod Manor Noose on

ft National Register of Hstoric Places (NRHP) and submitted it to the New

Yok State Review Board. Federal egulations unda 36 CFR Part 60.6 reqire

tht te state noti propct owners of the State's Intent to bring fte minton

before the Stale Review Board. Firhemore, owneruofprivate property ae

given an opport mtyto concur (nor obectto themnoination. Since the property

*as not formally been determined to be elUble fbr listin, RQ&E uggests

revisIng the sentence on page 4-29, hle 25 to rcad "The Qinna sit includes one

u=nnenffd sdrctun that Is ptntially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

A confirming change sbould also be ma n Pagp 24, line 10, by including

the word "pottl between 'bce and "ell.

T-13

Comment 14: Section 4A.5. pap 4-30, lIn 28. RGE suggests that tis sentence be rcepaced

with 'Car should be taken duing devloopmnent pects to ezsure that cultural resources ar not inadvertently Imp W"

T-14

Comment 1S: Sectin4A5, pae 4-30, ine . Add snefooote ref cce s on page 4-29.

Comment 16: Section4.8.4, pa4-42, lis26 and27. For thel - provided incomment

12 revise twx to read "Related to, historic resources, there is one uandouented

stnrc pot ay cEgIl fr i on minthe NRHP on the Ginnatic and the

traimnisslon line---"

Comment 17: Section 5.1.1, page 5-2, lines 21 and 22. Seelion 5.1.1 does not discuss the

nviromnsetal izn~ects of the design basis accident tha were evalWd during

the ; lcesing process gs indicated by the sentence bcginning on line 21.

Suggest deleting words "in this section and" Tle rvised sentenoe would read

'Ibe rults of thcs evauations swe found in Howse docmeotatio such as the

applicawts.

Comment 18: Section L, page linew8. The partbetical rcference should be NRC 1996

vs. NRC 1999.

Comment 9.1 Section 8.2.1.1, page 8-16, line 19. The parcaibetic rnference should be EPA

2000b.

Comml 20: Section 821.1, page 8-17, lines 34 and 3S. he boss of wor e and rcp

associated ^wh mponconsctionpoject wouldnot negvelyimpact a

coaunity, since afler the project k completed employment levels would return

at leas to Recor s. AJthough employment associa with large

construction prjects can stress housing and public services, as the NRC

correctly states, the [rasa d j obs end reCeipts normally have a posidvt, tou gh

temporazy, ecoomic eflect Consider revising the sentence to read, "During

construction, the berby comimunites would expericxe a temporary incres in

T-1 5

T-17

T-18

T-1 9

T-20

Attachment A Page 3 of 4

January 2004 A-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Carnentu21:

recipts Mnd anploYmcnt due to the Mflux of construconjobs.-

Table F-l, pag F-2. EneS. Note tha the NRC ddtermined dt the Czkgoy 2

issue rdated to =kcobiologsca1 orgis= (pbc health) is not applicable to

Olmoa beca e the "Issue= qpI oly to beated em nt dischargd wo a zna

rvee. This condusion is conset with the NRC's nalysis flid in the GEIS

Secdon 43.6. NRC rgul n at IOCFRSI53(oX3)( 3j tequie n anabls

of 1he impact of lcenseoreewid onpublic hea fivmtlimampbilic organisms If

"fth Vopicants plant usts a Wooling Pond, lake, or canal or dischrges nto, a

riverhivinganamwl avageflowdteoflethan3.15S 1012 ffiyear(9 x

1010n'fyar. ForrcowaAm smd bvinwas h firs plmt locatd

on the Great Lakes to submit an peaton to renew an operinglicews,

RG&E elected to provide an analysis of the issue in Section 4.15 of the

Enviro lReport

T-21

T-22 Conirnent 22 Table 1,pageF-2,line9. CoisttwhhCommert9,McrobialOrpasnms

(occupafional heat) should be removed fvm ths table and addressed in

da~pter4.

At=cat A Page4 of4

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-88 January 2004
Appendix A

. .

January 2004 A-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

A1ftAe-ogaAf &

A n _~~an

I~~~~UWm Re sta

-- - -- 7hWnssfimb U

1

am a am

800 ~~~ ~ I2GJ~F~

NUREG,1437, Supplement 14 A-90 January 2004
Appendix A

. . A4';tch~etr Pv

NWYcsTATIoCARTAWOENVooUCN&effAL4rNSMrAT10

State Ponoflut Dlschrg Elkirination System (SPDSS) AM ~~~~~~DISCHARGEPEAMIT

SkbVra~nacdaz 03 Mosliadoa Do= MM

&Wrt~nd=N ?kr.Obi

CmatAkSpzhkbaiI=w~Th (nd 7cf~~doautiCaejo a flwY

. .

Stmz2ad h vE!ptim wib0chdean Wart ut.ma W(33 U..C. 1251 eaeaXbmdaf=.rndu, ooie Acij.

PDMrrnENAMEAND ADVRM S

Name: Rodbeftff Gas & DElwzi Cwpjmd

Su~ct IEastAvew

car. R~beslcr

U sv*Azed to fEisdut ftw dce fad1c deaaed bdaw

FACZXrY NAME AI'Dv ADDRE

NS== ~~Gk=~ NwkeJTTowIt 1lah4 Szad=o 13

tocadoa (C.Tv); ocutm~o

FzCWly Ad&a 130 Lakc Read

MM vI.E 312.569

Fw.oufhflio: ea] *. aiLUW43

&4 ai t iter Owahu~ Rcdtc~vi Wafe &.w~err aai&=in)

C=A to GOID RAke Oublio aI= A .Sp~ech

mo2m0 LAkt Oz2Irmo C. azA .Spechz

004, M MG LA R~kOzgrio bUsD-C

AtbnW=-fom erph W~dy,VP &FThut~dangag

SW=INY Zip Code~ 14649

SU=e NY Zip Codw 1451

MM 1-N. 4794.243

t6e "a&cgiae7 13*' MI

Cm=A SpedaI

h i ==~den=c wfth fte dflh= 1bdM6, monlawiOS treqcaeo Am cdau cm""to, set fon i this Pect 23d

6 NYORRFmn75M

DISOKARGEmoNToRINGREP'ORT(DMdR) MAILIG ADDRESS

MaiLng NsxE- GfnzzaNudcwrPowwerPInt -Saso U13

So=e 29EastAvcms=

~OT- Rodmer

RnspowML-kOfficial rAgen Jobn PeW

,So NY Zl4 3oc 4649

Thoae 5A5-7714712

mspka~dscahallcep o~nddriazmd.*esh Awn abovre and fte pomisw "k

nwwpeatla ise aneas~ pett habm sz~wa, ersarwed pwsudt w. To be au&Adzed io aschorgp

be~rd th Ct! e ~cd ie shll ipply(orp Inneal ae les thn 13 Pday or Sn ftiPIraul dxtualgowu mbo vc

Duuuuofwmres |

4 rook A~dnmrDavW LW Bie I _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amme 6274 Eat Aeoo-U=n Road

AYMNY 3Y4414

* I~~~ f 63o2

* 4~ J 1302p

January 2004 A-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDES PERIM NUMBER NY 0000493

Pa* 2 f 17

PERAiT I , LEVELS AND MONITORING DEFIN ONS

o-&S ~ll.C | .The ~ttIASATEW AMou Te mI myWtlNO M I cwt 

Iratue~D.O. a ioedutafl qtweamiof Iuuas kt~ iihid dI .b .de* n. dsei P

tbrdW~~v qks w y dwlagemo" connii g I{ h~qws 

L rye m bhifit mhed "wof hes DOM iNyj &KhhMIs . ~EMO aI ef EM

Mute1. atUa* m s ambt.theMURMa od Tp hcIS nds IaDm0 S hmnETM

ri at an Dss in dm iec be _oId sal myuci bct TM * .

Esr =Wo ~A , L XQUANTu w AMN An. SeAM .ow . ~~~~~~~~~Lwraw Q V LE . , MQUENCYr IMr

1# in erthWCeaWd bebw a. in ow hi Ft od at mos. .rypei or .E ns ccFite

14 e. MA dwm Siy Isavimd ft $WY AdW tms. ioemndoft beb. Dy h D*gr

&-cvd bW = &b am bcer~tbvc AIo Lb vrh, oflwpt - 3N=L Vs24

i ,o(kfoAd~nf to ourbe wdo eeil or fma. "*

or e TO& S- Na -q poidd d-M bba *W. mora. W 3 trb

emads& The lio ka been has dw ft vec~ed dfid saa Sy 2PT -son wed b"d c 4 ing *Wky maaWaaty C dow bN-e edy-ty. -o-id

u=Rd= wd .ee Poeswa thexlew method. 2. th bislm f4 ma. W aI

aomahdedetendilaw= INmiteg rnks *rh si bwer s&5doW hw

bornthmrgN-d aaamreadorm't d ~blevmuast ba bert~ bmodimiag

Maadehaerdser &whu to sac ace be aed n demudwe mePek

red*is : I etc. it C tVlw da , bi dnmlk owiewh

asmunpmin w lt dheep dwV T*h IQLe be Wh levered ces&.

ladt agy. afkr dae I and vwshed widotosaw indeclosof

. = _a~ hl,- -. ...... , ,_ - .. -.. -

V=~LDAflYDtSClAK. I7cKg3OPf&POAUvindak~%4=WcSsffZ7Kd..oV2l4dbM~fflUO55chlyttPIvms=&Vk

.vr tce day. For IbS c h fl~daer b d h~hI*_,o mesm tha by dsdawge Iscakutdutt he svaqr ea d'

toepootoeds Om "y.

DAILY MAX. 7bg Mbt- ibm" ftily £sdwhor DALY h6L The lvw ale daITy d4xt-.

1OfLY AVC: Th lbestalwbsEao Idai arhige owde aledbe mtot. calshecd ai dh am det .th daily dhi~qo

imew.d oing a calvk xwoh dvl~d by ia. In Of~dalydladuarpsu e dw'iog ra

7 DAY AIflTfHC MEAN (7 dy I ) Thachestdlow" vet dably Iaha p- otcvaczlea o

30 DAY GEOMEC IW .?Tk T - tf CWe Sdi eddafty&Kdugsocua csI wtoM caJsweWd micW d(:aetc

cddae log Of each of the dailydeacthages mouth ydmeah}dwn &vldd by mbe eduy dochares m daaa dw a

7 DAYGEOME MEAN: The Uhcs dIvwax -ac (dall dasniyrsgs owrav tiud ;week

RAHO! Ti. m~ainso ~iadh Iuamesswerms fw Me pepanla pro aW meuh cin bawm the two vahmi dAwiw

~ A~lONEVIL~ Railm Aehi Lvelmeemrowietwib. fteatfropided fcr ca the DlWsArg Naulealg RcpDtMKN fmearn.tu be i ~~~~~wszpin _gw* Xtzscc~ d0 IgffjrdsxcbIo

.~~~~~~~~~wif ,os ftd aseeo. s IedWl wcp wn

appeeded4so th VhdR tthu psiod drhigallch di samp lar *Anoiad of he D! dwod b Ut dad r requl Uh vide i ;s d d Wow.

bce pemce ItI dmital sht-us hlghl4 seac mdrorkg prpes bcrt paaietr( Samle Ideaia thr reqird

masd eapac se e tae o ac ftkleatdwe ccemeraiveuoaddlshqedayadaad. 3mbtha be eareud brs

dlm coazoadc _ d *r md shaD e uald nol ls the bC cd of de dWUshfofoiogrs cth whdo addcca mo ni to

i treaskubfgid I mbeqedesteDdiiedtdrdesprs aaOhese wcu.If Inch highs tntheAedo.

Leyd$ *re eoMM. dfie hpez* my h1e mpeied byfeDpecooddera.OfImv Acdab Lewbcrl fflvc:K. kTe phcesk Mot

acid odocb ftite bw aeveswhihmy ese oro td p oa wirclres dqwaaaqs adTYFM I: Tbe

amdorwa muodarla tqulsua Is bIgd upo. reept by the vemushc of any nwuit.4.g rme In ecs co~dwsmwdaalAesm.LawI. LTYPEf

7Th adsdoesoml m ituua qcem I akr igrdpatep a yth emt as oi gN dostt thw dw atd wd= rolevel aatawded for

foerfledgawaeedve-a-plia o tsancdeaysb lmaor for T~a.nycmsaDpQI by 10 % amwtm.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-92 January 2004
Appendix A

SPPES PEU&T MBER NY 000493

qc 3or 17

PERMT LUMTS, LVWELS ANDMONITORING

. OU~t~fl NUMER WASTEWATMYTE MMV4 OWA1= um UcNS _

t Cc*UnpCMolk wint W.skO..ri. EflM W,

.M~f COIV ,'XFW,

~ ?Mi I ~M 1 Uf~JWET SA smP!YEIF~mn

Trini NA 0.1 Mg"! Jrl

Sml af tecae an izd daly (ortobi R;De xorc dern w~~ tSoc rzeb MxJ *o~.

T~otxezr ae'a d wio apporsd by ktdyc larr2A 1991 k1 iSnne rrGtE. k e0c#, fWi n iocwfra~dkor

L BEah h idUlw1r Ch~oi kcbau d cownl tc I* a s5om a 0(3D days of emitmaz aunts

2. OiadoAcba'J.,msfttubm *e ~lh m~~ alu f . ww i dlimy.

TECU D fbecq at by kon 30dayL.

3. g *- das nS geddgc dIq WgAk55 a aSndi0t"Sd arnki t

4. 1Iie3~go WucrE !qw ha e dnfieasrim 4U pitmo ida db d caoo pspm

a lA; d We R3 doal Wdkrtajueu NYc h ?tieffo il b Iskby 

la Ibgs p ci v i ixtwywS vif To

* eftt _y tqisintbhtiS ov NDRkseCuvatlikw sad5td6e modtrYcs&C4u~cDaa.

January 2004 A-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY 0000493

Pap e4o 17

PERMT LIMITS, LYELS AND MONTORING

OUTFMLMMU WASIEVAlERTME UcMv WA=R I !CITI IE . E m 

~~l dn~~~ul La~~~~e~~h H~~~PhL 'P.SZ

~ . NMEXTW Wr F%

PFAMME ACLXLV SAOME SAiWM F .. ~ ~ lFEUNITS FRQ Y TYPE

1latMyA. Dvly Mu DoUy . TYPI TYlERT

Mboolo 490 mmGD pP _

. Dkd Te ' l)bor 812 7

1?eDiSffiC U~cU 21 7 Cas_ Rerutr R4

IN~- lTn al edf M -i or , 02 -m C° _ _

OUTFAUMNUOMER - WASTEWAr TYPE - RECHYIVI WATER EF3CEX=40

001 A itth aOC P _ Ps

|PARA~r I UM I| U II SAUXMMVCY ISAMI * IMOT NOGh I

--. r re4,DiUM

6.0 ~~9.0. LvAua

FRIJEUrWD? PM MIMDGm.

PAXOMMTR ____ ACriONLEMU SAWLE SAWLE f"

Mcu;iy Avg. Dsl- -Wy~ r-i~n UNIT PRQUMCY TMP ,l. Dl D.y N. TYE TYE __ _I

, ~~~~~Miir I .0 1 m' Ammua Eu~

-- & a * dui T S -a3 . -S Ar U -

uSvvnded|of 30 1 100 1b A *

16 | NA 1 1 me4.0 AnI Gaa b I 

cqI NA I MO I I1ab

* oFoonf ao SerAdafl Ome o zcezyenw red ap ogftqpcrtd imake di dwsawmwijbeuscdto

com~puztho bwy AVMqs lmocnftwdiffeace.TwntY fwurboulY av=aa tmperaurswould be used o cmw*,ute

ibe WI -s Tz - eac-. The highal bowly perw d e- arded dcrift the day would he tdie

Ma~uim= MPV

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-94 January 2004
Appendix A

SPDES PRMr NUMBER NY 00O0493

Page5of 17-

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONMTORIG

UMFALLNMER- WASEWATYPE REEEIV WAM E1E i E31V

PARAMdETE ___ AcDOI4LEVEL SA).WL $Wi.o f .~ ~~~ * -~QC ,-. - - p. ,

rM-YAVg. Daily Maa. :DdY *TW T NE T. IE M TM

P S~~~~~~~A '3 .Ck .' _ ,D I bQ 

&~ - -' - -t . - -

OU&Ortm Mm~~~~~~u~~r ~MOi IS Mtjar"Y

_~- .__-

ds dSc . * NA So , qI QmiN Crab

TetsJ ~N/ 1.5 . g *34o GnbC _

~i~pg~ NA* 1.0 .gh., . ' . G .Q'

. Zbc . ' - NA- -.-q,_

OUTFALLNMM *A WAT -. E uT MC CA abMU

NA -4.0 _,.l _m ' . - rab, 

J OlUTFMLNUMBE WASTEWASR TYPE T Il~zvnmo WA1ZERicQ TYPE..

tXow Wae PdTt 1 CR E Gaab 

a crew N~~SAwsIeur CI~dsSVWTMGab

PA~ U___-__

(pM(RaNgw) 6.0 9. Su W a y Gul P _ 

| 1^r ~~~l~LlUrr PQL MOvfll11pRfrmslO>7

e 1 1 1 I -I I fOT t RQEC i 1

dS ~ °°- - -0 1-a;Q- -- -

Roaw NA ).4*I N'D I J | Q masnrly Gab

(No OJ-rxb equiiD

L ahloniae xrbedis urpal po 120 msuhif per dy.

b. 7bepHhn$ ybecskd wbcawOduCdVi kkXasilh0 aco bospcrcm1 .C odIvlty m lwrizg iao yrequdy wbe

he PH Omitis cded

January 2004 A-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDES PER.Mr NUM~ER NY 0Oo493

Pqe6of 17

p-MIT LIMITS LEVELS AND MONIORING

072. ~wv Ws wffRaot Low Vohume Waft,

cOMAMN1MEfl WASTEWAM TMP UXMMG ~WATM EMWTME1VH

___________ Rcguxiwm~ W"=s ad re~~tm) .. ~

'a Su1Z ZI IIZ I1

LVMUDLVU PQL McP@tain34

PARAMETE ACTlMLEM. SAMSL SAMI. FM

Moda A'vt. Daly Mu Dalybi ax. PI TYPEU FE "QUO=C Tyr.

Few ~~Muhwo Mook GFD MW& huuwa

Un~ko 13 ftn Modiby Gra

swesawo~ 30 toougi Moeft Gtzb'

NA 1.0 j-g Mmo2il Ocub

NA 4.0 =VI MMU*1 Ckl

0N*Mmlgsquind)

WI -stm" wMole Fti

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-96 January 2004
Appendix A

SnMS PERM NUJME~R NY 0000493

ft 7,of 17

-pERMIT LIMM, ~LEVELS AND MONITORING

WAS7EWA1MTMP IRECERM~WAM) J Dcflvr, a mmo

EFX~W P Nmarzop J PjALAMLAM. IA. abr n.TYEMITP__K HSAKU E SAND

1.*7bc OWu dine azixi which Ih pHt vakucsdgadz dthwbx am: md~e gred uXSW ha CX ----c 7 how, Ax~ 26mmc

in In akch mamxth2. iolda iftdvcz- exnl shaD ezcdGOM niusIndxmdMx

N. i xa zmloa shialoise or waxntrlou sa cmtnovdcw of waaquaSysadrs

January 2004 A-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SDES PERMT NUMBER NY 0000493

Page 8 of 17

MONMTORINGLOCATIONS

mhpchdm ha tab umpks m~uaw Ucz=Sl _C comply r with misrcmem pedlcdh this pcmii. adw

Wm)ried below:

a ~ ~I LAKE'ONTARIO I

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-98 January 2004
Appendix A

!

SPDES POUIr NMBM NY 00DO493

fte9of '17

-1 -7- tAJ &*&~

A-a- --

January 2004 A-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY 0000493

Page 10of 17

Addiol Rufnincqis

L J1sc penft al ubndi %Tkcm wdf'e-, wtbk ahf Wcd deailed dasilces and mmos ftems. to the =C

cS = Ban of EuRoMd Ftq~imW Fiies Manmzand ReIw Eqineer at lse 60 days w adance of -, change s esus the ai aii ofthe oc sl. ei op n orcw ry oftdhecooing 2 0I arn Mme. puuceshal submi. kith it wbma wfdicadw adxmcarzton da the dazesdlects the benn ftcbology

mcuyansilablefocimkllez dwesfton WllPsct PiorDECq4qvalsqfdcfMix bulads dzch d

A pemi niodflcstltmzy be required

2. rub bgnt nftP bted duft hh puaph eiwd SW fl u a ptlde-sea dp cooing oaec wat

bk sun lzienfg bSh raK: adign tyOe , aim, M. st andad ope pEI screw washwset

3. bVWP- MO.ImD oM ProXMM

a. h g oul rued bom 13 rso dm i Impact of t cfLtty an ft aqutk

mhfwmw of LaLe Ontario. The Meo dscrId Gy, Nbce PEMw SutIon fmfffetze P"of

t, RG&E Repo Nh , B-13-M (hly 19) aK mmrd with the haawlg mdffks6=

L eC wife mesh conoction baske that fish o theeuwash aukway saLl be coasatrmo fr esh ths: is

apptoaiMatly I of the bar mesh ofdsd brnehg sea io ord= m mlnize loss of 0QorI"t wash off

the uravelhig =crwus

bh AttePaJvicspde smoptio edlmalqemacabwidancepovmn yhwbmluedforDEC..dewandaPp L

The goal ol ibe okd p Id belac k o e hcms of _ gemt t mockorict while aondmg in provlde

adequae iu sdoc fre hw dparnewa determinati= to 6WCRR 704 ad h Cea WowAcSeedo 316. Th

impiowe p.,,m idned ha 3a above l ewuin efect oxe as aka*M is appr ed by %he DEC

4. imb gmn Mzgtc

aL Duri37 tiaw acseo l ngpu opehracleacheravetng e a bewadjedforapproxi dy flfteen

(IS) muft each km. uxcepdnt when a sree is fixpable due to requird awntecanc

b. sosuzupliq cdas gear ot Od o the iclum of impined fish lo Lake Ontario shal be placed lathe washwawr

shu xce~ptg leosc stecesmy to conduct szuis appved by the DEC.

S. The &ml didsdge fom tis fadliy shall asue the pRorndowl and pnpstadoo of a balaced indigenos population of

db4n fish and w iln i ml lon Lake Ocaria. In IS regard. the Dcpqez his appSroed due partines re1ques for

aendve efnt limitations porantna S cdos 316(s) ofthe auaWa= Act for the5 yea life of the pernit. 7ee

h xmledstlsam rdi et yapwL Tke wats r e m wtrbec oflc Ontuio aallnotbec zed more than

fecFkehredegmsveso e th ctopmatc: dtatexistedc bef aies olcatof rtifiial nesgie ecept itha amziq soce eonsisdq oft an ofM maces b thepoint ofc-haie X diis tnyufacra may be exceeded.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-100 January 2004
Appendix A

6. Pre

a. A copy of aD 'cmpamicninna lo Cdvfr meata impam an waerl raatVng fto d= falliMy. wbhd ame *Pplkan

ns:ubmts o aykd ecitabcalpy.ahzflabea bmI edo die Dep rmzm omaxa! Conisrvadoo

clcsIn Avooa und ARan7. Mc paor SWa also Matify she Depaxtincot wihifn am eck hm the ime of

g hia~otothN~d qaboiyarn ioaofsacyrearld age tccvbmmtutitd~mkial apccicatiogm

wbhcould affoct die seqomS o0pcdL S 

b. Rqo(s)sdxoniud Infelfialkiec apenitcowdldces shalldeady da fy vs dietkdepage Uipcmkt naoier ad s

speifliesectiom(s) bye~cha and etaseroasflLlda c or diew Licrepon shalidenti

* ie sealoo(s) of ie penit that fuoi1s. 1 

C. The anUal soccrmem iae ng ncport salbe submiccd byiJuly I of 9ie fWowing year. Tise anlysesneoscut

357- Rochester Gasmd LkctedCarporuan w~lls mpingeament mg Analzis Repost

7. A am yea sud sa be doe

Whether dwe opraadon of the cooling waterintak system eomti bent seeology avallali for Mibindzlng Mt,;,=

ekiramental Limpaet. By EDI.. + 6moodns tlapaj e shall 1abud ferreview and spprv~al a scp of work to cona= the

so*d. coalatani with the followinSgukiteines

a. Chic 24 bou sample wil be cobecaed cadi week krm APOi I- ftouth September 30*. Uas ocoLlectioo wWl be

aebeduled so taka Place witi the firAtw~o days ofesc uevai day per14d sodiat die tcahzuid of tie perWo is

avalale olecionshuldplntopedo~ oranaltrnte mulaiot aitacio pevet.enleloc onoshebday

a. Emai ams lesbAflbedvivdmIssofawd e6hoc dsuatdbs I .Tvlday p1 vobiimneiso Cateag

20E cbc Aust erd. Thewome V wpdled JIl dsoe aeored ricore uDq= saibkseae Slowmtes Ifspump

uanypkritobe used (e4g. wishpuipj) cxersalveow msam o be avoided tht my comeextruonoforgainisan

A tahde actesh ndeloassof sampie

C. At the beginning mid aiduotclm attch 24 hour tample waer qualit nhlaaurUmn (fteiperzluj ad wA uolwed

oxygen) am to be uken ot eithe the isstakt and cooling wa disctizrgecaa

i. Samples may be ecollcsed am etider die intake (cenenliouae)or discharge canal. Samples collected from wind. the -cuhoOe I iy ahal be taken bum =oldipl dpfts ankss; Ran be deumsnarazd to the Depamcrne's Sasdsfecia

is~tedeq te insi exists and aeansm areot trled within die wat er oh= at Oma locatic

b. zyop tnves suhedfor as hcocedoshhvamesdh ieofM iSress.

C' Alaazl a gmgo be wWalysd faraD hakyoplnk-and ad altanay -b forMyziz -zdo and Pensepordaofslr=.

lehtiyoplariktoam ato rbe Identffed by spexiestoad lif atageletg, yo wlk~ac i nepostyolL-=a larvae. andpvjcvul).

Frcm 8tad samI, pl tpo 30 Wvedas sper Wie StaW per species w~ll be mecsused so She veare 0.1 mm.

. All mcthods fr s l colkcdand aleprcalgqt hycztand quEli Gnfastlf shabefty

desd crbedt in tle sope woadL d 

January 2004 A-1 01 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SFDES PERMrr NUMBE NY 0000493

Pap 12of 17

L Wvsiu 6 eeof ody.

ffie dIcde. amh hibenl we aca data Plat adtsd an werklycooli wax lwdnn of omegs

tc. ut wtd U dl £C2t05 or devlslo fro tfe epre tpe oiso t* a aLsohoblc held All re. ad at etbor

kcd infwead be in o d ftIowDcpinedOffirYSDEC .ZubwgofHsbkvr525BDwwy . yh F=. Albny, MY 33476; A aadp eaho tcieNYSDEC RtSW I Sqervof NaI Reaces. Ro

ahls Mnwaer ad Retksl WaM rEzghr. 6274 EdA 4LluRo4 Avo NY 14414.

9. DEC wM~ sie- theras of she p 'I r ko y. md an nl t Ue

wbedrtz coo at uwakrkke tea=z coadg Stado teses best tmzoloandlale m ihi;gizkS

sdvases ealrcxta impact as r NYCRRPt 70W4, cd 316(b) of t e -WatAc, 33 U.S.C.

'Sc 1326()

L If DEC d es te coni t Intae Is cawin a ads etrba et Cod equims ziati

t be take. th6es gn the p-mlmc t, withtix 9 of MDEC nodalcasm SC an inak 9touxhpolw ftw 

the Kas Unedi Na 2. Trepst a Ias bcp n o m advs mMaaable fi ngkpa

In D of & circxelut& fca t. udbllBsy. cod, amd the dege etmaidt4 likely so be adievaed.

b. DEC ilAO dewuiine ho w e afternatimvesprsed and tho odher relvant Wanfzmma wabvalt, uappapte

nzltigdontotew fadiky dwaeuzcl idaere tnvkovta=hzapt. comsiet wthth~e comknaadzswo lld above

Wi~dthnI~on&soIDEC apprva thepe *tac ishalsbwmt plansandasdeuletbrgecoasmucdonopesazioa d

walnmmdce of de adoeled utxmve(e) and IfdaEned to be rfqceasy. a pla to bori the effoedvend or the

dandes) to bii. Advee o eMta hqn

I. Blloal amens ay be neqd to beua aSEC apdo et If mcDi by te W I givws por tD

12. in rerd to 750-21(*) hum 3 ad 4 It= sWth be frponed auaty to NYSDECoM= in AVv.

13. The pwime ha subnilton as nus bada xpt tso dveD epotaet's office In Albany ad Avo by the 2Ohd f gme month

Mat fown dwx ead of dte perod

L. Dd y m m aveng&. nd taxmm tatio tickd ne" shal be dmtnslmei & bge&d

b6 Daily mW==in svrage* arid =xminm *atr use fhal be &mdiely or lndlecy meaured or clculated and logged

c Daftym, av r , trd em In take nd IcfI g ampenmes ball be Iogged

Me s tn In h d c st lbe uhoan to ke snbasiL

14. Ter shall be nos disbge of PCB' how dit facilby.

33 jiloactivty- Co~aenselwi o radloaedviy In efline art vsket lo die reuakenenw of due U.S N4ula Regulaeoq

c&fwComtid emcusicioas.

16 Efthnanim (ETA) se for ko tapon cnwto at be a sch sdary a thmg te &eew: s=ply sal be

incd atmaowtrattm i nOutfa OOf lk darn qao0.7= Mhod of dctrirdatk Cfthce rio hi

ocJ 001 (Ck dg Coding Waoew) s beelculated by du d riae. A og sha be sein aubjedt to the reoi

q sment oitk WTCFX

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-1 02 January 2004
Appendix A

SFDES PERMM~ NUMER NY 0000493

Pqc 13 of 17

ae ine ra 31bow smek. u1poaaf ghamaD womh bma and fteL4ph sdk&Jetuk as a bask bHaang the PateWeia

for hcrcut4l mzofl2f so fish exipo"c la cl"d I be ts m~im2' cooll wat4r ddx c anaL IDy EI)M * 6

uxoeda macape of wutkrfarIcp ~ e~iadrzcpwr L-~~r"A fia cp iadmewidsin

* t5 aldct ?NTEC Buman of Hahitat- 3d Mm-x M2 Imadwvy, Mabny. NY.* 12233475 80d 10 dzc Fnbheies Ofmac,

khasedleyesOf==%&aokymaiqWn fisb. Based catih im mm! nyadwfrdeMZkfmdm16 at Depe met wE

deW,= WIEeher addibw n~flptc wWbcra I sdI

January 2004 A-1 03 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDES PER.MIT NUMBER NY 0000493

Page 14 of 17

DISCHARGE NOTMFCATION REQUIREMETS

(a) Excpig au provid&I In (c) adi (!) of these Diahbarp $Nodcsdo Act rcqubemes..s *i remlne Ohal lastall and maistain

(b) 3boezencsodot~Lstoat rnewalof ispermit does mm torusviscte idabsczfbrds In(a) abo~ n~lcss anwwdeadlrn

is ads eplicidy by such perwit swdlficsdoa or renewal.

(c) 7beD~cn5Ygr~a~fcseoe~,u~nS~esX1De~U~aOOoma~ymouua~a W. =~m ==cIMaeI ~cemCetaczusiy

of stnit wawer at disdchrga to growod wswer

(8) ThM ulS*) shall be consp ics. leInle ad Ins W C oe IWMitY 3 epoli POW f dISCharg AS Is r ysatpossihle SUlC enawlog

the udac nailmm waer lsib~hy~um ud slces he Thesigs shll elasalld bacis menaerpos minmalltaudto

rnavigadonbathing rotwher relactedsuvldeL.I Ybpubic h has xcsato thewuuvmf the lad I.evkidaiy of sheoura

an idearicalsig hl epso ob iil rmsedrelmapoc~gsesfew

Tno signs shal have anhhawm dbiinalons of eighteen Incce by tweoy few Ice ( r~ z W) and shall bays vt*e knral on a

green beckgtoii amd Contain die Ibilowin; InforanmtoL,

uY.S. PERUITED D=ScHARGE POINT

SPOES PER O.NY____

OUFALL N. a

For InITlamon abotd dt pemnld dascage corc

Peomplft Nama:

Pumiced Cownt

porn"" PhF {). # -Sa

NYSOEC DMson of Waler R.gonal Ofic Address:

NYSDEC DMalon of WSt Realon Phone: ( ). ## 49t#

. .

(g) For each dischage mequire to have a %sig In accordance wUt a* die permnile sbsal eo unen en with die Instaflatons of fth slgo,

prdepoLepoins7 orpieso Tgtsch nltomboin Rcpcwxs(DMb P.%srcq~by thSCRECORtD1NORMORTlG AND

ADIflMONALmoMloRiNG REQUMEMENT pagof this peral 72bazs Mm" " ibeopenotw public.9am~ocomi

durinS normal daytime business hows. 7be reposftcy msyhbe aft ebuslnes office mposscry ofthe penche cc atu offprenises

Locaton of its dchoic (w ls ocatio* shall be the villag etwn. city or count Clers office fte local libeny cc o her location as

ajMoved by fth Departmen). In accordance with die RECORDING, REPORMIG AND ADDIriONAL MONITORING

REQUMEMENTS pgeof youpennit.ach DMR shllbe nuhcled onrecord for a paodoftlueoyesme

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-1 04 January 2004
Appendix A

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY 0000493

Page 15 of 17

buzrdo notmcet dispedfci&Aziois td4above. (beperuitte my~cwe to cue de ozkfti uigns for* pez~od Of cp to fiveYomre

Owt wbklcb die w dun sa conplY wi th q=Mupelitdmn linted show.

contain Infocoiaton Owa is cuermat amd factallIyencwtc * -

January 2004 A-1 05 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

SPDMES PErMr NUMER NY 0000493

Pag 16 of 17

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDMIONAL MONITING REQUI~REb S

a) TM e a also efe to 6NR hn 750 Mfix Wcdshfa z owernizd woicsad rm* ftqbfmutus

AndeoEdg

b) h.0 xtoshdbe atkqcb by; ibis tPnnafl bc I d st med wd riciaod fr a peid of tem ye= f6m thb

by dtz pDqera sal be ksd an AsW by h-mbmk

J~J(i ba s heke) eake and shod Dhsbedj Moalx1Rzpo(DMR)foranfor each J..moo&thspmting

pald t te tocA -acdW bdow. k n3k f%= = aulhtbk t te Dc mqews Aibmy c Had bedow. TM fm

csqdel pdAed begis ce eabadscithd panmkmd ft. .fcn wp be doc no hatra I 2Slh day of d

monub felowli im end of eacbhp T pctiag d~.

Oi~ Is the ch Rgkml d d~a.anealnpwt Wia~qlc addes efidbelow. . t=a repw is

db Fehmuary I &dM wariamind f=32doe fOrIuMuMY tDecczzthoferoh previous ycm in afon laa cceaabl W

fte Dep ast q 

o flo is ehck a moo1y Wsica Fahy Opcntlo Rqpu'. (lwaz 92-1.)toB fft oRegiwia Wm Ennce Aand[] MMCEWAy Healh Mea orwn-k-=u1 CouurA Agency sper-d below

Sced dse *drbl (top shecO o eadi DMR pge to Send 6c fhseu (sen shwJof each DMPR p to:

Depszaent ~~~~~~~ Depuztmc of Enbfocnnma Coesjrvdoa

DUent Enwm R weioaatlrrEsginew

BD a(f fWased Co *M . 6274 East Avon-Uzz Road

625 BroadwayAvnNY14 AMY. NeWYOek 1233-3506 A NY 14414

Fo:e: (55)226.2466 Ent. 544

Phone (51S) 4024177

Send in addovdklRI.of each DMX pape o

c) NoncmptEwe wth the priotw of dts pma inhUll be nepared i dc Dqupcae as Irea lin 6&4YctR Ptz 750.

t) Macee at bC cedce teso pzcedwts a r uvjcd*30 CR Pasn 13. szpesoda ruJpcs aw bc

spcified bi ts pAL

d) If the pufe flo* s a fas p estpns l d by ClRtep, uig ayrovd r40 

ma thes I~ctxp MdOalng Repdms.

I) CkU U feral! lndmadoaswhDch tlroquire san onch ca huean avd anunesoewise spedf'ed

in dib pUri L

d Unkssodtwbcspec A sc , hfor%=dm - , be isclmeMoW1ZZf2IRport shall be based upon ca

saq canteds ofe dltg te moat eanpedcd.

h) Any Mboralatru aple etalysi ired Iby ibs pk or wthe S C ite s sc ath Iersma of

psead tedon fit. bizdred two od thte Pu b Law shal be coadrsed by a habeusy y whch ha bos b sud

acadflcage of sppamL haq~a~rlea zegxdiag labomoqy a ssaidhe s to E ben oe a Laboratory Accio

pinn.New York Sute Hat Depqu Cnc fotfLnics d Rese2rch. Divsoof hv eotaW cien d.e* 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-1 06 January 2004
Appendix A

SPDMSPEMr NUMM ENY oooo4g3

'Pare 17 of 17

Nelsooa. Rocf tUerEnypStaMcPLa.MbAny.NwYa& 12201.

January 2004 A-1 07 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix A

Gina Paw Satmo ScedMle of Complance fir

SPDES PenIl Additlwal Requimt #7(trmsnnent Monitorng) ad for

Adiional Rqueqt 117 (Therm Literture Revnw)

Additional Rae t #7

FJ~~~~nirmcntT sk ~~~~~~~~StartDat Endks

* SPDES Paemit finaized that Include nqIrement to pero 7/1/03 7/1110

ralwimst udis.

* Prepation and submit scope of afthmmut work to DEC 711103 1)1/04

* DMC riewS oope orwork/ra-les c &tz and spmval 11104 4/110

to implealnt pC d v0en tca t p (a. @L 3 moods)

* RGE jafos c0trainen pMrVn* 4M1/04 9/301D4

* Witi 6 wooths ofstudy completion a flln report Is ubmited 10/1104 41//O5

After an unspecified amoue of tie DEC provid determination 411/05 lo/Ifis

of any adae eny. impct (EL 6 month ....

1 DEC defermites ay ation Is "Squmd O RGEI put thcn, 1005 71/06

within P months of DEC noriicati, RGE wat sobralt an hIa ke

atcclologM rep disctuslnS rnigaiu dteroarives

*After an unaccificd armmut of time DEC determines, from the 71106 1,1/07

*sernostiv provided, the appropmale mtigationa. (elt at 6 months).

* Within 12 months ofDEC approl, RGE xibmits pln andm . fIn/07 1/1l0t

whethale of consuction orthe nkcted alternstive(s).

Additdonal Rxqvlrei 117

a ESL Task 2 SW Date End Dne

* SPDES Effective Duo of Modificaion up1n ccc7l/03 7/1103

* Submittal dateof Scope of Work forthe Literature 7/1103 1/1/04

review report to DEC

* Final rept duvto DEC within 12 months of DEC approval '1/104 in/os5

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-1 08 January 2004
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The statement was

prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other

NRC organizations and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Representatives of

Lawrence Livermore' National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Argonne National

Laboratory, Energy Research,' Inc.,'and the Information Systems Laboratory also participated in

the review.

Name Affiliation ' Func1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

tion or Expertise

John Tappert Section Chief

Robert Schaaf Project Manager

Jennifer Davis Historic and Archaeological Resources,

Project Support

Barry Zalcman Environmental Program Manager

Michael Masnik Ecology

Gregory Suber Project Management

James Wilson Ecology, Altematives

Robert Palla Severe Accident Mitigation Altematives

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYVa)

Duane Neitzel Task Leader

Daniel Tano Deputy Task Leader

Amoret Bunn Aquatic Ecology

Katherine Cort Socioeconomics, Alternatives

James Droppo Air Quality

J. Van Ramsdell Air Quality

Michael Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology, Altematives

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

Cary Counts Technical Editor

Barbara Wilson Publications Assistant

Debora Schulz Document Design

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(b)

Charlotte Van Warmerdam Radiation Protection

January 2004 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix B

Los Alamos National Laboratory(c)

Daniel Pava Land Use

Argonne National Laboratory(d)

Bruce Verhaaren Historical and Archeological Resources

Information Systems Laboratory

Kimberly Green Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

James Meyer Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle

Memorial Institute.

(b) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

(c) Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

(d) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the DOE by the University of Chicago.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 B-2 January 2004
Appendix C

Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's

Application for License Renewal of

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Appendix C

Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's

Application for License Renewal of

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, of

RG&E's application for renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) operating

license (OL). All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information,

have been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public

Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following web address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's'

Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and

image files of NRC's public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of

ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included below.

July 30, 2002

July 30, 2002

August 9, 2002

August 13, 2002

August 14, 2002

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to NRC, submitting the

application for the renewal of the Ginna OL

(Accession No. ML022210378)

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to New York State

Department of State Division of Coastal Resources, concerning the

coastal management program consistency certification for Ginna

(Accession No. ML022490337)

Letter from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

to RG&E, regarding Notice of Complete Application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML022470358)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Carolyn Johnson, Rochester Public Library,

concerning the maintenance of reference material for the Ginna license

renewal application (Accession No. ML022260288)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Laura Viau, Ontario Public Library, regarding the

maintenance of reference material for the Ginna license renewal

application (Accession No. ML022260497)

January 2004 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix C

August 19, 2002

October 7, 2002

October 7, 2002

November 1, 2002

I November 1, 2002

November 1, 2002

I November 1, 2002

I November 1, 2002

November 1, 2002

I November 1, 2002

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, regarding the receipt

and availability of the license renewal application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML022320189)

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, concerning the Notice

of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct

scoping process for license renewal for Ginna (Accession

No. ML022810077)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Raymond Mosely, Director, Office of the Federal

Register, concerning the Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental

impact statement and conduct scoping process for license renewal for

Ginna (Accession No. ML022810365)

Comment letter from Mr. Frank J. Guelli, Supervisor, Town of Walworth,

concerning the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No.

ML030230704)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Leroy Howard, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of

Oklahoma, pertaining to the license renewal application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML023180609)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Irving Powles, Jr., Onondaga Nation, regarding

the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023180634)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Vernon Isaac, Cayuga Nation of New York,

concerning the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No.

ML023180647)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Cyrus Schindler, Seneca Nation of New York,

pertaining to the license-renewal application for Ginna (Accession

No. ML023180681)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Raymond Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation of

New York, concerning license renewal application for Ginna (Accession

No. ML023190078)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Kevin Jonathan, Tonawanda Band of Senecas,

regarding license renewal application for Ginna (Accession

No. ML023190126)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 C-2 January 2004
Appendix C

November 1, 2002

November 1, 2002

November 1, 2002

November 27, 2002

December 2, 2002

December 11, 2002

December 17, 2002

December 23, 2002

December 26, 2002

January 6, 2003

Letter from NRC to Mr. Leo R. Henry, Tuscarora Nation, pertaining to

license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023190139)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Hilda Smoke, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,

concerning the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No.

ML023190147)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Gerald Danforth, Oneida Tribe of Indians of

Wisconsin, relating to the license renewal application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML023190171)

Letter from NRC to Mr. David A.'Stilwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

requesting comment on the license renewal application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML023330475)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia-A. Kurkul, National Marine Fisheries

Service, seeking comment on the license renewal application for Ginna

(Accession No. ML023450622)

Comment letter from NYSDEC to NRC pertaining to the license renewal

application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023600074)

Summary of November 6, 2002, public scoping meetings for the RG&E

license renewal application for Ginna (Accession N6. ML023530096)

Also includes transcripts from public meetings held November 6, 2002

(ML023530107 [afternoon session] and ML023530120 [evening session])

'Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, submitting supplemental'

information to support the NRC staff's environmental review of the license

renewal application for Ginn'a (Accession No. ML030140009)

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, requesting additional

information regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna

(Accession No. ML023600233)

Comment letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to Ginna's

license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML030150605)

l

I

I

January 2004 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix C

I January 14, 2003

January 23, 2003

January 23, 2003

January 31, 2003

I February 26, 2003

February 28, 2003

March 13,2003

I April 16, 2003

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, concerning request

for additional information related to the staff's review of the license

renewal Environmental Report for Ginna (Accession No. ML030140526)

Letter from NYSDEC to RG&E concerning 401 Water Quality Certification

- Notice of Incomplete Application (Accession No. ML030560894)

Letter from NYSDEC to RG&E concerning SPDES Permit Modification

Issuance (Accession No. ML030370414)

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, in response to NRC letter of

December 26, 2002, request for additional information regarding severe

accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna (Accession No. ML030410599)

Letter from Ms. Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC to Robert Schaaf, NRC,

regarding the Master Habitat Database Report for Wayne County

(Accession No. ML031220483)

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, providing additional

information in response to NRC letter of December 26, 2002, requesting

additional information regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives

for Ginna (Accession No. ML030660225)

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to NRC responding to the

staff's request for additional information related to the environmental

review for Ginna (Accession No. ML030800562)

Letter from Ms. Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC, to J. Prill, RG&E,

regarding NYSDEC-initiated addition of a thermal study associated with

the license renewal for Ginna (Accession No. ML031150328)

Memo from Mr. Robert G. Schaaf, NRC, to file, regarding

telecommunication with RG&E to clarify responses to NRC requests for

additional information concerning severe accident mitigation alternatives

(Accession No. ML031340302)

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, requesting comments

on the draft Ginna-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement (Accession No. ML031770053)

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

May 8, 2003

June 25, 2003

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 C-4 January 2004
Appendix C

June 25, 2003

June 25, 2003

June 27, 2003

July 2, 2003

July 2, 2003

July 22, 2003

August 15, 2003

September 12, 2003

September 15, 2003

September 16, 2003

Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, regarding the notice

of availability of the Ginna-specific'supplement to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement (Accession No. ML031760849)

Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the

filing of the Draft Supplement 14 to the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement relating to Ginna (Accession No. ML031770029)

Letter from Ms. Kimberly A. Merchant, NYSDEC, to Mr. Joseph Widay,

RG&E, regarding the final modified State Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (SPDES) permit issued for the operation of Ginna

(Accession No. ML031950165)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York

State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation concerning

Ginna license renewal review and the National Historic Preservation Act

(Accession No. ML031830927)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Kathleen Mitchell, Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer, Seneca Nation of Indians, pertaining to Ginna license renewal

review and the National Historic Preservation Act (Accession

No. ML031830858)

NRC Press Release announcing public meetings to discuss the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement related to Ginna license renewal

(Accession No. 032030526)

Comment letter from Mr. Peter Mitchell concerning the license renewal of

Ginna (Accession No. ML032410481)

Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to NRC providing comments

on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Ginna

(Accession No. ML032970502)

Comment letter from Mr. Andrew L. Raddant, U.S. Department of the

Interior, to NRC regarding Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement for Ginna (Accession No. ML032661229)

Comment e-mail from Mr. Paul M. Sawyko regarding renewal of Ginna

(Accession No. ML032960412)

I

I

I

I

January 2004 C-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix C

I September 18, 2003

I September 26, 2003

I October 10, 2003

Letter from Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, providing comments relating to the license renewal of Ginna

(Accession No. ML032690165)

Comment letter from Ms. Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC, regarding the

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Ginna

(Accession No. ML032880126)

Comment letter from Ms. Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC, regarding

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Water Quality Certification for Ginna

(Accession No. ML032950551)

I November 5, 2003 E-mail from Greg Atseff, Wayne Central School District, to Katherine

Cort, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, providing information

regarding Wayne Central School District tax levies. (Accession No.

ML033350294)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 C-6 January 2004
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the staff's independent review of environmental impacts from operations

during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were

contacted:

Cayuga Nation of New York, Versailles, New York

Department of Human Development, Cornell Migrant Program, Alton, New York

Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, Rochester, New York

Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester, New York

Monroe County Planning and Development Department, Rochester, New York

National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts

New York State Department of State, Albany, New York

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Avon, New York

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York

Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Oneida, New York

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin

Onondaga Nation, Nedrow, New York

Salvation Army, Newark, New York

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma

Seneca Nation of New York, Irving, New York

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Hogansburg, New York

Tonawanda Band of Senecas, Basom, New York

January 2004 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix D

Town of Monroe, Monroe, New York

Town of Ontario Assessor, Ontario, New York

Town of Ontario Supervisor, Ontario, New York

Tuscarora Nation, Lewiston, New York

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, New York

Wayne Central School District, Ontario Center, New York

Wayne County Economic Development Corporation, Lyons, New York

Wayne County Historian, Lisle, New York

Wayne County Emergency Management System, Lyons, New York

Wayne County Nursing Home, Lyons, New York

Wayne County Planning Department, Lyons, New York

Wayne County Real Property Tax Services, Lyons, New York

Wayne County Workforce Development, Lyons, New York

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 D-2 January 2004
Appendix E

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence
Appendix E

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence

Correspondence received during the evaluation process of the application for renewal of the

operating license for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is identified in Table E-1. Copies of the

correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

regional, and local authorities for Ginna are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence

Source Recipient Date of Letter

New York State Department of Rochester Gas and Electric October 31, 2001

Parks, Recreation, and Historic Corporation (D. J. Mooney)

Preservation (R. L. Pierpont)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service November 27, 2002

Commission (P. T. Kuo) (D. A. Stilwell)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory National Marine Fisheries Service December 2, 2002

Commission (P. T. Kuo) (P. A. Kurkul)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 6, 2003

(D. A. Stilwell) Commission (P. T. Kuo)

New York State Department of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory February 26, 2003

Environmental Conservation Commission (R. Schaaf)

(K. Merchant)

January 2004 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
z

C

:1)

m

G)

I

-Pj

CA

3

CD

4

Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

'a

CD

CL

x

m

I

I

I

I

rn

Expiration

Agency Authority Description Number Date Remarks

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license, DPR-18 09/18/2009 Authorizes operation of

Ginna Plant.

FWS Endangered Species Act, Consultation FWS letter included in

Section 7 Appendix E.

(33 USC 1341)

New York State Office of Section 106 of the Consultation Letter from Ruth The National Historic

Parks, Recreation and National Historic Pierpoint, Historic Preservation Act requires

Historic Preservation Preservation Act Preservation Federal agencies to take

(16 USC 4701) Field Services into account the effect of

Bureau to RG&E, any undertaking on any

10131/2001 district, site, building,

structure, or object that is

included in or eligible for

inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places.

The New York State Office

of Parks, Recreation and

Historic Preservation,

Historic Preservation Field

Services Bureau determined that renewal of the

Ginna OL will have No

Effect upon cultural

resources in or eligible for

inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places.

U.S. Department of 49 CFR Part 107, Certificate of 062002550003K 06/30/2008 Transportation of

Transportation Subpart G Registration for hazardous materials

Transportation of

Hazardous Materials

CorC

0

0

4
C0)

a

0

Table E-2. (contd)

Expiration

Agency Authority Description Number Date Remarks

New York State Department Federal Coastal Zone Consistency Submitted State must concur with or

of State Management Act Determination on object to the applicant's

(16 USC 1451 etseq.) 07/30/2002 certification.

NYSDEC NYS ECL Article 40 Hazardous Substance 8-000170 0711812005

Bulk Storage

Registration Certificate

NYSDEC NYS ECL Part 675 Water Withdrawal NYGLWR- 07/10/2004 Water withdrawal from

Registration 0002810 Lake Ontario/Renewal

submitted 6/24/02.

NYSDEC NYS ECL 11-0515 (1), New York State Fish LCP02-722 12/31/2003 Collection and possession

6 NYCRR Part 175 and Wildlife License of fish and wildlife.

NYSDEC Clean Water Act (CWA), State Pollution NY-0000493 02/01/2008 Documents compliance

Section 402 (33 USC Discharge Elimination with CWA standards;

1341); NYS ECL Title 8 System (SPDES) Permit Discharge of wastewaters

of Article 17 to waters of the State.

NYSDEC Clean Water Act (CWA), 401 Certification 8-5434- 09/18/2029 Compliance with CWA.

Section 401 (33 USC 00010/00010

1341); NYS ECL Title 8

of Article 17

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SPDES -State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NYCRR - New York Code of Rules and Regulations

NYS - New York State

NYS ECL- New York State Environmental Conservation Law

NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOS -New York State Department of State

USC -United States Code

I

I

I

I

I

z

CZ

G)

CA)

Cn

CD

CD

-91

-O

CD

:3

mL
Appendix E

4 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau

,&w yo~srArE g Peebles island, PO Box 189, Waterlord, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643

frw ere~ CM-WrO

October 31. 2001

Dennis J. Mooney

Principal Environmental Analyst

Rochester Gas and Elctrizc Corporation

89 East Avenue

Rochester. New York 14649-0(1

I)ear Mr. Mooney:

Re: NRC

Ginna ,ucIear Power PlantI2640 Lake

Rd/Extend License

Ontario/Wayne County

OIPR5031

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Officec

(SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 or the National Ilistoric

Preservation Act of 19(6.

Based upoit our review, it is the Si l'O's opinion that your project will have No Effect

upon cultural resources in or eligibie for inclusion in the National Reristcr of llistoric Places.

If further correspondence is required regarding this project. please he sure to refcr to the

OI'RI 11' Iroject Review (PR) nurnbcr noted above.

Sincerely.

Oak, .~ P 4,1rT

Ruth L Pierpont

Director

Rl.P: cmp

An Equal Oppontuniy/Affirrrarve Action Agency

0 D-"'@@ *tn .K1D

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-4 January 2004
Appendix E

November 27, 2002

Mr. David A. Stilwell

Field Supervisor,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3817 Luker Road

Cortland, NY 13045

SUBJECT: R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT APPLICATION FOR OPERATING

LICENSE RENEWAL

Dear Mr. Stilwell:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application for the renewal of

the operating license for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), located in the Town of

Ontario, Wayne County, New York. As part of the review of the license renewal application, the

NRC is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) which includes

analyses of pertinent environmental issues, including endangered or threatened species and

impacts to fish and wildlife.

While preparing its application, Rochester Gas and Electric, contacted your office by letter

dated 23 January 2002, and your office responded on 25 February, 2002. In the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) response letter, It was Indicated that there are no known listed or

proposed threatened or endangered species, nor candidates for such listing in the vicinity of the

Ginna plant, or its associated transmission right-of-way. The NRC reviewed the available

information concerning threatened or endangered species that may occur in New York,

inspected the Ginna site, and contacted the New York Department of Environmental

Conservation concerning New York State listed species. Based on its analysis, the NRC has

concluded, that consistent with your determination in your letter of 25 February 2002, that no

federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, any candidate for such listing,

nor any designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species are known from the

site or the associated transmission corridors. Therefore, the renewal of the license will not

effect any Federally protected species.

The NRC requests FWS comment on any aspects of the license renewal application that may

fall under other legislation or FWS authority. Such comment Is especially important during the

scoping period of the environmental review. The NRC has inspected the site and has consulted

the National Wetland Database, and has determined that the proposed action will not impact

any wetlands. NRC staff has also met with the New York Department of Environmental

Conservation concerning potential water use, water quality, fisheries, and other environmental

impacts.

January 2004 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix E

D. Stilwell - 2 -

Your office will receive a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for comments when it is

published. If you have any questions concerning the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the

license renewal application, or other aspects of this project, please contact Mr. Robert Schaaf.

Project Manager, at (301) 415-1312 or by email at RGS~nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-244

cc: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-6 January 2004
Appendix E

December 2, 2002

Patricia A, Kurkul, Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office (NERO)

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR THE

R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Dear Ms. Kurkul:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is evaluating an application submitted by

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for the renewal of the operating license for the

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), located on the south shore of Lake Ontario in

Wayne County, New York. The NRC is preparing a site-specific supplement to its "Generic

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

this proposed license renewal, for which we are required to evaluate potential impacts to

threatened and endangered species.

The proposed action would include use and continued maintenance of existing facilities and

transmission lines, and would not result in new construction or disturbance. The Ginna plant

and the associated transmission corridor, that is under review as part of the license renewal

application, is located in Wayne County, New York. The transmission corridor is approximately

3 2 miles long and is 500 feet in width. The plant uses once-through cooling water from

Lake Ontario to remove waste heat from the facility.

To support the environmental impact statement preparation process, and to ensure compliance

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests a list of species and

information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in

the vicinity of the Ginna plant and its associated transmission lines.

January 2004 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix E

P. Kurkul - 2 -

The NRC requests NMFS comment on any aspects of the license renewal application that may

fall under other legislation or NMFS authority. Such comment is especially important during the

scoping period of the environmental review. If you have any questions regarding this nuclear

facility or the application. please contact Mr. Robert Schaaf. Project Manager, at

(301) 415-1312 or by email at RGS~nrc.gov.

Sincerely.

IRAI

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

Ucense Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No: 50-244

cc: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-8 January 2004
Appendix E

a' * United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

3817 Luker Road

Cortland, NY 13045

January 6,2003

Mr. Pao-Tsin Kuo

Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..-...---Washington;-DG-20555-0001-- -

Attention: Mr. Robert Schaaff

Dear Mr. Kuo:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter dated November 27, 2002,

regarding the relicensing of the RE. GinnaNuclear Power Plant. The applicant, Rochester Gas

and Electric (Rq&E), proposes to renew the operating license for this facility which will expire

December 18, 2009. This 5rojecf is located in thi Town of Ontario, Wayne.County;New York.

Your letter requested the Service' commetnts on aspects of the license renewal that may affect

fish and wildlife resources. However, the letter did not indicate when the comment period

terminated for this scoping effort. Mr. Robert Schaff of your office stated comments should be

submitted in early January 2003. The applicant and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

will review comments and incorporate them into a Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS).

It is our understanding from reviewing project documents located on the NRC internet site, that

no physical modifications are anticipated to the Ginna facility during the 20-year term of the next

license. In addition. no-operating changes arV ppoqsed at this time. The facility currently_

generates electricity for sale and distribution in Western New York State.

This report of the Service and the Department of the Interior is submitted for project planning

purposes. Comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended;

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) were previously submitted in a letter dated February 25, 2002. We may

provide additional comments pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Fish and

Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) in the future,

particularly during the SETS review period.

Fish entrainment and impingemenit occurring from power plant water intake systems kill millions

of fish every year in New York. The Environmental Report prepared for this project indicates

that fish, fish eggs; and larvae euntrawinmit-and impingement have been evaluated by the

I . ....

January 2004 E-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix E

applicant and that the problem is not significant. However, the existing entrainment study was

completed in 1977 and is too old to accurately reflect current conditions. Considerable changes

may have occurred to the lake ecosystem during the 25 years since the study was completed.

Additional information is required to reflect the current biological conditions of Lake Ontario.

The applicant should conduct a multi-seasonal study which involves the collection of

representative ichthyoplankton data from the water intake system. This study should focus on the

collection of all fish life stages which are susceptible to entrainment and impingement. Details

of the study should be coordinated with this office and the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

To mitigate the effects of impingement and entrainment, the applicant should evaluate measures

to reduce fish inWury and mortality such as the feasibility of installing a boom which will

minimize fish impingement and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae in the cooling water intake

structures A filter boom, such as the Gunderboom System, can prevent fish larvae and eggs

. from enteringthe water take-pipes-.-ishlarve.eggs, and debris are-removed-and released - - -

downstream of the boom with small bursts of air along the length of the filter. This system is

currently being used at three other major power plants in New York and has been determined to

be the Best TechnologyAvailable, where its use is feasible. We recommend the applicant fully

evaluate this system for this facility and document this evaluation in the SEIS .

It is our understanding that erosion is progressing at both ends of the project shoreline. Existing

protection measures are not completely effective. The NYSDEC has indicated that a survey is

needed to determine the extent of the problem and that remedial action may be necessary.

Rochester Gas and Electric should consider the use of measures other than hard structures (i.e.

riprap) to control the erosion problem. Instead of hard structures, we recommend that

biotechnical erosion controls be used for this project, if feasible. We believe that biotechnical

erosion controls are the most effective means to limit erosion and also provide habitat for fish,

wildlife, and invertebrates. This technique uses vegetation to control erosion in a buffer between

the water and upland (Fuller, 1997). The buffer should extend from the water as far inland as

possible. If hard structures are necessary, we believe the applicant could use articulated concrete

block or riprap in combination with planting erosion controlling vegetation. This vegetation

should include native plant species which will benefit wildlife such as dwarf willow (Salix

cottetii), grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), arrowwood

viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), and other appropriate species. The use of vegetation will be

.-- more.beneficial for wildlife andnbe more aesthetic than barerippp_

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project during the scoping process.

We hope these comments are useful during your project review. We will continue to work with

your agency during the relicensing process and review of the SEIS.

2

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-1 0 January 2004-
Appendix E

Please contact Timothy Sullivan at 607-753-9334 if there are any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

-...

David A. Stilwell

Field Supervisor

cc: NYSDEC, Avon, NY (Environmental Permits)

EPA, Water Programs Division, New York, NY

Literature Cited:

FPlIer,.D.R.J997 Und t"th,.&Controlling.Shorclinc Erosion:-A7Guidebbok

for Shoreline Property Owners. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Conway, MI.

Nuclear Regulatory Cormmission Internet Site at www.nrc.ov

Gunderboom, Inc. Internet Site at www.gunderboom.com

3

January 2004 E-1 1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix E

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Environmental Permits, Region 8 _ 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, New York 14414-9519

Phone: (585) 226-2466 * FAX: (585) 226-2830

Website: www.decmstate.ny.us ECn M. Crotty Commissioner

February 26, 2003

Mr. Robert Schaaf

Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop o-l IFI

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Re: Master Habitat Database Report for Wayne County

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operating License Renewal

RG&E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Dear Mr. Schaaf:

Mr. Michael Sackschewsky, of the Battelle National Laboratory, requested a report of the natural

resources of concern, including all the threatened, endangered, protected, and rare species, in Wayne

County, from our Master Habitat Database. The purpose of this letter is to convey this information. In

addition, Mr. Sackschewsky requested a mammal list for Wayne County. We provided him with a New

York State mammal list from our web site, however, we do not have a mammal list by county.

I have enclosed two tables; Table I includes the sensitivity ranking, the scientific name, the common

name, the location, the date of the most recent siting, the element type (animal vs. plant) and the New

York State Listing (endangered, threatened, rare, protected, or protected); Table 2 includes the sensitivity

ranking, the scientific name and the directions to the site. In addition, I have enclosed a map, generated

in ArcView, which shows the Master Habitat Database theme plotted over Wayne County. I have not

linked the tables and the map data.

All records which are deemed "sensitive" (a Y is listed under the sensitive column) are highly vulnerable

to collection or disturbance. It is the Department's policy to release the location of sensitive sites for

specific project review, however, the information on sensitive sites may not be released to other entities.

Therefore, if you wish to include the attached tables in any public documents, the "name", "location" and

"directions" associated with sensitive species must be removed. For example, if you wish to include the

tables in the supplemental environmental impact statement, the information on the sensitive species must

be redacted. It is acceptable, however, to release the name of a vulnerable species as long as the location

and directions are not provided.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-1 2 January 2004
Appendix E

As we have mentioned in previous correspondence, the Natural Habitat Database does not include any

"hits" for natural resources of concern at the Ginna Nuclear Power facility site.

For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the information provided in the

tables includes records from our databases. We cannot provide definitive statements on the presence or

absence of all rare or state-listed species or natural communities. Therefore, there may be additional

species of concern located in Wayne County. We typically recommend on-site surveys for specific

project sites.

Please contact me directly if you have any questions regarding the enclosed report.

Sincerely,

imberly A. chant

Environmental Analyst I

Enclosure: Master Habitat Database Report (Table I, Table 2, Map)

cc with enclosure: M. Sackschewsky, Battelle National Laboratory

A. Kirsch, NYSDEC, Wildlife

J. Peek, Forestry, NYSDEC

cc: M. Calaban, Bureau of Habitat, NYSDEC, C.O.

W. Pearsall, Fisheries, NYSDEC, Region 8

L. Kuwik, Environmental Permits, NYSDEC, C.O.

J. Nasca, Environmental Permits, NYSDEC, C.O.

W. Little, Legal Division, NYSDEC, C.O.

G. Wrobel, RG&E

P. Sawyko, RG&E

V. Barr, NYSDOS

T. Sullivan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A. Peterson, NYSERDA

January 2004 E-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

The following table lists those environmental issues listed in the' Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996,1 999)(a) and 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant (Ginna) because of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant I

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2 Issue applies to a saltwater

receiving water body,-which

Ginna does not have.

Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling 2 4.3.2.1 Ginna cooling systems do

ponds or cooling towers using makeup 4.4.2.1 not use makeup water from a

water from a small river with low flow) small river with low flow.

AoUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate

life stages heat using cooling towers.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

Heat shock 1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

(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.

January 2004 F-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public health) 2 4.3.6 Issue applies only to heated

(plants using lakes or canals or cooling effluents discharged into a

towers that discharge into a small river) small river.

Microbiological organisms (occupational 1 4.3.6 Ginna does not dissipate

health) heat using cooling towers.

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and 2 4.8.1.1 Ginna uses <100 gpm of

service water, and dewatering; plants 4.8.2.1 groundwater.

that use >100 gpm)

Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using 2 4.8.1.3 Ginna does not dissipate

cooling towers withdrawing makeup 4.4.2.1 heat using cooling towers.

water from a small river)

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney 2 4.8.1.4 Ginna does not have or use

wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.2 Ginna does not have or use

(Ranney wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.1 Ginna is not located near

(saltwater intrusion) saltwater.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling 1 4.8.3 Ginna does not have cooling

ponds in salt marshes) ponds in salt marshes.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling 2 4.8.3 Ginna does not use cooling

ponds at inland sites) ponds.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 Fc2 January 2004
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 4.3.4 Ginna does not dissipate

ornamental vegetation heat using cooling towers.

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 1 4.3.5.1 Issue applies to a heat

dissipation system feature,

cooling towers, which Ginna

does not have.

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 Issue applies to a heat

dissipation system feature,

cooling towers, which Ginna

does not have.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 4.4.4 Ginna does not use cooling

resources ponds.

F.1 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, 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, NRC, Washington, D.C.

January 2004 F-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe

Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

in Support of License Renewal Application
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe

Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power. Plant

in Support of License Renewal Application

G.1 Introduction

Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E) submitted an assessment of severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for the R.E. Ginna (Ginna) Nuclear Power Plant as part of the Ginna

Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002). This assessment was based on the most recent

Ginrna probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite

consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

(MACCS2) code, and insights from the Ginna Individual Plant Examination for External Events

(IPEEE) (RG&E 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs,

RG&E considered SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submitted

license renewal applications, as well as industry and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) documents that discuss potential plant improvements, such as NUREG-1560 (NRC

1997a) and NUREG-1742 (NRC 2002a). RG&E also identified SAMAs that were dominant

contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency' (LERF) based.

on the plant-specific PSA. RG&E assessed the costs and benefits associated with each of the

potential SAMAs and concluded that two of the candidate SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost

beneficial for Ginna.

Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the NRC issued a request for additional

information (RAI) to RG&E by letter dated December 26, 2002 (NRC 2002a). .Key questions

concerned (1) dominant risk contributors at Ginna'and the SAMAs that address these

contributors, (2) the impact on dose consequences if all release categories were considered

rather than just large early release categories, (3) the potential impact of uncertainties on the

study results, and (4) detailed information'on several specific candidate SAMAs. RG&E

submitted additional information on January'31, 2003, and February 28,2003, in response to

the RAI (RG&E 2003a, 2003b). The February 28, 2003, response included a completely

revised SAMA analysis (Section 4.14 and Appendix E of the ER) based on an updated version

of the PSA. In these responses, RG&E provided tables containing the results of importance

analyses, revised results based on the removal of scrubbing of fission product releases, and an

assessment of the impacts of, uncertainties. RG&E's'responses addressed the staff's concerns

and reaffirmed that only two SAMAs would be cost'beneficial.

An assessment of SAMAs for Ginna is presented as follows.

January 2004 G-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

G.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna

RG&E's estimates of offsite risk at Ginna are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary is

followed by the staff's review of RG&E's risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

G.2.1 RG&E's Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

analysis: (1) the Ginna Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the Individual

Plant Examination (IPE) (RG&E 1994, 1997b, 1997c), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite

consequences and economic impacts (essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically

for the SAMA analysis. The Level 1 and 2 PSA used as the basis for the SAMA analysis is the

most recent PSA model of record, and is referred to as Version 4.2. The scope of the Ginna

PSA does not include full consideration of seismic events. However, the dominant fire and

internal flooding sequences are included in the PSA.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 4 x 105 per year.

The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally initiated events at power and at

shutdown, and the dominant external events, specifically, fire and internal flooding at power.

RG&E did not include the contribution of risk from seismic events within the Ginna risk

estimates. It is RG&E's position that due to the recent and extensive evaluations and

modifications performed as part of IPEEE and Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG)

activities, seismic events have been adequately addressed and need not be explicitly treated in

the SAMA analysis (additional discussion provided in Section G.2.2).

The breakdown of CDF by initiating eventlaccident type is provided in Table G-1. Internal

events at power contribute about 33 percent of the total CDF and are composed of (1) steam

generator tube ruptures (15 percent of the total), (2) loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) less

than 5 cm (2 in.) (6 percent of the total), (3) station blackout (SBO) (5 percent of the total),

(4) LOCAs greater than 5 cm (2 in.) (2 percent of the total), and (5) interfacing system LOCAs

and anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) (each about 1 percent of the total) (RG&E

2003b). Shutdown events represent about 17 percent of the total CDF (RG&E 2003b).

External event initiators represent about 50 percent of the total CDF and are composed of fire

initiators (28 percent of the total CDF) and floods (22 percent of the total CDF) (RG&E 2003b).

The Level 2 PSA model has also been updated since the IPE. As'described in the RAI

responses (RG&E 2003b), results from the previous detailed Level 2 analysis were converted to

the simplified LERF methodology described in NUREGICR-6595 (NRC 1999a). In the updated

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-2 January 2004
Appendix G

Table G-1. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Core Damage Frequency (Revision 4.2 of PSA)

Contributor CDF (per year) Percent of Total CDF

Internal Events - At Power

Transients 1.0 x 104 3

Station Blackout (SBO) 2.1 x 10.6 5

Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 2.0 x 1 0- 1

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 6.0 x 1046 15

Loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) <2 inches 2.6 x 1046 6

LOCAs >2 inches 7.0 x10 2

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.5 x 1 0' 1

Internal Events - Shutdown 6.8 x 1046 17

CDF from Internal events 2.0 x 105 50

External Events

Fire 1.1 x 10-5 28

Flood 8.8 x 104 22

CDF from external events 2.0 x 10'5 50

Total CDF 4.0 x 105 100

analysis, the 25 source term categories (STCs) used in the IPE were rebinned into 11 release

category bins, each of which was assigned a representative source term based on the original

MAAP analyses performed for the IPE. The conditional probabilities and release characteristics

associated with each release category were provided in response to an RAI (RG&E 2003b). An

explanation of the binning process and a mapping of the STCs to release category bins was

also provided (RG&E 2003c).

The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MELCOR MACCS2 code,

Version 1.12, to determine the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public.

Inputs for this analysis include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide

inventory, source term and release characteristics, site meteorological data,' projected

population distribution (within a 80-km [50-mi] radius) for the year 2030, emergency response

evacuation modeling, and economic data.

In the ER, RG&E estimated the dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site to

be approximately 0.163 person-sievert (Sv) (16.300 person-rem) per year (RG&E 2003b). The

breakdown of the total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in

January 2004 G-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

Table G-2. Bypass events (steam generator tube rupture [SGTR] and interfacing system

loss-of-coolant accident (ISLOCA]) and late containment failures dominate the population dose

risk at Ginna.

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

Population Dose

Person-Sv Person-Rem Percent

Containment Release Mode Per Year Per Year Contribution

SGTR(a) 0.063 6.3 39

ISLOCAs 0.044 4.4 27

Early containment failure 0.020 2.0 12

Late containment failure(b) 0.030 3.0 19

No containment failure 0.006 0.6 3

Total 0.163 16.300 100

(a) Includes thermally induced SGTR.

(b) Includes contribution from shutdown events.

G.2.2 Staff's Review of RG&E Risk Estimates

RG&E's determination of offsite risk at Ginna is based on the following three major elements of

analysis:

* the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1994 IPE and 1997 IPEEE

submittals (RG&E 1994,1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1998a. 1998b, 1998c)

* the major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the Ginna PSA

* the MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from

the level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures.

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of RG&E's risk estimates

for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below.

The staff's review of the Ginna IPE is described in an NRC report dated September 16, 1997

(NRC 1997b). In that review, the staff evaluated the methodology, models, data, and

assumptions used to estimate the CDF and characterize containment performance and fission

product releases. The staff concluded that RG&E's analyses met the intent of Generic Letter

88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the IPE was of adequate quality to be used to look for design or

operational vulnerabilities. The staff's review primarily focused on the licensee's ability to

examine Ginna for severe accident vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings or

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-4 January 2004
Appendix G

quantification estimates. Overall, the staff believed that the Ginna IPE was of adequate quality

to be used as a tool in searching for areas with high potential for risk reduction and to assess

such risk reductions, especially when the risk models are used in conjunction with insights,

such as those from risk importance, sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses.

In the IPE, RG&E identified five vulnerabilities as follows:

1. Relays for steam generator low-level actuation of auxiliary feedwater (AFW). The relays for

this signal must be energized to actuate the AFW; however, they are currently powered by a

non-safety bus that is unavailable upon a loss of offsite power.

2. ISLOCA through penetration 111. A LOCA outside containment through penetration 111

fails all residual heat removal (RHR) due to the low elevation of the RHR pump pits.

3. Standby AFW system out-of-service activities. Currently, both trains of this system can be

taken out of service for up to 7 days; however, it is credited for providing steam generator

cooling water for certain LOCAs outside containment.

4. Charging pump suction. Upon loss of dc control power or instrument air, the charging pump

suction line fails to open the volume control tank, which may be empty because its supply

source will have been eliminated as a result of the loss of power or air.

5. Intermediate building ventilation. The preferred AFW pumps are located in the basement of

the intermediate building, which is ventilated via either building exhaust fans or natural

circulation from a fire door opening; however, only one train of the exhaust fans is powered

by the emergency diesel generators.

In an RAI, the staff questioned the current status of these vulnerabilities and whether any

unresolved vulnerabilities were included in the SAMA evaluation. In response to the RAI,

RG&E stated that items 1 and 3 had been resolved through plant modifications. Items 2 and 4,

although considered by RG&E to be adequately addressed based on further review under the

IPE program, are covered by SAMAs 3, 4, and 5. RG&E indicated that item 5 was originally

identified as a result of overly conservative assumptions in the PSA model, and based on a

more realistic assessment, it was reduced to a no-action status (RG&E 2003a). The staff

inquired further about the conservative assumptions contained in the model. During a

telephone conversation, RG&E explained that there are two methods of accomplishing

ventilation within the intermediate building: (1) natural circulation via Fire Door F36 and (2)

forced ventilation by the intermediate building exhaust fans (NRC 2003). Because only one

train of the exhaust fans are diesel generator-backed, the three AFW pumps rely on the

passive cooling in an SBO event in which the diesel generator is inoperable. A reanalysis of the

January 2004 G-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

building's ventilation determined that no active cooling is required for AFW; therefore, this item

is no longer an item of concern.

The IPE also identified an issue associated with the dc electrical configuration that could result

in a common mode failure of the pressurizer power-operated relief valves (PORVs). This was

corrected during a subsequent outage.

A comparison of internal events risk profiles between the IPE and the PSA used in the SAMA

analysis indicates a decrease of approximately 3.7 x 10 5per year in the total CDF (about a

factor of two). The reduction is attributed to plant and modeling improvements that have been

implemented at Ginna since the IPE was submitted. A summary listing of those changes that

resulted in the greatest impact on the total CDF was provided in response to an RAI

(RG&E 2003b), and include:

* Relocated the service water (SW) piping that ran through the two battery rooms. This

change eliminates the potential loss of both battery rooms due to failure to isolate SW

line breaks in this area, which was the largest contributing CDF sequence.

* Modified procedures to avoid situations in which both trains of standby auxiliary

feedwater (SAFW) could be taken out of service at the same time, thereby improving

the ability to provide steam generator cooling in the event of a high-energy line break in

the intermediate or turbine building.

* Revised the "Alternate Shutdown for Control Complex Fire" procedure to also apply to

relay room floods. Previously, the procedure only addressed fire.

* Developed a new procedure to instruct plant personnel to manually close the Bus 18

breakers to prevent a SBO condition in the event of a worst-case fire.

* Updated generic data sources for initiating events, including the use of WCAP-15210

(WEC 1999) and NUREG/CR-5750 (NRC 1999b).

* Added plant-specific data for component failure rates, test and maintenance

unavailabilities, and initiating event frequencies, and refined the Bayesian updating

process.

* Increased frequencies for loss of offsite power to include all severe weather events, and

included ISLOCAs whose frequencies previously fell below the threshold level for

detailed analyses.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-6 January 2004
Appendix G

* Updated the human reliability analysis to provide detailed evaluations of more events in

lieu of screening values.

* Removed conservatism for common cause failures that can induce initiators such as

loss of service water, component cooling'water, and instrument/service air.

* Added fires, internal floods, and shutdown risk models to the fault trees to enable their

solution and risk ranking. Removed loss of spent fuel pool cooling and fuel-handling

accidents and analyzed separately, because they do not lead to core damage.

The modeling changes from the IPE version to the current PSA are significant. Some

contributors such as transients (previously a 25 percent contribution to internal events CDF)

were significantly reduced. For example, the use of updated event frequencies significantly

decreased the CDF from large LOCA, and plant changes such as a modification to the service

water piping in battery rooms eliminated the largest contributor to CDF. Given the magnitude of

the plant and model changes, the overall reduction in CDF appears to be reasonable.

The IPE CDF value for Ginna is comparable to most of the original IPE values estimated for

other pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with a large dry containment. Figure 11.6 of

NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total internal events CDF for two-loop Westinghouse

plants ranges from 5 x 1 0-5 to 1.2 x 1 04 per reactor-year (NRC 1 997a). The internal events

CDF based on the latest PSA (approximately 1.3 x 1 04 per year for events 'at power) is lower

than the IPE values for other two-loop plants. However, it is recognized that other plants in

addition to Ginna have reduced the values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals through

modeling and hardware changes.

The staff considered the peer review performed for the Ginna PSA, and the potential impact of

the peer review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In response to an RAI (RG&E 2003b), RG&E

described the recent peer review of the Ginna PSA model. In preparation for a Westinghouse

Owners Group peer review, an assessment of the Ginna PSA was performed by RG&E, the

findings of which resulted in Revision 4.1.' Revision 4.1 of the PSA model was reviewed by the

Westinghouse Owners Group in May 2002. As a result of the peer review, RG&E updated the

PSA to correct the most significant findings and observations. The updated model is referred to

as Revision 4.2. According to RG&E, a few of the peer review comments were not incorporated

into the current version of the PSA; however, those comments were evaluated and judged to

have minimal impact of the plant CDF and no impact on the SAMA analysis (RG&E 2003c).

Two high-level peer review items that were not addressed in the PSA but that could impact the

SAMA analysis relate to the use of fission product scrubbing factors in the determination of

source terms for bypass events. RG&E explicitly addressed these comments in the SAMA

analysis by removing credit for scrubbing.

January 2004 G-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

Ginna has two reactor coolant pumps (RCPs), each equipped with qualified high-temperature

O-rings. The staff questioned RG&E regarding the model used to evaluate RCP seal LOCAs

during loss-of-seal cooling events (NRC 2002a, 2003). The model used in Revision 4.2 is a

composite based on (1) the original Westinghouse RCP Seal LOCA model developed in

WCAP-10541 (WEC 1986), (2) the RCP Seal LOCA model employed by the NRC in NUREG1150 (NRC 1990), (3) the Rhodes-based Brookhaven National Laboratory model, and (4) the

most recent Westinghouse RCP Seal LOCA model described in WCAP-1 5603 (RG&E 2003c).

RG&E noted that if the Rhodes model was used, the CDF would be higher by less

thanl percent (RG&E 2003c). Based on RG&E's response, which supports use of the current

model, the staff concludes that no new SAMA candidates would have evolved from application

of the Rhodes model.

RG&E submitted an IPEEE in January 1997 (RG&E 1997c) in response to Supplement 4 of

Generic Letter 88-20. This was followed by a submittal that included the fire analysis

(RG&E 1998a). RG&E did not identify any vulnerabilities to severe accident risk in regard to

the external events related to seismic, fire, or other external events. The Ginna hurricane,

tornado, and high winds analyses show that the plant is adequately designed or procedures

exist to cope with the effects of these natural events. Additionally, the Ginna IPEEE

demonstrated that transportation and nearby facility accidents were not considered to be

significant vulnerabilities at the plant. However, a number of areas were identified for

improvement in both the seismic and fire areas as discussed below. In a letter dated December

21, 2000, the staff concluded that the submittal met the intent of Supplement 4 to Generic

Letter 88-20, and that the licensee's IPEEE process is capable of identifying the most likely

severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2000). A strength noted in the

IPEEE submittal was that Ginna is an Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) plant and was

subjected to a detailed review for SEP, much of which is applicable to IPEEE.

The Ginna IPEEE does not provide the means to determine the numerical estimates of the CDF

contributions from seismic initiators. The seismic portion of the IPEEE consisted of a reducedscope seismic evaluation using the methodology for Seismic Margins Assessment, described in

Electric Power Research Institute NP-6041 (EPRI 1988). Since initial plant licensing, Ginna has

undergone a number of programs addressing seismic design issues, one of which was the

SEP. Under this and other programs, RG&E conducted extensive reevaluations of, and made -

upgrades to, structures, systems, and equipment at Ginna, using a 0.2g Regulatory Guide 1.60

spectrum as seismic input (NRC 1973). These efforts have extended seismic capacity of Ginna

beyond the original seismic design basis.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-8 January 2004
Appendix G

During the IPEEE seismic analysis, RG&E identified five vulnerabilities:

* The house heating boiler, which is located near the service water pumps in the

screenhouse, was not anchored. It could shift and damage the attached natural gas

line.

* There are several locations where block wall failures could result in the release of

combustibles: an oxygen line in the auxiliary building, a hydrogen line and valve station

in the intermediate building, and hydrogen cylinders in the turbine building.

* There are two fire suppression systems that could be actuated by block wall failures:

(1) the manual deluge system in the relay room and (2) both a manual deluge system

and a pre-action sprinkler system on elevation 253 in the intermediate building.

* Block walls are used as fire barriers throughout the plant. The walls whose failure could

impact the fire protection of safety-related equipment are those separating the service

building from the intermediate building (column line 3), and those separating the turbine

building from intermediate building (column line F).

* The two reactor coolant pump oil collecting tanks in the containment basement were not

reviewed during the seismic walkdown because the containment was inaccessible.

These issues were later resolved as a part of the Ginna's IPEEE Fire Analysis by either design

evaluations or design changes (RG&E 1998a).

Additionally, seismic issues were identified for 52 items of equipment (NRC 2002b). Fourteen

of these were resolved as part of the closeout of unresolved safety issue (USI) A-46 (NRC

1987). In response to an RAI, RG&E indicated that the remaining 38 items have been resolved,

and outlined the resolution of all 38 items, a majority of which were resolved by plant

modification (RG&E 2003c). Typical modifications included installation of restraints, hangers,

anchorages, and modifications of anchorages.

RG&E noted that one item still remains open: seismically induced flooding resulting from the

failure of the Reactor Makeup Water Tank (RMWT) and the Monitor Tank (RG&E 2003a). In

response to a staff inquiry regarding why this vulnerability was not addressed in the SAMA

analysis, RG&E indicated that a modification to address this contributor is planned for

implementation in 2005 (NRC 2003). Various design options are being evaluated, including

installation of leak-tight, removable curb around the RHR sub-basement entrance to a level that

would neither pose a flooding danger to the safety injection pumps nor allow the RMWT and

Monitor Tank contents to enter the sub-basement (RG&E 2003c). This item has been entered

January 2004 G-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

into the Plant Change Request (PCR) system and is being tracked in the Commitment and

Action Tracking System as item 10602 (RG&E 2003a).

The Ginna IPEEE fire assessment used a PSA approach to systematically and successively

evaluate fire hazards and their associated risks. The analysis was performed in three phases.

The first two phases, consisting of qualitative and quantitative screening steps, used methods

that are consistent with the Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation methodology, which was

approved for use in NUREG-1407 for screening. The third phase was a detailed fire PSA,

which was performed for fire areas and fire zones that were not screened. A quantification for

fire events in the IPEEE indicated that the contribution to plant CDF from fire was about 3 x10 5

per year.

Based on the analysis, RG&E concluded that there were no fire-induced vulnerabilities.

However, several plant and procedural modifications were identified as a result of the analysis.

The following modification was implemented and was credited in the analysis:

* Fuses will be installed on control circuits routed in the screen house associated with the

functioning of 4160 VAC circuit breakers. The fuses will be designed to open if

grounding occurs during a fire, thus permitting the protective function of the circuit

breakers to remain intact.

Several other modifications were identified by the licensee at the time of the IPEEE submittal,

specifically:

* an operating procedure enhancement for performing local recovery of the pressurizer

heaters if control of the heaters is lost from the control room (the pressurizer heaters are

one means of providing long-term reactor coolant system [RCS] circulation)

* insertion of a warning in the alternate shutdown procedure ER-FIRE-1 to indicate that, in

the event of a spurious opening of motor-operated valve (MOV) 857B (which fails RHR

shutdown cooling), this valve can be closed locally

* installation of additional sealed containers for transient combustibles storage in the

auxiliary building basement

* spurious opening of MOVs 850A and 850B due to hot shorts can lead to draining of the

refueling water storage tank (RWST) volume into the containment sump

* installation of a local pressure gauge to permit RWST level measurement in the event of

fire-induced damage to level instrumentation.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-10 January 2004
Appendix G

In response to NRC questions on the IPEEE submittal, RG&E performed a detailed update of

the fire risk study that included explicitly modeling operator actions and fire suppression

systems. As a result, the above modifications were no longer risk significant and were

dismissed. The results of the update were documented in RG&E's response to an RAI

(RG&E 1999). The staff reviewed the response and concluded that the licensee's submittals

met the intent of the IPEEE process.

Since the time of the IPEEE, further changes to the fire and internal flood analyses have been

made. In response to an RAI, RG&E delineated the significant changes made to these

analyses since the submission of the IPEEE. The changes include:

* The installed fire suppression systems have been explicitly modeled in the fault trees.

* Several human error events have been added, and a few were deleted to reflect more

detailed modeling of specific fire events.

* The model has been revised to reflect a December 2000 plant modification to the

service water piping in battery rooms, which eliminated the largest contributing CDF

sequence.

* Several human error events for floods have been subjected to detailed human error

analysis to yield more accurate values for their probabilities.

* Several flooding initiator frequencies have been revised as well as some new ones

added to model certain zone-specific floods in greater detail.

Based on the current PSA, the contribution to the total CDF from fires is comparable to the CDF

contribution from internal events (approximately 1 x 1 cr5 per year). As such, in an RAI the staff

inquired whether specific SAMAs were considered that might reduce the risk due to fire

(NRC 2002a). In response, RG&E stated that six of the eight candidate SAMAs (SAMA

numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) address elements of internal fire (RG&E 2003a).

Because RG&E included contributions from fire and floods in its base case evaluation, and due

to the extensive efforts made during the IPEEE and SQUG processes to address seismic

issues, the staff finds RG&E's consideration of external events to be acceptable.

Given that RG&E incorporated all relevant and significant comments from the Westinghouse

Owners Group peer review and revised the SAMA analysis accordingly, that RG&E

satisfactorily addressed staff questions regarding the PSA (RG&E 2003a, 2003b, 2003c), and

that the CDF falls within the range of contemporary CDFs for Westinghouse plants with large

January 2004 G-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

dry containments, the staff concludes that the Level 1 and 2 PSA is of sufficient quality to

support the SAMA evaluation.

The staff reviewed the process used by RG&E to extend the containment performance (Level 2)

portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 PSA). This

process included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product

releases for the applicable containment release category and the major input assumptions used

in the offsite consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was used to estimate offsite

consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the Ginna reactor core radionuclide

inventory, emergency evacuation modeling, release category source terms, site-specific

meteorological data, and projected population distribution within a 80-km (50-mi) radius for the

year 2030. This information is provided in Appendix E of the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002).

RG&E used source term release fractions for 11 different release classes defined for Ginna.

Tables 3 and 4 of the RAI responses provide a breakout of the source terms by release

category (RG&E 2003b). The frequencies of the various release classes are based on an

updated version of the IPE, developed consistent with the methodology described in

NUREG/CR-6595. In the updated analysis, the 25 STCs used in the IPE were rebinned into 11

release category bins, each of which was assigned a representative source term based on the

original MAAP analyses performed for the IPE. The binning and assignment of source terms

appears to have been performed in a consistent manner; that is, the release category bins

generally contain STCs with similar release characteristics and timing and are assigned a

source term consistent with these characteristics. A sensitivity study was performed for a

10 percent increase in the quantity of fission products released. (The core inventory was

increased by 10 percent while maintaining the release fractions.) This resulted in a 7 percent

increase in the population dose. RG&E used the 10 percent larger source term as input into

MACCS2 for the base case. The staff concludes that the assignment of source terms is

acceptable for use in the SAMA analysis.

The applicant used site-specific meteorological data processed from hourly measurements as

input to the MACCS2 code. Annual data from 1992 through 1994 were input into the MACCS2

code for the base case. The results showed that the total dose and cost results for the most

severe release category (ISLOCA) are within 12 percent of the average. The data from 1992

yielded results above the average for all release cases and, therefore, was selected and used

as the input. Where data blocks were missing in the source files, supplementary information

was derived from meteorological data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration from the Greater Rochester International Airport, approximately 24 km (15 mi)

west of Ginna. The staff notes that previous SAMA analyses results have shown little sensitivity

to year-to-year differences in meteorological data and considers use of the 1992 data in the

base case to be reasonable.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-12 January 2004
Appendix G

The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

for the year 2030, based on the NRC geographic information system for 1990 (NRC1 997c),

and the population growth rates were based on the 2000 county-level census data. A sensitivity

study was performed by increasing the projected population for 2030 by 10 percent. This

resulted in a greater than 20 percent increase for both offsite dose and economic costs. Due to

this significant increase, RG&E used the 2030 population plus 10 percent in the base case

analysis. The staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating population

reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending 16 km

(10 mi) from the plant. It was assumed that 95 percent of the population would move at an

average speed of approximately 1.8 meters per second (6.0 ft per second) with a delayed start

time of 2 hrs (7200 s). This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1 150 study

(NRC 1990), which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency

planning zone. The evacuation assumptions and analysis are deemed reasonable and

acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

Much of the site-specific economic data were provided by specifying the data for each of the

13 counties surrounding the plant, to a distance of 50 miles. The SECPOP90 site input file was

manually updated to the 2000 timeframe (NRC1 997c). The agricultural economic data were

updated using available data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture supplemented by other data

available through other federal agencies (USDA 1999). These included per value of farm and

non-farm wealth, and fraction of farm wealth from improvements (e.g., buildings).

The staff concludes that the methodology used by RG&E to estimate the offsite consequences

for Ginna, which includes the frequency-weighted contribution from all release categories,

provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk reduction

potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on

the CDF and offsite doses reported by RG&E.

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

improvements evaluated in detail by RG&E are discussed in this section.

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

In the Ginna ER (RG&E 2003b), only eight candidate SAMAs were identified. However, a much

broader set of SAMAs was considered by RG&E to arrive at these eight SAMAs. RG&E

January 2004 G-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

elaborated on its process for identifying potential SAMAs in response to RAls (RG&E 2003a,

2003b, 2003c). The process consisted of the following elements:

* review of SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submittedlicense renewal applications, particularly Fort Calhoun Station

* review of other NRC and industry documentation discussing potential plant

improvements (e.g., NUREG-1560) (NRC 1997a)

* review of potential improvements identified in the plant-specific risk analyses (IPE,

IPEEE, and subsequent PSA revisions)

* a review of the Fussel-Vesely (F-V) and risk achievement worth (RAW) importance

measures, and the dominant CDF and LERF cut sets for Revision 4.2

* insights provided by RG&E plant staff.

Based on this process, 192 candidate SAMAs considered by previous applicants, plus several

plant-specific SAMAs based on the Ginna PSA were identified (RG&E 2003c). RG&E

performed a qualitative screening of the initial list of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further

consideration using the following criteria:

* The SAMA modifies features not applicable to Ginna.

* The SAMA would involve major plant design and/or structural changes that would clearly

be well in excess (greater than two times) of the maximum attainable benefit (MAB).

* The SAMA would provide only minimal risk reduction based on review of F-V and RAW.

This qualitative screening process reduced the list to approximately 20 candidate SAMAs

(RG&E 2003c). These SAMAs were further defined and then reviewed based on the following

considerations:

* ability to implement the change at Ginna (i.e., are there any design challenges or

physical limitations)

* the risk reduction that would realistically be achieved

* whether implementation of the change would increase vulnerabilities in other areas.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-14 January2OO4
Appendix G

This culminated in eight plant-specific candidate SAMAs. These eight SAMAs were further

evaluated, and two SAMAs were found to be potentially cost beneficial, as described below in

Sections G.4 and G.6. RG&E considered the impact of uncertainties on the results of the

SAMA analysis (RG&E 2003a). No additional SAMAs were judged to be cost beneficial

(RG&E 2003b).

G.3.2 Review of RG&E's Process

The preliminary review of the Ginna ER raised concerns regarding the process used to identify

potential SAMAs, and the completeness of the set of SAMAs considered. This was

satisfactorily resolved though the additional information provided by the applicant, as described

above. The staff also requested information regarding whether an importance analysis was

used to confirm the adequacy of the SAMA identification process, and the portion of risk

represented by the dominant risk contributors. In response to the RAI, RG&E provided a

tabular listing of the contributors with the greatest potential for reducing risk as demonstrated by

F-V and RAW assigned to the event. This approach inherently considers the top 95 percent of

the CDF and LERF cut sets. RG&E also reviewed the dominant 50 CDF and LERF cut sets, -

which accounts for the top 45 percent of the CDF cut sets and 75 percent of the LERF cut sets

(RG&E 2003b). Based on this, the staff concludes that RG&E's efforts to identify potential

SAMAs included consideration of areas that presented the greatest potential for reducing risk.

The list of eight SAMAs generally addressed the accident categories that are dominant CDF

contributors or issues that tend to have a large impact on a number of accident sequences at

Ginna.

In the original ER submittal, the estimated MAB was $992,000 (RG&E 2002). During the

screening process, SAMAs whose cost exceeded two times the MAB were removed from

further consideration. The SAMA analysis was subsequently revised to address peer review

comments, and that portion of the ER was resubmitted. As a result, the MAB increased to

$1.93 million. RG&E concluded that the increase in MAB did not result in the identification of

any additional SAMAs. The staff agrees with this conclusion because the initial screening

removed SAMAs that are estimated to cost $2 million or more.

The staff questioned RG&E whether it considered some of the cost beneficial SAMAs identified

at previous plants, specifically, the use of a portable generator to power steam generator level

instrumentation, and improvements to the reactor protection system logic to reduce the

likelihood of failure of two 125 VAC instrument buses causing the spurious opening of the

PORVs (NRC 2003). In a telephone conversation, RG&E stated that such vulnerabilities did not

exist at Ginna due to design differences, or that sufficient battery capacity existed. Ginna is a

4-hour coping plant but has 8-hour capacity batteries (NRC 2003). Based on a review of the

response, the staff agrees with this conclusion.

January 2004 G-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

The staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional, possibly

even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

maintenance, procedures, and training are considered.

The staff concludes that RG&E used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

potential plant improvements for Ginna, and that the set of potential plant improvements

identified by RG&E is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, is acceptable. This search

included reviewing insights from the IPE, IPEEE, and other plant-specific studies; reviewing

plant improvements in previous SAMA analyses; and using the knowledge and experience of its

PRA personnel.

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

RG&E estimated the risk-reduction potential of the eight remaining SAMA candidates that were

applicable to Ginna. RG&E used model requantification to determine the potential benefits.

The CDF and LERF reductions were estimated using the current version of the Ginna PSA

(Revision 4.2). The changes made to the PSA model to quantify the impact of each SAMA are

detailed in Section E.3 of Appendix E to the Ginna ER (RG&E 2003b). Table G-3 provides a

summary of the assumptions used to estimate the risk reduction, the risk reduction in terms of

percent reduction in CDF and population dose, the total benefit (present value) of the averted

risk, and the estimated implementation cost for each of the eight SAMAs. The determination of

the benefits for the various SAMAs is discussed in Section G.6.

In response to an RAI, RG&E considered the uncertainties associated with the calculated CDF.

This matter is discussed further in Section G.6.2.

The staff has reviewed the bases used by RG&E for calculating the risk reduction for the

various plant improvements, and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating

risk reduction are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is

higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of

averted risk for the various SAMAs on risk reduction estimates provided by RG&E.

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

RG&E estimated the costs of implementing the eight candidate SAMAs through the application

of engineering judgment and site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates (presented in

Section E.3 of Appendix E to the Ginna ER) conservatively did not include the cost of

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-1 6 January 2004
Appendix G

Table G-3. SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis

Percent Risk

Reduction Total Estimated

Population Benefit Cost

* - SAMA

1. Obtain a skid-mounted,

480-V diesel generator

that could be directly

connected to one train of the

safeguards buses in the

event of a failure of the two

existing diesel generators."a)

2. Obtain a third fire water

source that is independent of

the existing suction source

for the motor- and dieseldriven fire pumps to be used

in the event of a total loss of

the screen house due to a

fire or flood or loss of all

service water suction due to

environmental causes.

3. Add a standby charging

pump powered from a

protected AC source and

located in the intermediate or

turbine building or SAFW

pump building.

Assumptions

The addition of a skid-mounted,

480-V diesel generator with the'

same failure rate as the existing

diesel generators and a

0.01 operator failure probability to

start and align the diesel

generator can supply the

safeguards bus to reduce SBO

and induced SBO sequences.

The addition of a diesel-driven

pump of comparable size to the

existing motor- and diesel-driven

fire pumps can be connected to

the existing fire system water

piping and used for fire suppression or as a source of suction to

the AFW pumps. The failure rate

of the new pump is assumed to

be the same as the existing

diesel-driven fire pump. A failure

rate of 0.1 is assumed for the

operator action to connect the

pump to the AFW system and

0.01 for the operator action to

align the pump to supply the fire

system during fire events.

Conditions where charging pump

A is out of service or directly ,

failed, large floods that disable all

three charging pumps and a

charging pump room fire can be

mitigated by an additional

charging pump that autostarts on

low flow or pressure; This pump

is assumed to be powered from

Bus 14.

CDF - Dose (S) (S) -

24.8 43.5 944,000 400,000

1.8 3.3 70,000 200,000

11.2 2.5 107,000 1,100,000

January 2004 G-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

Table G-3. (contd)

_~ ~ ~~oa Estiate

Percent Risk

Reduction

Population

CDF Dose

9.1 1.7

SAMA

4. Modify procedures to allow

charging pump B or C to be

manually aligned to Bus 14.

This alignment could be

used to mitigate fires

requiring entry into

procedure OAltemative

Shutdown for Control

Complex Fire" or fires

disabling train B, where the A

charging pump is out of

service or fails to run.(')

5. Add redundant check valves

in the two RHR injection lines

to the RCS to prevent a

LOCA in the auxiliary

building which could not be

isolated.

6. Modify motor-driven AFW

pump cooling system to be

independent of service water

(SW).

Assumptions

Manually aligning the B or C

pump to Bus 14 can reduce all

cut sets in which charging pump

A is out of service or failed

directly. A failure rate of 8.21 x

103 is used for aligning and

starting the pump.

The ISLOCA frequency is

reduced reflecting the new

configuration where failure of the

additional check valve, the

current check valve and the MOV,

or both check valves and an

inadvertent opening of the MOV,

or a spurious safety injection

signal would result in an ISLOCA.

This was applied to the two lines

through Penetration 111. It was

also assumed that for this

penetration LERF is a third of

CDF because a third of the

Penetration 111 piping that would

be exposed to RCS pressure is

inside containment.

All cut sets that involve a loss of

all AFW due to a failure of the

SW suction source or a global

failure of the screen house

equipment due to fire or flooding

will no longer lead to core

damage due to the availability of

the motor-driven pumps.

Total

Benefit

83,000

Estimated

Cost

20,000

0.2 7.7 45,000 1,000,000

1.8 < 1 13,000 200,000

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-18 January 2004
Appendix G

Table G-3. (contd)

Percent Risk

Reduction Total Estimated

Population Benefit Cost

SAMA Assumptions CDF Dose (M) (S)

7. Modify air-operated valve All cut sets that contain the 2.0 < 1 14,000 50,000

(AOV) 11 2C to fail close and operator action to switch over the

AOV 1 12B to fail open on charging suction source from the

loss of instrument air. This VCT to the RWST can be

change would allow the reduced by setting this action to

RWST to become the false (success).

suction source for charging

instead of the volume control

tank (VCT).

8. Reconfigure the PORV so The nitrogen system is available 1.6 < 1 24,000 400,000

they transfer automatically to support the power-operated

from instrument air to N2 on relief valves with a failure

low pressure and convert N2 probability of 4.76 x 103 (the

supply line AOV to DC failure rate of the components in

powered MOV. the nitrogen system). Nitrogen

support system failures were not

included. This is conservative in

that including these failures would

increase the failure probability of

the nitrogen system.

(a) SAMAs judged to be cost beneficial.

replacement power during extended outages required to implement the modifications, nor did

they include recurring maintenance and surveillance costs or contingency costs associated with

unforeseen implementation obstacles. Cost estimates typically included procedures, training,

and documentation, in addition to any hardware.

The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant's cost estimates. For certain improvements, the

staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for

operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. Six of the eight SAMAs were screened

from further consideration on the basis that the expected implementation cost would be much

greater than the estimated risk reduction benefit. This is reasonable for these six SAMAs given

the relatively small estimated benefit (a maximum benefit of about $107,000 among the six

SAMAs), and the sizeable costs typically-associated with hardware modifications. It is noted

that one SAMA (SAMA 7) involves a minimal hardware modification to two valve operators.

However, the estimated benefit for this SAMA ($14,000) 'is small in comparison to the

implementation costs ($50,000), and the actual costs are likely to be higher when all cost

factors are included. The staff concludes that the cost estimates are sufficient and appropriate

for use in the SAMA evaluation.

January 2004 G-1 9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

RG&E's cost-benefit analysis and the staff's review are described in the following sections.

G.6.1 RG&E Evaluation

The methodology used by RG&E was based primarily on NRC's guidance for performing

cost-benefit analysis (NRC 1 997d). The guidance involves determining the net value for each

SAMA according to the following formula:

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE

where,

APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($)

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

COE = cost of enhancement ($).

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA, and it is not considered cost beneficial. RG&E's derivation

of each of the associated costs is summarized below.

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Aperson-remlreactor-year)

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a

7 percent discount rate).

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility.

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, RG&E calculated

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-20 January 2004
Appendix G

an APE of approximately $350,000 for the 20-year license renewal period, which assumes

elimination of all severe accidents.

Averted Offsite Propertv Damage Costs (AOC

The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

AOC = Annual CDF reduction

x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

x present value conversion factor.

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E

calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $87,000 based on the Level 3 risk analysis.

This results in a discounted value of approximately $932,000 for the 20-year license renewal

period.

Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

x occupational exposure per core damage event

x monetary equivalent of unit dose

x present value conversion factor.

RG&E derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997d). Best estimate values provided

for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

(20,000 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these

doses was calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a

monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent,

and a time period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of

initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E calculated an AOE

of approximately $15,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

January 2004 G-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC)

Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted

power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable -

accidents only and not for severe accidents. RG&E derived the values for AOSC based on

information provided in Section 5.7.6 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997d).

RG&E divided this cost element into two parts: (1) the onsite cleanup and decontamination

Cost, also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and (2) the

replacement power cost.

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

x present value conversion factor.

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

the regulatory analysis handbook to be $1.5 x 109 (undiscounted). This value was converted to

present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed

license extension.

Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula:

RPC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of replacement power for a single event

x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

required

x reactor power scaling factor

RG&E based its calculations on the value of 490 MWe, and scaled down from the 910 MWe

reference plant in NUREG/BR-01 84 (NRC 1997d). Therefore, RG&E applied a power scaling

factor of 490 MWe/910 MWe to determine the replacement power costs. For the purposes of

initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E calculated an RPC

of approximately $169,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E

calculated an AOSC of approximately $631,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-22 January 2004
Appendix G

Using the above equations, RG&E estimated the total present dollar value equivalent

associated with completely eliminating severe accidents at Ginna to be about $1.93 million.

RG&E's Results

If the implementation costs were greater than the MAB, then the SAMA was screened from

further consideration. A more refined look at the costs and benefits was performed for the

remaining SAMAs. If the expected cost for those SAMAs exceeded the calculated benefit, the

SAMA was considered not to be cost beneficial. The cost-benefit results for the individual

analysis of the eight SAMA candidates are presented in Table G-3. As a result, two of the

eight SAMAs were considered to be potentially cost beneficial:

* SAMA 1: Obtain a skid-mounted, 480-V diesel generator that could be directly

connected to one train of the safeguards buses in the event of a failure of the

two existing diesel generators.

* SAMA 4: Modify procedures to allow charging pump B or C to be manually aligned to

Bus 14. This alignment could be used to mitigate fires requiring entry into

procedure "Alternative Shutdown for Control Complex Fire" or fires disabling

train B, where the A charging pump is out of service or fails to run.

RG&E performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices on the

analysis results (RG&E 2002, 2003a, 2003b). As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, sensitivity cases

that assumed a 10 percent increase in the projected population and a 10 percent increase in

fission product releases were adopted in the baseline analysis. In addition, RG&E considered

the impact on SAMA results if (1) a 3 percent discount rate (rather than 7 percent in the base

case) as recommended in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d) was used, and (2) if the 95h

percentile values of the CDF were utilized in the cost-benefit analysis instead of the mean CDF.

These analyses did not result in a positive net benefit for any additional SAMAs.

RG&E stated in the Ginna ER that the two potentially cost beneficial SAMAs identified above do

not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging, and therefore, are not required to be

implemented pursuant to 10 CFRPart54(RG&E 2003b). However, RG&E stated that it will

consider implementation of these SAMAs through its current plant change process.

G.6.2 Review of RG&E's Cost-Benefit Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis performed by RG&E was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184

(NRC 1 997d) and was executed consistent with this guidance.

January 2004 G-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

In response to an RAI, RG&E considered the uncertainties associated with the calculated CDF

(Table G-4). If the 95m percentile values of the CDF were used in the cost-benefit analysis

instead of the mean CDF value used in the baseline analysis, the estimated benefits of the

SAMAs would increase by about a factor of two. Increasing the benefit by this factor would

have no impact on the conclusion of the SAMA evaluation; that is, even if the non-viable

SAMAs (those qualitatively screened out) were increased by a factor of two, the resulting cost

benefit would remain negative (RG&E 2003b).

Table G-4. Uncertainty in the Calculated Core Damage Frequency

for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Percentile CDF (per year)

5 th 2.05 x 1 O5

50'h 3.52 x 1 O's

mean 4.00 x 10-5

95th 9.00 x 1 0-5

In addition, RG&E performed sensitivity analyses that addressed assumptions made in other

parts of the cost-benefit analysis, including variations in discount rate, weather, population, and

source terms. These were either adopted in the base case (e.g., population and source terms)

or are bounded by the CDF uncertainty assessment.

The staff concludes that, with the exception of the two cost beneficial SAMAs, the costs of the

SAMAs would be higher than the associated benefits. This conclusion is supported by

uncertainty assessment and sensitivity analysis and upheld despite a number of additional

uncertainties and non-quantifiable factors in the calculations, summarized as follows:

* Uncertainty in the internal events CDF was not initially included in the calculations,

which employed mean values to determine the benefits. The 95th percent confidence

level for internal events CDF is approximately 2.25 times the best estimate CDF. Even

upon considering the benefits at the 95 percentile value, no SAMAs were judged to be

cost beneficial. Therefore, consideration of CDF uncertainty is not expected to alter the

conclusions of the analysis.

* Seismic events were not included in the Ginna risk profile. However, seismic vulnerabilities were addressed during the IPEEE and SQUG evaluations. Fire and flood

events have been included within the scope of the SAMA evaluation. An increase in the

benefits by a factor of two had no impact on the results of the evaluation.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-24 January 2004
Appendix G

* Risk reduction and cost estimates were generally found to be conservative. As such,

uncertainty in the costs of any of the contemplated SAMAs would not likely have the

effect of making them cost beneficial.

G.7 Conclusions

RG&E evaluated approximately 200 SAMA candidates using the SAMA analyses as submitted

in support of licensing activities for other nuclear power plants, NRC and industry documents

discussing potential plant improvements, and the plant-specific insights from the Ginna IPE,

IPEEE, and current PSA model. A qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that

(1) were not applicable at Ginna due to design differences, (2) had already been implemented

at Ginna, (3) were prohibitively expensive, or (4) did not provide a significant safety benefit.

Upon conclusion of this screening, eight SAMA candidates were retained for further evaluation.

Using guidance in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d), the current PSA model, and a Level 3

analysis developed specifically for SAMA evaluation, a maximum attainable benefit of about

$1.93 million was calculated, representing the total present-dollar-value equivalent associated

with completely eliminating severe accidents at Ginna. For the remaining eight SAMA

candidates, a more detailed conceptual design and cost estimate were developed as shown in

Table 5-5. The cost-benefit analyses showed that two of the eight SAMA candidates were

potentially cost beneficial. Upon completion of a 3 percent discount rate sensitivity study, no

additional SAMA candidates were determined to be cost beneficial. RG&E also considered the

benefits at the 95h percentile CDF value, and found that no additional SAMAs were cost

beneficial.

The staff reviewed the RG&E analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs, the

generally large negative net benefits, and the inherently small baseline risks support the

general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by RG&E are reasonable and

sufficient for the license renewal submittal. The unavailability of a seismic PSA model

precluded a quantitative evaluation of SAMAs specifically aimed at reducing risk of this initiator;

however,-significant improvements have been realized as a result of the IPEEE and SQUG

processes at Ginna that would minimize the likelihood of identifying cost beneficial

enhancements in this area. It is noted that one item still remains open: seismically induced

flooding resulting from the failure of the RMWT and the Monitor Tank. However, RG&E is

addressing this item through the PCR process and plans to implement a modification in 2005.

Although two SAMA candidates appear to be cost beneficial, they do not 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.

January 2004 G-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

G.8 References

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

renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants."

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1988. A Methodology forAssessment of Nuclear

Power Plant Seismic Margin. NP-6041, Palo Alto, California.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1994. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20. March 15, 1994.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE Seismic Evaluation Report

(prepared by Stevenson & Associates), Rochester Gas and Electric, Robert E. Ginna Station,

Attachment to Letter. January 31, 1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 2 Probabilistic

Safety Assessment. August 30, 1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 1 Probabilistic

Safety Assessment (PSA). January 15, 1997.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Ginna Station Fire IPEEE. June 30,1998.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE High Winds and Transportation

Report. August 19, 1998.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Supplement to High Winds and

Transportation Report. September 8, 1998.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1999. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to Request for Additional

Information on IPEEE. July 30, 1999.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-26 January 2004
Appendix G

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Ginna Station. Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation,

Rochester, New York.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative. January 31, 2003.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. February 28, 2003.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Clarifications to 1/31/03 and 2/28/03 SAMA

RAI Response. April 4, 2003.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture, AC97-A-32-New York

State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 32. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1973. Design Response Spectra for Seismic

Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1. Regulatory Guide 1.60, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Seismic Qualification of Equipment in

Operating Nuclear Power Plants (USI A-46). NUREG-1030, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).' 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,' November 23, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990 Severe Accident Risks - An Assessment for

Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1 150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on ReactorSafetyand Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Letter from G. Vissing, U.S. NRC to

R. C. Mecredy, RG&E. Review of R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) Submittal - Internal Events (Response to Generic Letter 88-20) (TAC No.

M74414). September 16,1997.

January 2004 G-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix G

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. SECPOP90: Sector Population, Land

Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997d. Regulatory Analysis Technical

Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. An Approach for Estimating the

Frequencies of Various Containment Failure Modes and Bypass Events. NUREG/CR-6595,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Rates of Initiating Events at U.S. Nuclear

Power Plants: 1987-1995. NUREG/CR-5750, Washington. D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from Guy Vissing, U.S. NRC to

Robert Mecredy, RG&E. Subject: Review of Ginna Individual Plant Examination of External

Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC No. M83624). December 21, 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Letter from Robert G. Schaaf (NRC) to

Robert C. Mecredy (RG&E). Subject: Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe

Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. December 26, 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Perspectives Gained From the IPEEE

Program, Final Report, Vol. 2. NUREG-1742, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Memo to file from Robert G. Schaaf

(NRC) Subject: Telecommunication with RG&E to Clarify Responses to SAMA RAI.

May 8, 2003.

I Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). 1986. Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Performance

Following a Loss of AII AC Power. WCAP-10541, Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania.

Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). 1999. Transient Initiating Event Operating History

Database for U.S. Westinghouse NSSS Plants (1987-1997), Revision 1. WCAP-15210,

Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-28 January 2004
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(2-89) (Assigned by NRC, Add VoL. Supp.. Rev..

NRCM 1102. and Addendum Numbers, It any.)

3201,3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

Supplement 14 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

Regarding R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant MONTH I YEAR

Final Report January 2004

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (lncusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION -NAMEANDAADDRESS (WNRC provideDivision, Office orRegion, US. NudearRegufatoryCommission. and maikng address;ifcontractor,

provide name and mailing address.) .

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS (IfNRC. type Same as aboveifcontractor, provide NRC Division, Office orRegron, U.S. NudearRegulatory Commission,

and maiing address.)

Same as 8 above

1U. bUtILIMVNIAMIT R I MDi

Docket Number 50-244

i_1. ABSTRACT (20 words or less)

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared In response to an application submitted to

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on July 30, 2002, by the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) to renew

the operating license for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This final SEIS

includes the NRC staffs 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 staffs recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC staffs recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal

for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 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 Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437); (2) the Environmental Report submitted by RG&E; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staffs own independent review, and (5) the staffs consideration of public comments.

.1 2. KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS (Ust woAds or phrases that wXi assist researhersin bocaaing the report) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant unlimited

Ginna 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Ns Page)

GEIS

National Environmental Policy Act unclassified

NEPA (Ms Report)

License Renewal unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89) This form was electronically produced by Elite Federal Forms. Inc,
A~~~~~~

I

I

Printed i

son recycled

paper

_ [| 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Federal Recycling Program
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS