NUREG-1437

 Supplement 31 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 31

Regarding

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

Draft Report for Comment 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
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.gov/reading-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 Administration, 

 Printing and Mail Services Branch

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

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 at—

The 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, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd 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

(NUREG/CR–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 31 

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 31 

Regarding 

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

Draft Report for Comment

 Manuscript Completed: May 2007 

 Date Published: June 2007 

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 
 COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

specify the report number NUREG-1437, Supplement 31, draft, in your comments, and send 

them by September 05, 2007 to the following address:

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop T6-D59 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by the Internet at FitzPatrickEIS@nrc.gov.

 

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: 

J. Muir 

OWFN 11-F1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: 301-415-0491 

E-mail: JMM7@nrc.gov 
June 2007 iii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 ABSTRACT 

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

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

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

5 Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

6 Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the NRC staff identifies 

7 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 

8 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. 

9 Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific 

10 reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS. 

11 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (draft SEIS) has been prepared in 

12 response to an application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and 

13 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew the OL for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

14 Power Plant (JAFNPP) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This draft SEIS 

15 includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the 

16 proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and 

17 mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the 

18 NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

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

20 the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that 

21 applies to JAFNPP. In addition, the NRC staff determined that information provided during the 

22 scoping process did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC staff 

23 concludes that the impacts of renewing the JAFNPP OL would not be greater than impacts 

24 identified for these issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the NRC staff’s conclusion in 

the GEIS is that the impact is of SMALL(1) 25 significance (except for collective offsite radiological 

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

27 single significance level). 

28 Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to JAFNPP are addressed in this draft 

29 SEIS. For each applicable issue, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of the potential 

30 environmental impacts of renewal of the OL would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes 

31 that additional mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. 

32 The NRC staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not identify 

33 any new issue with a significant environmental impact. 

 

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

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 
Abstract

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 iv June 2007 

1 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse 

2 environmental impacts of license renewal for JAFNPP are not so great that preserving the 

3 option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This 

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

5 Report submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the 

6 NRC staff’s own independent review; and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments 

7 received during the scoping process. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

19 This NUREG contains information collection requirements that are subject to the 

20 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information 

21 collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 

22 3150-0004; 3150-0155; 3150-0014; 3150-0011; 3150-0132; 3150-0151. 

23 

24 Public Protection Notification

25 The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

26 request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting 

27 document displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

28 
June 2007 v Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Contents 

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

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................xiv

Abbreviations/Acronyms .............................................................................................................xix 

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...................................................................................1-7 

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

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

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

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Interaction 

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

2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Facility Operation During 

the Renewal Term ...................................................................................................2-1 

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

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

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems .........................................................2-5

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 .........2-9 

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing ...............................................................2-10 

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems..................................................................2-10

2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams ....................................................2-10

2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization...............................2-13 

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

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

2.2 Facility Interaction with the Environment................................................................2-17 

2.2.1 Land Use .................................................................................................. 2-17 

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

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

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 vi June 2007 

2.2.4 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality ........................................................2-22 

2.2.4.1 Climate..........................................................................................2-22 

2.2.4.2 Meteorology .................................................................................2-22 

2.2.4.3 Air Quality .....................................................................................2-23 

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................2-23 

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................2-30

2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the JAFNPP Site....................................2-30

2.2.6.2 Terrestrial Resources in Transmission Corridors..........................2-33 

2.2.6.3 Terrestrial Species of Concern .....................................................2-34 

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts .................................................................................2-38 

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors .............................................................................2-39 

2.2.8.1 Housing.........................................................................................2-39 

2.2.8.2 Public Services ............................................................................ 2-40

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use ..........................................................................2-42 

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise .........................................................2-43 

2.2.8.5 Demography .................................................................................2-44 

2.2.8.6 Economy ......................................................................................2-46 

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................2-48 

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background .....................................................................2-49 

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at JAFNPP .....................2-51 

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations.................................2-53 

2.2.10.1 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................2-53 

2.2.10.2 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification ............2-54 

2.3 References ................................................................................................................2-55 

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

3.1 References ..............................................................................................................3-4 

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...............................4-10 

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

4.1.3 Heat Shock.................................................................................................4-21 

4.2 Transmission Lines ................................................................................................4-24 

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects ......................................................4-28 

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects ..................................................4-29 

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ..........................................................4-30 

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License 

Renewal Term .......................................................................................................4-32 
 Contents 

June 2007 vii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

4.4.1 Housing Impacts.........................................................................................4-34 

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts........................................................4-35 

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use.........................................................................................4-36 

4.4.3.1 Population-Related Impacts..........................................................4-36 

4.4.3.2 Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts .....................................................4-37 

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts ....................................................4-37 

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................4-37 

4.4.6 Environmental Justice ...............................................................................4-39 

4.4.6.1 Minority Population in 2000 ..........................................................4-40 

4.4.6.2 Low-Income Population in 2000 ...................................................4-40 

4.4.6.3 Analysis of Impacts ......................................................................4-42 

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality ...............................................................................4-44 

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ......................................................................4-44 

4.6.1 Aquatic Species..........................................................................................4-46 

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species......................................................................................4-46 

4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on 

Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term ..................................................4-47 

4.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................4-47 

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources................................................4-47 

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources............................................4-50 

4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts on Human Health .......................................................4-52 

4.8.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation 

of the Transmission Lines ............................................................4-52 

4.8.3.2 Cumulative Radiological Impacts..................................................4-52 

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts...........................................................4-53 

4.8.5 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts..............................................4-53 

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term .............................4-53 

4.10 References.............................................................................................................4-54 

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk............................................................................................5-6 

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements.......................................................................5-8 

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

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 viii June 2007 

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison................................................................5-9 

5.2.6 Conclusions................................................................................................5-10 

5.3 References.............................................................................................................5-10 

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System.......................................................8-9 

8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ......................................................8-18 

8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation ...................................................................8-19 

8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System.....................................................8-20 

8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ......................................................8-29 

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

8.2.3.1 Once-Through Cooling System.....................................................8-31 

8.2.3.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ......................................................8-38 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered ....................................................................8-46 
 Contents 

June 2007 ix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

8.4 References ............................................................................................................8-51 

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

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

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

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

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

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License 

Renewal and Alternatives.........................................................................................9-6 

9.3 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................9-8 

9.4 References ..............................................................................................................9-8 

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

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

Appendix C Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

Related to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc., Application for License Renewal of James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant........................................................................................ C-1 

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

Appendix E Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence .................................. E-1 

Appendix F GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to James A. FitzPatrick 

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

Appendix G NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.................................................G-1 
Figures

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 x June 2007

Figures 

Figure 2-1. Location of JAFNPP, 50-mi Region .......................................................................2-2 

Figure 2-2. Location of JAFNPP, 6-mi Region .........................................................................2-3 

Figure 2-3. JAFNPP Approximate Site Boundary.....................................................................2-4 

Figure 2-4. JAFNPP Transmission Lines................................................................................2-15 

Figure 4-1. Minority Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mi Radius of JAFNPP .......................4-41 

Figure 4-2. Low-Income Block Groups within a 50-mi Radius of JAFNPP ............................4-43 
 Tables 

June 2007 xi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Tables 

Table 2-1. JAFNPP Transmission Lines, Substations, and Corridors ...................................2-15 

Table 2-2. Selected Water Quality Parameters of Lake Ontario ...........................................2-20 

Table 2-3. Aquatic Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or a Species of 

Special Concern by New York State, Potentially Occurring in Oswego 

and Onondaga Counties ......................................................................................2-29 

Table 2-4. Federally Listed and New York State-Listed Terrestrial Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of JAFNPP and in Associated 

Transmission Line Corridors ................................................................................2-34 

Table 2-5. JAFNPP Permanent Employee Residence by County in 2006 ............................2-39 

Table 2-6. Number of Occupied, Vacant, and Total Housing Units in Oswego 

and Onondaga Counties, New York, in 2000 and 2005 .......................................2-40 

Table 2-7. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Oswego County, Average 

Daily Use, and Maximum Daily Capacity .............................................................2-41 

Table 2-8. Land Use in Oswego and Onondaga Counties ....................................................2-43 

Table 2-9. Population Growth in Oswego and Onondaga Counties, New York, 

from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2020...........................................2-45 

Table 2-10. Major Employers in Oswego County in 2006 ......................................................2-47 

Table 2-11. Oswego County, Town of Scriba, and Mexico Central Schools Tax 

Revenues, 2002 to 2005; JAFNPP Property Tax, 2002 to 2005; and 

JAFNPP Property Tax as a Percentage of Tax Revenues...................................2-48 

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

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

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the JAFNPP 

Cooling System During the Renewal Term ...........................................................4-3 

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the JAFNPP 

Cooling System During the Renewal Term .........................................................4-10 

Table 4-3. Results of Impingement Monitoring at JAFNPP from 1976 through 

1997 (Corrected for Flow and Traveling Screen Efficiencies) ..............................4-17 

Table 4-4. Results of Impingement Monitoring at JAFNPP, 2004 (Corrected for 

Flow and Traveling Screen Efficiencies) ..............................................................4-19 

Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the JAFNPP Transmission Lines 

During the Renewal Term ...................................................................................4-25 
Contents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xii June 2007 

Table 4-6. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the JAFNPP 

Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term ....................................................4-28 

Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal 

Operations During the Renewal Term .................................................................4-31 

Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the 

Renewal Term......................................................................................................4-32 

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics and Environmental 

Justice During the Renewal Term .......................................................................4-34 

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

During the Renewal Term ...................................................................................4-45 

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

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

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

Renewal Term .......................................................................................................5-5

Table 5-3. JAFNPP Core Damage Frequency ........................................................................5-7 

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode............................5-8

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

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

Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of JAFNPP 

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

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

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

Alternate Site Using Once-Through Cooling ........................................................8-10 

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an 

Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling ............................................................8-19 

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

at the JAFNPP Site and an Alternate Site Using Once-Through 

Cooling. ................................................................................................................8-21 

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation 

at Either the JAFNPP Site or an Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle 

Cooling .................................................................................................................8-30 

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power 

Generation at the JAFNPP Site and an Alternate Site Using OnceThrough Cooling...................................................................................................8-32 

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant 

Sited at an Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling ..........................................8-38 

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

Generation—Does Not Include Impacts from Purchased Generation 

Once-Through Cooling Alternative .......................................................................8-47 
 Contents 

June 2007 xiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the NoAction Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Power Generation.........................9-7 

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period ..................... A-3 

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

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

Approvals for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) .............. E-2 

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to James A. FitzPatrick

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

Table G-1. JAFNPP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events .........................................G-3

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

Table G-3. JAFNPP PSA Historical Summary ........................................................................G-6

Table G-4. Fire Areas and Their Contribution to the Fire CDF..............................................G-10 

Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP ..........................................G-21 
June 2007 xiv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 By letter dated July 31, 2006, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

3 Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

4 (NRC) to renew the operating license (OL) for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

5 (JAFNPP) for an additional 20-year period. If the OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and 

6 Entergy will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such 

7 as the need for power or other matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the 

8 owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must be shut down on or before the expiration 

9 date of the current OL, which is October 17, 2014. 

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

11 Title 42, Section 4321, of the United States Code (42 USC 4321) in Part 51 of Title 10 of the 

12 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission 

13 requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for 

14 renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL 

15 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. 16 (a)

17 Upon acceptance of the Entergy application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

18 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 

19 scoping. The NRC staff held public scoping meetings on October 12, 2006, in Oswego, New 

20 York, and conducted a site audit at JAFNPP on December 5 and 6, 2006. In the preparation of 

21 this draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for JAFNPP, the NRC staff 

22 reviewed the Entergy Environmental Report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with 

23 other agencies, conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth 

24 in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

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

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

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

28 provided in Appendix A of this draft SEIS. 

29 The NRC staff will hold two public meetings in Oswego, New York, in August 2007, to describe 

30 the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide 

31 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on this draft 

 

(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. 
Executive Summary 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xv June 2007 

1 SEIS. When the comment period ends, the NRC staff will consider and address all of the 

2 comments received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A of the final SEIS. 

3 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff’s preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 

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

5 proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also 

6 includes the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

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

8 from the GEIS: 

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

10 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 

11 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 

12 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 

13 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. 

14 The evaluation criterion for the NRC staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 

15 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is to determine 

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

17 great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision 

18 makers would be unreasonable. 

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

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

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

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

23 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage: 

24 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 

25 required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and 

26 economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed 

27 action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a 

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

29 considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental 

30 impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other 

31 issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the 

32 alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the 

33 scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) [“Temporary storage of spent 

34 fuel after cessation of reactor operation–generic determination of no significant 

35 environmental impact”] and in accordance with § 51.23(b). 
Executive Summary 

June 2007 xvi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

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

3 issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—

4 developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. The following definitions of the 

5 three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

6 Appendix B: 

7 SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

8 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

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

10 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

12 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

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

14 conclusions: 

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

16 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other 

17 specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

19 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high20 level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

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

22 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely 

23 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

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

25 significant information, the NRC staff relied on conclusions in the GEIS for issues designated as 

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

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

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

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

30 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant31 specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields 

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

33 This draft SEIS documents the NRC staff’s consideration of all 92 environmental issues 

34 identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with 
Executive Summary 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xvii June 2007 

1 alternatives to license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and 

2 the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action 

3 alternative (not renewing the OL for JAFNPP) and alternative methods of power generation. 

4 Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information 

5 Administration (DOE/EIA), gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power6 generation alternatives if the power from JAFNPP is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated 

7 assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the JAFNPP site or 

8 some other unspecified alternate location. 

9 Entergy and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and 

10 evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license 

11 renewal. Neither Entergy nor the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and 

12 significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the 

13 GEIS. Similarly, neither the scoping process nor the NRC staff has identified any new issue 

14 applicable to JAFNPP that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the NRC staff 

15 relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to 

16 JAFNPP. 

17 Entergy’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues plus 

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

19 reviewed the Entergy analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each 

20 issue. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant design 

21 features or site characteristics not found at JAFNPP. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed 

22 in this draft SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Entergy has stated that 

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

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

25 operation of JAFNPP for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of 

26 components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant operation 

27 and are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations 

28 evaluated in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s 1973 Final Environmental Statement 

29 Related to Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

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

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

32 discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice 

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

34 this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 11 Category 2 issues 

35 and environmental justice, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are 

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

37 NRC staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus 

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

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

40 NRC staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate 
Executive Summary 

June 2007 xviii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for JAFNPP and the plant improvements already 

2 made, the NRC staff concludes that none of the candidate SAMAs is cost-beneficial. 

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

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

5 mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

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

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

8 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where the JAFNPP license renewal impacts are 

9 deemed to be SMALL, the NRC staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant 

10 cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources. 

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

12 its current OL, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives would not necessarily be smaller 

13 than those associated with continued operation of JAFNPP. The impacts may be greater in 

14 some areas, depending on the alternatives selected. 

15 The preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the 

16 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for JAFNPP are not so great that preserving 

17 the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This 

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

19 Entergy; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the NRC staff’s own 

20 independent review; and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received during 

21 the scoping process. 
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xix June 2007 

1 ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

2 ΔT temperature difference 

3 ° degree 

4 ac acre(s) 

5 AC alternating current 

6 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs 

7 AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

8 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

9 AOC averted offsite property damage costs 

10 AOE averted occupational exposure costs 

11 AOSC averted onsite costs 

12 ATWS Anticipated transient without scram 

13 

14 BACT Best available control technology 

15 BTU British thermal unit(s) 

16 BWR boiling-water reactor 

17 BWROG boiling-water reactor owner group 

18 

19 C Celsius 

20 CDF core damage frequency 

21 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

22 CET containment event tree 

23 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

24 Ci curie(s) 

25 CMP coastal management program 

26 COE cost of enhancement 

27 CRD control rod drive 

28 CST condensate storage tank 

29 CWA Clean Water Act 

30 CWD chronic wasting disease 

31 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

32 

33 DC direct current 

34 DCH direct containment heating 

35 DBA design-basis accident 

36 DSM demand-side management 

37 DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 
June 2007 xx Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

2 

3 ECCS emergency core cooling system 

4 EDG emergency diesel generator 

5 EIA Energy Information Administration 

6 EIS environmental impact statement 

7 Entergy Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

8 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

9 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

10 EPZ emergency planning zone 

11 ER environmental report 

12 ESA Endangered Species Act 

13 ESW emergency service water 

14 ETE evacuation time study 

15 

16 F Fahrenheit 

17 FDS fish deterrence system 

18 FES Final Environmental Statement 

19 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

20 ft foot (feet) 

ft3 21 cubic foot (feet) 

22 ft/m foot (feet) per minute 

23 ft/s feet (feet) per second 

24 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

25 

26 gal gallon(s) 

27 GE General Electric 

28 GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

29 GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission 

30 GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

31 gpd gallon(s) per day 

32 gpm gallons per minute 

33 

34 ha hectare(s) 

35 HCLPF high confidence low probability of failure 

36 HLW high-level waste 

37 HPCI high pressure coolant injection 

38 

39 I&C instrumentation and control 
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xxi June 2007 

1 IJC International Joint Commission 

2 IGLD International Great Lakes Datum 

3 in. inch(es) 

4 IPE individual plant examination 

5 IPEEE individual plant examination of external events 

6 ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

7 ISLOCA interfacing system loss of coolant accident 

8 ISLRBC International St. Lawrence River Board of Control 

9 

10 J Joule 

11 JAFNPP James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

12 

13 km kilometer(s) 

14 Kr krypton 

15 kt(s) knot(s) 

16 kV kilovolt 

17 kWh kilowatt-hour 

18 

19 L liter 

20 LAER Lowest achievable emissions rate 

21 lb pound(s) 

22 LERF large early release frequency 

23 LLMW low-level mixed waste 

24 LOCA loss of coolant accident 

25 LOSP loss of offsite power 

26 LPCI low pressure coolant injection 

27 

28 m meter(s) 

29 mA milli-ampere(s) 

30 MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program 

31 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 

32 m/s meter(s) per second 

m3 33 cubic meter(s) 

34 mg/L milligram(s) per liter 

35 mi mile(s) 

36 min minute(s) 

37 ml milliliter 

38 mph mile(s) per hour 

39 mrem millirem 
June 2007 xxii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 m/s meter per second 

2 MSA metropolitan statistical area 

3 MSIV main steam isolation valvue 

4 mSv milliSievert 

5 MT metric ton(s) 

6 MTHM metric ton of heavy metal 

7 MWB Metropolitan Water Board 

8 MWd/MTU megawatt days per metric ton of uranium 

9 MWe megawatts-electric 

10 MWh megawatt hour 

11 MWt megawatts-thermal 

12 

13 NAS National Academy of Sciences 

14 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

15 NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

16 ng/J nanogram(s) per Joule 

17 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

18 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

19 NMPNS Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 

20 NOx nitrogen oxides 

21 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

22 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

23 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

24 NYCRR New York State Codes Rules and Regulations

25 NYISO New York Independent System Operator 

26 NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program 

27 NYPA New York Power Authority 

28 NYPSC New York Public Service Commission 

29 NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

30 NYSDOS New York State Department of State 

31 NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

32 NYSHPO New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation 

33 

34 OCWA Onondaga County Water Authority 

35 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

36 OL operating license 

37 OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

38 OWS Oswego Water System 

39 
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 xxiii June 2007 

1 PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 

2 PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

3 PCS power conversion system 

4 PDS plant damage status 

5 PGA peak ground acceleration 

6 PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

7 ppm parts per million 

8 PSA probabilistic safety assessment 

9 PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

10 

11 radwaste radioactive waste 

12 RAI request for additional information 

13 rem Roentgen Equivalent Man 

14 RCIC reactor core isolation cooling 

15 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

16 REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

17 RHR residual heat removal 

18 RHRSW residual heat removal service water 

19 ROW right-of-way 

20 RPC replacement cost 

21 RRW risk reduction worth 

22 

23 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

24 SAR Safety Analysis Report 

25 SBO station blackout 

26 SCOL Salmonid Communities in Oligotrophic Lakes 

27 SCR selective catalytic reduction 

28 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

29 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

30 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

31 SLCS Standby Liquid Control System 

32 SMA seismic margin assessment 

33 SOx sulfur oxides 

34 SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

35 SQUG Seismic Qualification User Group 

36 SRV safety relief valves 

37 SUNY State University of New York 

38 Sv Sievert 

39 
June 2007 xxiv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 TMDL total maximum daily load 

2 TRC total residual chlorine 

3 TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act 

4 TSDF Treatment, Storage, or Discharge Facility 

5 

6 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

7 USC United States Code 

8 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

9 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

10 USI Unresolved Safety Issue 

11 

12 VOC volatile organic compound 

13 

14 Xe xenon 
June 2007 1-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

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

4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating 

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

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

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

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

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

1999).(1) 10 The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of 

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

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

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

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

15 the GEIS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information related to the OL 

16 renewal process. 

17 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) operate the 

18 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) in northern New York under OL DPR-59, 

19 which was issued by the NRC. This OL will expire in October 2014. By letter dated July 31, 

20 2006, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC to renew the JAFNPP OL for an additional 

21 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. Entergy is a licensee for the purposes of its current OL and an 

22 applicant for the renewal of the OL. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), Entergy submitted 

23 an Environmental Report (ER; Entergy 2006b), in which Entergy analyzed the environmental 

24 impacts associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the 

25 proposed action, and evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental 

26 effects. 

27 This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the 

28 Entergy license renewal application. This draft SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS because it 

29 relies, in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The NRC staff will also prepare a separate safety 

30 evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. 

 

(1) 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. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 1-2 June 2007 

1 1.1 Report Contents

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

3 draft SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the NRC staff to 

4 assess the environmental impacts associated with plant operations during license renewal; 

5 (2) describe the proposed Federal action to renew the JAFNPP OL; (3) discuss the purpose and 

6 need for the proposed action; and (4) present the status of Entergy’s compliance with 

7 environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, 

8 regional, and local agencies that are responsible for environmental protection. 

9 The ensuing chapters of this draft SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the 

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

11 environment. Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of 

12 plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an 

13 evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of 

14 severe accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid 

15 waste management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses 

16 alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding 

17 chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the 

18 relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

19 enhancement of long-term productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

20 resources. Chapter 9 also presents the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation with respect to 

21 the proposed license renewal action. 

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

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

24 Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following: 

25 • The preparers of the supplement, 

26 • The chronology of NRC staff’s environmental review correspondence related to this draft 

27 SEIS, 

28 • The organizations contacted during the development of this draft SEIS, 

29 • Entergy’s compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of 

30 consultation correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process), 

31 • GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to JAFNPP, and 

32 • Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). 
Introduction 

June 2007 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 1.2 Background

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

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

4 established license renewal evaluation process support the thorough evaluation of the impacts 

5 of renewal of OLs. 

6 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

9 the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission’s regulations. This 

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

11 power plant license renewal EISs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 same significance level for all plants. 

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

22 Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires 

23 consideration of both “context” and “intensity”). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC 

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

25 three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

26 Subpart A, Appendix B, as follows: 

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

28 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

29 MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

30 important attributes of the resource. 

31 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

32 important attributes of the resource. 

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

34 mitigation measures would continue. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 1-4 June 2007 

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

9 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 

10 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 as Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. 

20 The two uncategorized issues are environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic 

21 fields. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis in the GEIS and must be 

22 addressed in the draft SEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was 

23 not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared. 

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

25 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and 

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

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

28 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process 

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

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

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

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

33 the proposed license renewal. 
Introduction 

June 2007 1-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

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

3 Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and 

4 • Discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action 

5 and environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. 

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

7 • Consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the 

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

9 making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of 

10 alternatives considered, or (2) relevant to mitigation 

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

12 the proposed action and the alternatives 

13 • Discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic 

14 determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b) 

15 • Contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information 

16 on a specific issue—this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(iii) and (iv) 

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

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

19 (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS and that leads 

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

21 10 CFR Part 51. 

22 In preparing to submit its application to renew the JAFNPP OL, Entergy developed a process to 

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

24 environmental impacts of license renewal for JAFNPP would be properly reviewed before 

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

26 renewal of the license would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period of NRC 

27 review. Entergy reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

28 Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with respect to 

29 JAFNPP. This review was performed by personnel from Entergy and its support organizations 

30 involved in the preparation of a license renewal ER. 

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

32 is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

33 Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License RenewalNUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 1-6 June 2007 

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

2 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information, (2) review of public comments, 

3 (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations, (4) coordination with Federal, 

4 State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies, and (5) review of the technical 

5 literature. New information discovered by the NRC staff is evaluated for significance using the 

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

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

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

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

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

11 applicable to JAFNPP. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, a table 

12 identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is 

13 discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 

14 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of 

15 short paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

16 Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the NRC staff’s analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 

17 issues, in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the 

18 subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the draft SEIS 

19 sections where the analysis is presented. The draft SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2 

20 issues are presented immediately following the table. 

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

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

23 the Entergy license renewal application began with publication of a Notice of Acceptance for 

24 docketing and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register (FR; 71 FR 55032 [NRC 2006]) 

25 on September 20, 2006, which also included a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 

26 scoping. Two public scoping meetings were held on October 12, 2006, in Oswego, New York. 

27 Comments received during the scoping period were summarized in the Environmental Scoping 

28 Summary Report Associated with the Staff's Review of the Application by Entergy for Renewal 

29 of the Operating License for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power (NRC 2007). Comments that 

30 are applicable to this environmental review are presented in Appendix A. 

31 The NRC staff followed the review guidance contained NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 

32 2000). The NRC staff and contractors retained to assist the staff conducted a site audit at the 

33 JAFNPP site on December 5 and 6, 2006, to gather information and to become familiar with the 

34 site and its environs. The NRC staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping and 

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

36 is provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to JAFNPP were reviewed and are 

37 referenced in this draft SEIS. 

38 This draft SEIS presents the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 

39 effects of the proposed renewal of the OL for JAFNPP, the environmental impacts of 
Introduction 

June 2007 1-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse 

2 environmental effects. Chapter 9, “Summary and Conclusions,” provides the NRC staff’s 

3 preliminary recommendation to the Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental 

4 impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy5 planning decision makers would be unreasonable. 

6 A 75-day comment period on this draft SEIS will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. 

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

8 public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During this comment 

9 period, two public meetings will be held in Oswego, New York, in August 2007. During these 

10 meetings, the NRC staff will describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review 

11 and answer questions to provide members of the public with information to assist them in 

12 formulating their comments. 

13 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

14 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for JAFNPP. JAFNPP is located in northern 

15 New York on the south shore of Lake Ontario, approximately 7 miles (mi) northeast of Oswego, 

16 New York, 36 mi north-northeast of Syracuse, New York, and 65 mi east of Rochester, New 

17 York. The plant has a single boiling water reactor (BWR) designed by the General Electric 

18 Company with a rated power level of 2536 megawatts thermal (MWt) and a gross power output 

19 of 881 megawatts electric (MWe). Plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling system 

20 that discharges heated water back to Lake Ontario through a discharge structure. The current 

21 OL for JAFNPP expires on October 17, 2014. By letter dated July 31, 2006, Entergy submitted 

22 an application to the NRC (Entergy 2006a) to renew this OL for an additional 20 years of 

23 operation (i.e., until October 17, 2034). 

24 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

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

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

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

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

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

30 matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. 

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

32 need (GEIS Section 1.3): 

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

34 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 1-8 June 2007 

1 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 

2 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where 

3 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 current term of the plant’s license. 

12 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

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

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

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

16 environmental approvals and consultations associated with JAFNPP license renewal. 

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

18 Appendix E. 

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

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

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

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

23 environmental standards and requirements for JAFNPP. The NRC staff has not identified any 

24 environmental issues that are both new and significant. 

25 1.6 References

26 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

27 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

28 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

29 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

30 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

31 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

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

June 2007 1-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

2 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application. Lycoming, 

3 New York. Accessible at ML062160494. 

4 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

5 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

6 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

7 Accessible at ML062160557. 

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

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

10 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear 

11 Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

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

13 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

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

15 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, 

16 D.C. 

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

18 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555, 

19 Supplement 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. “Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the 

21 Application, Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing and Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

22 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Facility Operating License 

23 No. DPR-59 for an Additional 20-Year Period, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., James A. 

24 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant.” Federal Register: Vol. 71, No. 182, pp. 55032-55035. 

25 September 20, 2006. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Environmental Scoping Summary Report 

27 Associated with the Staff’s Review of the Application by Entergy for Renewal of the Operating 

28 License for JAFNPP. Washington, D.C. Accessible at ML070440393. 

June 2007 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND SITE AND 

2 INTERACTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENT 

3 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) is located in the town of Scriba, New York. 

4 The plant consists of one unit, a boiling water reactor (BWR), which employs a once-through 

5 cooling system. JAFNPP is operated by Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

6 Operations, Inc. (Entergy). The plant and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the 

7 environment in which the plant is located is presented in Section 2.2.

8 2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Facility Operation During the 

9 Renewal Term

10 JAFNPP is located on approximately 702 acres (ac) of land on the south shore of Lake Ontario, 

11 at a location known as Nine Mile Point. The plant is in a rural area, approximately seven miles 

12 (mi) northeast of Oswego, 36 mi north-northwest of Syracuse, and 65 mi east of Rochester, 

13 New York. The largest town within a 50-mi radius is Syracuse. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 

14 Units 1 and 2, operated by Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, is immediately west of 

15 JAFNPP. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the site location and features within 50 mi and 6 mi, 

16 respectively (Entergy 2006c). 

17 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 

18 The area surrounding JAFNPP is generally flat, rising gently from Lake Ontario to the 

19 Appalachian Uplands on the south, and bounded on the east by the Tug Hill Upland. The plant 

20 is at an elevation of 270 feet (ft) above mean sea level. Elevation rises to 310 ft at the 

21 property’s southern edge 1 mi away. The JAFNPP site is partially wooded and surrounded 

22 primarily by residential and recreational areas except for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. 

23 There is no residential, agricultural, or industrial development (other than JAFNPP) on the 

24 JAFNPP site. The nearest residence is outside the site boundary approximately 0.7 mi to the 

25 east-southeast. 

26 The buildings associated with JAFNPP lie on the northwest part of the site (See Figure 2-3). 

27 The plant consists of a reactor building, turbine building with electrical and heater bays, 

28 administration building and control room, radioactive waste building, screenwell-pumphouse 

29 building with intake and discharge tunnels and structures, diesel generator building, auxiliary 

30 boiler building, main stack, independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), sewage 

31 treatment plant, interim radioactive waste storage building, switchyard, shooting ranges, and 

32 associated transmission lines. The facility is enclosed by a security fence and access to the site 

33 is controlled. Although the plant structures can be seen by recreational users on Lake Ontario, 

34 JAFNPP is not visible to local communities due to the surrounding forest cover. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-2 June 2007 

1 

2 Figure 2-1. Location of JAFNPP, 50-mi Region (Entergy 2006c) 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 

2 Figure 2-2. Location of JAFNPP, 6-mi Region (Entergy 2006c) 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-4 June 2007 

1 

2 Figure 2-3. JAFNPP Approximate Site Boundary

3 The plant is accessed by Lake Road, which connects to Oswego County Route 29. A spur of 

4 Conrail Railroad is currently blocked for security purposes but could be re-opened to provide rail 

5 service to the plant. JAFNPP can also be reached by barge on Lake Ontario. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Within a 50-mi radius of JAFNPP there are 17 state parks, 20 state wildlife management areas, 

2 and one national wildlife refuge. The closest public park, Sunset Bay Park, is approximately 

3 1 mi east of JAFNPP on the shore of Lake Ontario. This park has 48 ac of mostly woods and 

4 brush land, a boat launch, nature trail, and picnic area. The next closest public park, 

5 Independence Park, is approximately 2 mi southwest and also on Lake Ontario. This park has 

6 50 ac of wooded land, walking trails, and an observation deck. Scriba Town Park is 5 mi south 

7 of Scriba and includes a picnic area, playground, and swimming facilities. 

8 2.1.2 Reactor Systems 

9 JAFNPP is a single-cycle, forced-circulation BWR that produces steam for direct use in the 

10 steam turbine. The rated thermal output of the unit is 2536 megawatts-thermal (MWt), 

11 corresponding to an electrical output of approximately 881 megawatts-electric (MWe). JAFNPP 

12 achieved commercial operation in 1975 (Entergy 2006c). 

13 The JAFNPP facility is depicted in Figure 2-3. The reactor building is designed as a low 

14 in-leakage, elevated release secondary containment system that houses the primary 

15 containment system, refueling facilities, and most of the components of the nuclear steam 

16 supply system. The secondary containment system provides secondary containment when the 

17 primary containment system is closed and in service, and provides primary containment when 

18 the primary containment system is open, as in refueling. The secondary containment system 

19 consists of the reactor building, standby gas treatment system, reactor building isolation control 

20 system, and main stack. 

21 In the event of a postulated pipe break inside the drywell or a fuel handling accident, the reactor 

22 building is isolated by the reactor building isolation control system to provide a low leakage 

23 barrier. The standby gas treatment system, which is initiated by the same conditions that isolate 

24 the reactor building, exhausts air from the reactor building to maintain a reduced pressure within 

25 the reactor building relative to the outside atmosphere, treats the air to remove particulates and 

26 iodines, and releases the air through the elevated release point, the main stack. These safety 

27 features function to localize, control, mitigate, and terminate such events to limit the public’s 

28 exposure levels to below applicable dose guidelines. 

29 The fuel for the reactor core consists of slightly enriched uranium dioxide pellets contained in 

30 sealed Zircaloy-2 tubes that were evacuated, backfilled with helium, and sealed with Zircaloy 

31 end plugs welded in each end. The core is designed to permit the energy extraction of 

32 19,000 megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium averaged over the initial core load (Entergy 

33 2006c). 

34 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 

35 JAFNPP uses water from Lake Ontario for station cooling. Approximately 91 percent of the 

36 water withdrawn from the lake is used for the circulating water system to cool the station’s main 

37 condenser. Approximately 9 percent of the water withdrawn from the lake is used for the station 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-6 June 2007 

1 service water system and other plant systems including the emergency service water system, 

2 the residual heat removal system, and the fire protection system. 

3 Water is withdrawn from the lake from an offshore submerged intake structure and through the 

4 intake tunnel to the screenwell-pumphouse building. Water is eventually returned to the lake by 

5 way of a discharge tunnel and an in-lake diffuser system. The cooling and auxiliary water 

6 systems for JAFNPP include the intake structure, intake tunnel, screenwell and pumphouse 

7 building, discharge tunnel, and diffuser. Neither the intake or discharge diffuser structures are 

8 in the shipping lanes of the lake and therefore do not constitute a hazard to commercial 

9 shipping. 

10 The offshore intake structure is a reinforced concrete structure located approximately 900 ft 

11 from the shoreline in approximately 25 ft of water. Water is drawn from lower levels of the lake 

12 to prevent the formation of vortices at the surface and minimize the possibility of interactions 

13 with floating ice and the lake fishery. The structure is approximately 14 ft high and the top of the 

14 intake structure is approximately 10 ft below the lake surface. The fan-shaped intake is located 

15 on the shoreward side of the structure. Water is drawn through four openings with a total intake 

16 area of approximately 8 ft by 70 ft. The intake velocity at the intake structure is approximately 

17 1.6 feet per second (ft/s). 

18 The intake opening also includes a bar rack, with bars placed 1 foot apart, to prevent large 

19 debris from entering the intake. The bars are heated by induction coils to minimize the 

20 probability of frazil ice adhering to the bars and blocking the intake. The heaters are normally 

21 kept energized except during maintenance. During maintenance, any frazil ice that is drawn 

22 past the intake racks is tempered in the screenwell structure with water from the circulating 

23 water discharge chamber. In the unlikely event that the intake is blocked and the volume of 

24 water needed for normal shutdown cannot be drawn, the flow in the discharge structure can be 

25 reversed using a series of gates, and cooling water can be drawn through the discharge tunnel 

26 to the screenwell-pumphouse building. 

27 JAFNPP has installed a high-frequency/high-amplitude acoustic fish deterrence system (FDS) 

28 on the intake structure. The JAFNPP FDS consists of nine overlapping, wide-beam, high29 frequency transducers mounted on the top of the intake structure. The transducers produce a 

30 sound field designed to deter alewifes from entering the intake structure and eventually 

31 becoming impinged on the intake screens. 

32 From the intake structure, the lake water drops 60 feet below lake level to a tunnel connecting 

33 the intake structure to the onshore screenwell-pumphouse building. The D-shaped tunnel has a 

34 flat bottom, vertical sides, and round top; average water velocity in the tunnel is 4.7 ft/s. From 

35 the intake tunnel, the water rises into the forebay of the screenwell-pumphouse building. 

36 The screenwell-pumphouse building, which is the structure immediately north of the turbine 

37 building, houses the trash racks, traveling screens, pumps for the circulating water, services 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 water, emergency service water, residual heat removal, and fire protection systems. The 

2 screenwell-pumphouse also houses the water treatment tanks and associated biofouling control 

3 equipment. 

4 From the intake tunnel, water enters the screenwell-pumphouse forebay, travels through vertical 

5 trash bars that excludes debris greater than 3 1/8-inches, then through the vertical traveling 

6 screens with a 3/8-inch mesh. The screenwell behind the vertical traveling screens houses 

7 three circulating water pumps each with a rated flow of 120,000 gpm. The design circulating 

8 water flow is 352,600 gpm through the main condenser. 

9 Discharge from the main condenser and service water system is returned to Lake Ontario 

10 through the discharge tunnel and diffuser system in the lake. The design effluent flow rate to 

11 the discharge tunnel is 388,600 gpm, including the design service water pumps discharge of 

12 36,000 gpm. The discharge tunnel starts from the screenwell-pumphouse building and extends 

13 approximately 1400 ft northward into the lake to a junction with the diffuser branch tunnels, 

14 which are generally parallel to the shoreline. The discharge diffuser consists of six diffuser 

15 heads, three on each diffuser branch and spaced approximately 150 feet apart. On top of each 

16 riser is a diffuser head consisting of two horizontal discharge nozzles separated by an included 

17 angle of 42 degrees. Each nozzle is 2.5 ft in diameter and discharges water at an exit velocity 

18 of 14 ft/s in the offshore direction. The centerline of the nozzles is five to six feet above the lake 

19 bottom. 

20 Discharges from the cooling water and service water systems are regulated by the New York 

21 State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under State Pollutant Discharge 

22 Elimination System (SPDES) Discharge Permit NY-0020109 (Entergy 2006c). 

23 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 

24 JAFNPP radioactive waste (radwaste) systems are designed to collect, treat, and dispose of the 

25 radioactive and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of plant operations. The 

26 byproducts are activation products resulting from the irradiation of reactor water and impurities 

27 therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products resulting from defective fuel 

28 cladding or uranium contamination within the reactor coolant system. Operating procedures for 

29 radwaste systems ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed and discharged from the 

30 plant within the limits set forth in Part 20 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

31 Part 20), 10 CFR Part 50, the plant’s technical specifications, and JAFNPP’s Offsite Dose 

32 Calculation Manual or ODCM (Entergy 2004c, 2006c). 

33 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid. 

34 Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the 

35 reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the reactor coolant 

36 system. Gaseous radioactive wastes are generated from gases or airborne particulates vented 

37 from reactor and turbine equipment containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-8 June 2007 

1 are solids from the reactor coolant system, solids that came into contact with reactor coolant 

2 system liquids or gases, or solids used in the reactor coolant system or steam and power 

3 conversion system operation or maintenance (Entergy 2006c). 

4 Reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content is referred to 

5 as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and replaced with fresh 

6 fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 24 months. Spent fuel 

7 assemblies are then stored for a period of time in the spent fuel pool in the reactor building and 

8 may later be transferred to dry storage at an onsite ISFSI. JAFNPP also provides for onsite 

9 storage of mixed wastes, which contain both radioactive and chemically hazardous materials 

10 (Entergy 2006c). 

11 JAFNPP’s ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used to calculate offsite doses 

12 resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents, and the gaseous and liquid effluent 

13 monitoring alarm and trip set points used to verify that the radioactive material being discharged 

14 meets regulatory limits (Entergy 2004c). The ODCM also contains the radioactive effluent 

15 controls and radiological environmental monitoring activities and descriptions of the information 

16 that should be included in the annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and annual 

17 Radioactive Effluent Release Report required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 

18 10 CFR 50.36a, respectively. 

19 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 

20 The liquid waste processing system collects, holds, treats, processes, and monitors all liquid 

21 radioactive wastes for reuse or disposal. The system is divided into several subsystems so that 

22 liquid wastes from various sources can be segregated and processed separately. Cross 

23 connections between the subsystems provide additional flexibility for processing the wastes by 

24 alternate methods. The wastes are collected, treated, and disposed of according to their 

25 conductivity and/or radioactivity (Entergy 2006c). 

26 Liquid waste is collected in sumps and drain tanks and transferred to the appropriate subsystem 

27 collection tanks for subsequent treatment, disposal, or recycle. The subsystems provide for 

28 filtration, demineralizing, dewatering, and resin filtration; and include a modular fluidized transfer 

29 demineralization and sluice system. Following treatment and batch sampling, the liquid waste is 

30 normally returned to condensate storage tanks for reuse in the plant. Liquid releases to the lake 

31 are infrequent, and limited to the maximum extent possible to satisfy the design objectives of 10 

32 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Liquid discharges to the lake occur only when radioactive material 

activity concentration in the storage tank is equal to or less than 5 x 10-4 33 curies per milliliter 

34 (Ci/ml) (Entergy 2006c). Liquid discharge concentrations are further reduced by dilution water 

35 before any release to the lake. Chemical waste is dewatered and sent offsite to an approved 

36 disposal site. Controls for limiting the release of radiological liquid effluents are described in the 

37 ODCM (Entergy 2004c). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The NRC staff reviewed the JAFNPP radioactive effluent release reports for 2001 through 2005 

2 for liquid effluents (Entergy 2006a, 2005a, 2004a, 2003, 2002a, 2002b). In 2005, 3 million liters 

(L) of radiological liquid effluents diluted with 921 million L of water and a total of 1.34 x 10-2 3 Ci 

of tritium diluted to concentrations below 2 x 10-6 4 μCi/ml were released (Entergy 2006a). The 

5 releases contained no other fission or activation products, gross alpha radioactivity, or dissolved 

and entrained gases. In the fourth quarter of 2002, a total of 2.75 10-3 6 Ci of fission and 

activation products and 3.62 x 10-7 7 Ci of gross alpha radioactivity were released. 

8 Based on the liquid waste processing systems and effluent controls and performance from 2001 

9 through 2005, similar small quantities of radioactive liquid effluents are expected from JAFNPP 

10 and are not expected to increase during the renewal period. These releases would result in 

11 doses to members of the public that are well below the as low as reasonably achievable 

12 (ALARA) dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as discussed in Section 2.2.7. 

13 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 

14 The gaseous radwaste processing system processes and disposes of condenser off-gases via 

15 the main stack. Non-radioactive gland seal gas and gases from the start-up mechanical pump 

16 are also discharged via the stack. During routine reactor operation, condenser off-gas is the 

17 major contributor to the activity in the off-gas release. Condenser off-gas entering this system 

18 consists of non-condensables from the main condenser, which consist of hydrogen and oxygen 

19 formed in the reactor by the radiolytic decomposition of water, air in-leakage to the turbine20 condenser, water vapor, and a negligible volume of fission gases. The most important sources 

21 of radioactive gases are activation gases in the reactor coolant and fission gases that leak 

22 through the fuel cladding (Entergy 2006c). 

23 The gaseous radwaste processing system controls, filters, and removes radioactive particulates 

24 and iodine from off-gas stream, recombines radiolytic hydrogen and oxygen, provides adequate 

25 holdup time for decay of short-lived radionuclides, and uses charcoal beds for the hold-up and 

26 partial decay of xenon (Xe) and krypton (Kr) gases. The stack design ensures prompt mixing of 

27 gas inlet streams at its base, thereby providing prompt dilution of hydrogen and allowing the 

28 location of sample points as near the base as possible. 

29 JAFNPP maintains gaseous in accordance with the procedures and methodology described in 

30 the ODCM. The gaseous radwaste system is used to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous 

31 effluents before discharge to meet the ALARA dose design objectives in 10 CFR Part 50, 

32 Appendix I. Radioactive effluent gases are released at a typical rate of 24 to 28 cubic feet per 

minute (ft3

/min). Two air dilution fans are in the base of the stack, both rated at 3000 ft3 33 /min. 

34 One dilution fan operates continuously while the other fan is on standby. The flow from the 

35 operating stack dilution fan also ensures that hydrogen is diluted to less than 4 percent by 

36 volume. In addition, the limits in the ODCM are designed to prevent members of the public in 

37 unrestricted areas from being exposed to radioactive materials in excess of the limits specified 

38 in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (Entergy 2006c). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-10 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff reviewed the JAFNPP radioactive effluent release reports for 2001 through 2005 

2 for gaseous effluents (Entergy 2006a, 2005a, 2004a, 2003, 2002a, 2002b). In 2005, the total 

fission and activation products released was 4370 Ci; iodine-131 was 9.35 x 10-3 3 Ci; particulates 

were 3.52 x 10-36 4 Ci; and tritium was 17.1 Ci. These activities are typical of past years and are 

5 not expected to increase during the renewal period. See Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of the 

6 theoretical doses to the maximally exposed individual as a result of these releases. 

7 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing 

8 The solid radwaste processing equipment is located in the radioactive waste building with the 

9 exception of the cleanup phase separator tanks, which are located in the reactor building. Both 

10 wet and dry radioactive solid wastes are processed. Wet solid wastes include backwash sludge 

11 wastes from the reactor water cleanup system, waste from floor drain filters, the fuel pool filter12 demineralizers, spent resins from the waste and condensate demineralizers, and spent media 

13 from modular fluidized transfer demineralization and sluice system. Dry solid wastes include 

14 rags, contaminated clothing, paper, small equipment parts, and solid laboratory wastes (Entergy 

15 2006c). 

16 Contaminated waste such as demolished piping, equipment, and components from facility 

17 radiological-controlled areas are first processed at an onsite decontamination unit. If the 

18 material is below the acceptable release limits and after additional cleaning shows no further 

19 reduction of contamination levels, the material may be returned to use or released from the 

20 radiological-controlled area. If the material is not below the release limits and after additional 

21 cleaning shows no further reduction of contamination levels, it will be disposed of as radioactive 

22 waste. In some instances, the solid material is sent to a vendor for decontamination. This 

23 material may be returned for reuse or disposed of as radioactive waste per the vendor’s process 

24 (Entergy 2006c). 

25 In 2005, JAFNPP made a total of 35 shipments of solid waste to offsite vendors. The solid 

waste volumes were 623 cubic meters (m3 26 ) of dry compressible waste, contaminated 

27 equipment, and spent resins, with an activity of 131 Ci (Entergy 2006a). No irradiated 

28 components or control rods were shipped. The solid waste volumes and radioactive material 

29 activity levels are typical of annual waste shipments for JAFNPP and are not expected to 

30 increase during the renewal period. 

31 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 

32 JAFNPP generates solid waste, hazardous and universal waste, mixed waste, and wastewaters 

33 from routine facility operations and maintenance activities. 

34 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams 

35 Solid waste is waste that is neither radioactive nor hazardous as defined by the Resource 

36 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Part 260). JAFNPP generates solid waste, 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 such as office trash, as part of routine plant maintenance, cleaning activities, and plant 

2 operations. A contract service collects office trash and disposes of the waste offsite. JAFNPP 

3 has an active recycling program for office paper, aluminum cans, and plastic. 

4 Hazardous waste is nonradioactive waste that is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

5 Agency (EPA) as hazardous waste or that exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, 

6 reactivity, or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261). RCRA regulates the treatment, storage, and/or 

7 disposal of hazardous waste and requires a hazardous waste permit for facilities that treat or 

8 store large quantities of hazardous waste for more than 90 days and for entities that dispose of 

9 hazardous waste at the facility. RCRA regulations are administered in New York State by 

10 NYSDEC. 

11 JAFNPP generates a variety of hazardous waste streams including broken fluorescent lamps, 

12 mercury, off-specification or expired chemicals, oil lab wastes, oils and solvents, paint waste, 

13 photographic waste, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). JAFNPP is a small-quantity 

14 generator of hazardous waste, meaning the plant generates less than 1000 kilograms (kg) of 

15 non-acute hazardous waste in a month and stores less than 6000 kg of this waste at any one 

16 time. A small-quantity generator can also be classified as generating less than 1 kg of acute 

17 hazardous waste in a month and storing less than 1 kg of this waste at one time. In 2004, 

18 JAFNPP generated 5266 kg of hazardous waste. Most of the waste was associated with the 

19 demolition of buildings. Approximately 318 kg of hazardous waste was generated in 2005 and 

20 626 kg in 2006. During 2004 to 2006, NYSDEC conducted two regulatory compliance 

21 inspections of JAFNPP’s RCRA program. No hazardous waste permit violations were noted. 

22 Universal waste is hazardous waste that has been specified as universal waste by the EPA. 

23 Universal waste, including mercury-containing equipment, batteries, lamps, and pesticides, has 

24 specific regulations (40 CFR Part 273) to ensure proper collection and recycling or treatment. 

25 States may modify the universal waste rule and add additional wastes to their list of universal 

26 wastes. New York State classifies batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing thermostats, and 

27 lamps as universal wastes, which are therefore subject to specific universal waste regulations 

28 (6 NYCRR Subpart 374). 

29 JAFNPP generates pesticides, batteries, and fluorescent lamps as universal wastes from 

30 normal facility operations. The batteries and lamps are accumulated in satellite areas and then 

31 moved to a locked storage building, in accordance with State universal waste regulations. The 

32 wastes are disposed of offsite by a contract service. In 2005, JAFNPP generated approximately 

33 7193 kg of spent batteries and 843 kg of spent fluorescent bulbs. In 2006, 2749 kg of spent 

34 batteries and 843 kg of spent bulbs were generated. During the 2004 RCRA inspection, one 

35 universal waste program violation related to the management of spent fluorescent bulbs was 

36 noted but fixed immediately by site personnel (Entergy 2006g). 

37 The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (15 USC s/s 2601 et seq.) implemented 

38 regulations for EPA to track specific toxic chemicals used in the U.S. PCBs, a TSCA chemical 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-12 June 2007 

1 is found at JAFNPP in limited quantities in transformer oil, lighting ballasts, and capacitors. In 

2 2005, JAFNPP received a fine from EPA for improperly identifying a drum of used oil as non3 hazardous instead of PCB-waste and not disposing of the drum at a TSCA disposal facility. As 

4 a result, Entergy created a fleet-wide TSCA management plan that has been implemented at 

5 JAFNPP. 

6 Low-level mixed waste (LLMW) is waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics and contains 

7 low levels of radioactivity. LLMW has been regulated under multiple authorities. EPA or state 

8 agencies regulate the hazardous component of LLMW through RCRA, and either the U.S. 

9 Department of Energy (DOE) or NRC regulates the radioactive component. New York State 

10 has adopted the EPA rule (6 NYCRR Part 374), which provides for a conditional exemption of 

11 LLMW storage, to eliminate dual regulation of LLMW. Storage of LLMW at JAFNPP is 

12 permitted under its NYSDEC Treatment, Storage, or Discharge Facility (TSDF) permit 

13 (No. NYD000765073). The permit was issued in November 1995 and expired in January 2000. 

14 New York Power Authority (NYPA), the owner of JAFNPP at the time, submitted a letter to 

15 NYSDEC (NYPA 2000) with its intention to operate under the conditional exemption. 

16 Subsequently, NYSDEC allowed the existing permit to continue under the State Administrative 

17 Procedures Act (Section 401) until the EPA rule was finalized (NYSDEC 2000a). JAFNPP 

18 submitted a letter to NYSDEC in November 2005 stating that JAFNPP qualified for the LLMW 

19 exemption and would, therefore, like to terminate its Part 373 Permit (Entergy 2005d). The 

20 permit is still pending termination by NYSDEC. 

21 JAFNPP generates oil and solvent wastes, off-specification chemicals, and paint wastes (solids 

22 and liquids) from normal facility operation and maintenance. These wastes, when generated, 

23 are stored in locked, marked containment buildings specifically for LLMW. JAFNPP last 

24 shipped LLMW offsite for disposal in 2005. JAFNPP generates small amounts of LLMW at 

25 several accumulation areas in the facility but does not have any stored in the mixed waste 

26 storage building (Entergy 2006g). 

27 JAFNPP generates two types of wastewater: sanitary liquid wastes and industrial effluents. 

28 Radioactive liquid waste is addressed in Section 2.1.4. Section 2.2.3 provides more information 

29 on JAFNPP’s SPDES permit. 

30 JAFNPP operates a sewage treatment plant to treat sanitary wastewater generated by the plant. 

31 The treated water is discharged into a drainage ditch that flows into Lake Ontario and is 

32 regulated as Outfall 012 in the SPDES permit (No. NY-0020109) issued by NYSDEC. Sanitary 

33 sludge from the sewage treatment plant is placed in covered sludge drying beds. The sludge is 

34 removed by a contractor as needed and disposed of at an offsite treatment facility. 

35 Industrial effluents are typically combined with cooling water discharges in accordance with 

36 SPDES permit requirements. There are five SPDES-permitted outfalls (Outfalls 001 through 

37 005). Circulating cooling water, service water, intake screen backwash, clarifier blowdown, filter 

38 backwash, clearwell overflow, waste tank discharges, borated water, and emergency diesel 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 generator cooling water are discharged at Outfall 001. Combined storm water and oil-water 

2 separator wastewater are discharged at Outfall 002. Storm water runoff is discharged at 

3 Outfalls 003, 004, and 005. Overflow from the sedimentation containment pond is also 

4 discharged from Outfall 005. JAFNPP’s SPDES permit requires specific monitoring and/or 

5 sampling at each of the outfalls. 

6 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires applicable 

7 facilities to provide information on hazardous and toxic chemicals to emergency planning 

8 authorities and the EPA. JAFNPP is subject to EPCRA Section 312 reporting and therefore 

9 submits annual reports to local emergency agencies on the following chemicals: carbon dioxide, 

10 diesel fuel, electrohydraulic fluid, fuel oil, gasoline, hydrogen, lube oils, nitrogen, oxygen, resins, 

11 sodium hypochlorite, and transformer oil (Entergy 2006g). 

12 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

13 Currently, JAFNPP has several waste minimization measures in place. JAFNPP recycles 

14 grease from the onsite cafeteria, as well as aluminum, office paper, and used oil. Another 

15 waste minimization measure is the use of shock absorbing concrete (SACON) blocks as 

16 backstops for firing activities at the firing ranges. The SACON blocks capture expended rounds, 

17 preventing potential groundwater or soil lead contamination. The block supplier removes the 

18 spent SACON blocks and recycles them into other concrete products (Entergy 2007a). 

19 Entergy has a corporate policy and plan for waste minimization at its nuclear power plants, 

20 including JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b). The plan provides a hierarchy of waste minimization 

21 options that emphasize source reduction, reuse/recycling, treatment to reduce volume and/or 

22 toxicity, and disposal, in that order. A fleet-wide focus group meets to discuss opportunities for 

23 waste minimization and information sharing among the Entergy nuclear facilities. There are 

24 also fleet-wide programs for Waste Management and Chemical Control. It is expected that 

25 Entergy would continue to implement its waste minimization policy and programs during the 

26 license renewal period for JAFNPP. The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has 

27 established a clearinghouse that provides information regarding management, technical, and 

28 operational approaches to pollution prevention. The EPA’s clearinghouse can provide 

29 additional opportunities for waste minimization and pollution prevention at JAFNPP. 

30 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance 

31 Maintenance activities conducted at JAFNPP include inspection, testing, and surveillance to 

32 maintain the current licensing basis of the facility and to ensure compliance with environmental 

33 and safety requirements. Various programs and activities currently exist at JAFNPP to 

34 maintain, inspect, test, and monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance 

35 activities include inspection requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler and pressure 

36 vessel in-service inspection and testing, maintenance structures monitoring program, and 

37 maintenance of water chemistry. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-14 June 2007 

1 Additional programs include those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance 

2 requirements, those implemented in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

3 (NRC) generic communications, and various periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection 

4 procedures. Certain program activities are performed during the operation of the unit, while 

5 others are performed during scheduled refueling outages. Entergy refuels JAFNPP on a 

6 nominal 24-month interval. 

7 2.1.7 Power Transmission System 

8 Two single-circuit, 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, the Edic and Scriba lines, were 

9 constructed to connect JAFNPP to the grid. Both of these lines are owned by NYPA. The Edic 

10 line (Table 2-1) is approximately 70 mi long and was constructed to connect the JAFNPP to the 

11 New York Power Pool transmission grid. This line runs southeasterly from the plant 345-kV 

12 switchyard to the Edic Substation located near Utica, New York (Figure 2-4). NYPA has owned 

13 and operated the transmission line since it was constructed in the early 1970s. A 400-ft wide 

14 right-of-way (ROW) was acquired by NYPA for the Edic 345-kV transmission line although a 

15 width of only 150 ft, totaling 1273 ac, was actually cleared for the line. The remaining ROW was 

16 acquired for the possible construction of future transmission lines. The Edic transmission line 

17 was constructed with steel self-supporting towers spaced about 1200 ft apart. When the ROW 

18 was acquired, about 65 percent of the ROW passed through forests, 29 percent through 

19 agricultural lands, and 6 percent through wetlands. Most of ROW land remains in private 

20 ownership and is used for a variety of compatible purposes. 

21 A second single circuit, 345-kV transmission line was also constructed to connect JAFNPP to 

22 the grid. The Scriba line (Table 2-1) is approximately 4900 ft (0.9 mi) in length and runs 

23 southward from the plant’s 345-kV switchyard to the National Grid Scriba Substation where it 

24 connects to the 345-kV transmission system. 

25 The two 345-kV lines for JAFNPP have transmission capacity in excess of the JAFNPP 

26 generating unit, so either line can be out of service without curtailing the output from the plant. 

27 Both lines exceed the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code for heavy loading 

28 districts, Grade B (Entergy 2006c). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 2-1. JAFNPP Transmission Lines, Substations, and Corridors 

Substation Owner 

Number 

of Lines kV 

Approximate 

Distance 

in miles 

Corridor 

Width in 

feet 

Corridor 

Area in 

acres 

Within 

Scope of 

License 

Renewal

Edic NYPA 1 345 70 150 1273 Yes 

Scriba NYPA 1 345 0.9 NA NA Yes 

Lighthouse Hill National Grid 1 115 26 NA NA No 

Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station 

Constellation 1 115 0.7 NA NA No 

Source: Entergy 2006c 

2 

3 Figure 2-4. JAFNPP Transmission Lines 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-16 June 2007 

1 

2 In addition to the two 345-kV transmission lines for power distribution, offsite power is provided 

3 to JAFNPP by two single-circuit 115-kV transmission lines connected to the plant’s 115-kV bus. 

4 One 115-kV line (Table 2-1) runs southward from the site and connects to the National Grid 

5 115-kV transmission line that extends to the Lighthouse Hill Hydroelectric Station located about 

6 26 mi east of JAFNPP. In addition to being a hydroelectric generating station and an integral 

7 part of the National Grid 115-kV system, the Lighthouse Hill facility also serves as the 

8 switchyard for several other hydroelectric facilities in the area. The other JAFNPP 115-kV line 

9 (Table 2-1) is approximately 3700 ft in length and is connected to the 115-kV bus at 

10 Constellation Nuclear Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. The 115-kV bus at Constellation Nuclear 

11 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 is also connected via a 115-kV transmission line to the 

12 South Oswego Substation (Entergy 2006c). 

13 Ownership of the four JAFNPP transmission lines is as follows: (1) Edic Substation 345-kV 

14 transmission line: from 345-kV switchyard to approximately the site property line, JAFNPP owns 

15 the line; from the JAFNPP property line to the Edic Substation, NYPA owns the line; (2) Scriba 

16 Substation 345-kV transmission line: from 345-kV switchyard to approximately the site property 

17 line, JAFNPP owns the line; from the JAFNPP property line to the Scriba Substation, NYPA 

18 owns the line; (3) Lighthouse Hill Hydroelectric Station 115-kV transmission line: from 115-kV 

19 Switchyard to approximately the site property line, JAFNPP owns the line; from the JAFNPP 

20 property line to the Lighthouse Hill Hydroelectric Station, National Grid owns the line; and (4) 

21 Constellation Nuclear Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 115-kV transmission line: from 115-kV 

22 switchyard to approximately the site property line, JAFNPP owns the line; from the JAFNPP 

23 property line to the Constellation Nuclear Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 115-kV bus, 

24 Constellation Nuclear Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station owns the line. 

25 For the two 345-kV transmission line ROWs, NYPA uses a vegetation management plan 

26 approved by the New York State Public Service Commission. NYPA uses an integrated 

27 vegetation management computer application, which employs geographic information system 

28 technology. The vegetation management program is designed to control tall-growing tree 

29 species and to enhance the abundance of lower-growing desirable vegetation. Field inventories 

30 are conducted annually for the ROW scheduled for clearing the following year. Inventories and 

31 treatment recommendations are reviewed and approved by the NYPA forestry staff. The 

32 majority of clearing is performed using mechanical methods. Herbicide applications are applied 

33 to selected plant species by licensed contractors, and a safe buffer is maintained around 

34 wetlands, and stream and river crossings. A safe buffer is also used around wells and springs 

35 that are used for residential water supplies. Areas where herbicides are used are posted with 

36 information regarding the chemicals that were used and when they were applied. Herbicides 

37 are not applied on NYPA ROWs using aerial application methods (Entergy 2006c). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.2 Facility Interaction with the Environment

2 Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near JAFNPP as 

3 background information. They also provide detailed descriptions where needed to support the 

4 analysis of potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal 

5 term, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological 

6 resources in the area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts associated with other 

7 Federal project activities. 

8 2.2.1 Land Use 

9 JAFNPP is located in an unincorporated and primarily rural area approximately seven mi 

10 northeast of Oswego, New York. Syracuse is the largest city within 50 mi of JAFNPP. Lake 

11 Road (County Road 1A) provides road access to the site and transverses JAFNPP property in 

12 an east-west direction just south of the plant. Exclusion distances for the JAFNPP site are 

13 approximately 3000 ft to the east, over 1 mi to the west, and about 1.5 mi to the southern site 

14 boundary. The nearest location with public access to the reactor building and any points of 

15 potential gaseous effluents, with the exception of the lake shoreline, are at the northeast corner 

16 of the property. The nearest residence lies outside the site boundary to the east-southeast at 

17 0.71 miles (Entergy 2006c). See Figure 2-2. 

18 JAFNPP features include the reactor building, turbine building, administration building and 

19 control room, ISFSI, and several support facilities. The most prominent feature on the site is the 

20 off-gas stack, which is 385 ft high. Only 3 percent of the site is occupied by JAFNPP structures, 

21 with the remainder consisting of forest shrub, grasslands, and wetlands or ponds (Entergy 

22 2006c). See Figure 2-3. 

23 The site lies mainly within the Erie-Ontario Lowlands physiographic province. This province 

24 consists of a relatively flat plain that rises gently from Lake Ontario to the Appalachian Uplands, 

25 which form the province’s southern border. Erie-Ontario Lowlands are bounded on the east by 

26 Tug Hill Upland, through which small portions of the transmission line pass. The site is a 

27 generally flat and featureless plain. It has an elevation of 270 ft rising to 310 ft 1 mi away at the 

28 southern extremity. The surface soils are derived from bouldery-ablation tills that immediately 

29 overlay a compact basal till lying on bedrock (AEC 1973). 

30 2.2.2 Water Use 

31 Water use associated with the operation of JAFNPP consists of fresh water drawn from Lake 

32 Ontario used primarily for cooling. Water from Lake Ontario is used for the cooling and auxiliary 

33 systems. JAFNPP receives its potable water from the City of Oswego. JAFNPP is not a direct 

34 user of groundwater, and there are no plans for direct groundwater use in the future. There are 

35 no production wells onsite (Entergy 2006c). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-18 June 2007 

1 2.2.3 Water Quality 

2 JAFNPP is located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario, which is the furthest downstream 

3 and smallest of all the Great Lakes, having a surface area of 7340 square miles. It is an 

4 international body of water with the border of the United States and Canada being 

5 approximately midway across the width of the lake. It has an average depth of 283 ft with a 

6 maximum depth of 802 ft (EPA 2006d). 

7 The combination of prevailing west-northwest winds over the lake area and the eastern flow of 

8 water from Lake Erie results in the lake being dominated by a counterclockwise horizontal 

9 circulation pattern. Although winds can play a major role in affecting localized lake water flow 

10 patterns, currents on the southern shore of the lake often move in an easterly direction in a 

11 relatively narrow band. Because Lake Ontario is the furthest downstream of all the Great 

12 Lakes, its water quality is influenced not only by human activities on its own shores, but by 

13 impacts on all the other Great Lakes as well. Approximately 80 percent of the influx of water to 

14 Lake Ontario comes directly from Lake Erie via the Niagara River. The remaining 20 percent of 

15 the influx comes from basin tributaries, groundwater and precipitation. Approximately 

16 93 percent of Lake Ontario’s water flows out through the St. Lawrence River with the remaining 

17 7 percent being lost to evaporative processes. The estimated water retention time is 6 years 

18 (EPA 2006d). 

19 Changes in wind speed and direction on Lake Ontario can also contribute to vertical mixing of 

20 lake water. Strong winds can cause upwelling and sudden oscillations of thermocline depth. 

21 Strong easterly winds along the east-west axis of Lake Ontario will cause a surface drift to the 

22 right, which can result in tilting of the thermocline. When the tilted thermocline is pushed along 

23 the nearshore zone it can become so intense that an outbreak of cold hypolimnion water will 

24 upwell to the surface in the nearshore environment and create a steep temperature gradient in 

25 the lake center. An increase in longshore current velocity can be associated with these events 

26 as well, increasing the dispersion of both pollutants and nutrients from the lake bottom along the 

27 shore (EC 2000). 

28 Both meteorological and hydrological processes are responsible for a seasonal thermal 

29 response on the lake. Incoming solar radiation heats the surface waters of the lake, more so in 

30 the summer, while changes in wind speed and direction aid in the mixing of these heated waters 

31 to lower depths in the lake. The mean summer ambient temperature of Lake Ontario in the Nine 

32 Mile Point area is approximately 67° Fahrenheit (F). Most of the lake is vertically stratified 

33 during the summer (June through September) with warm surface waters (epilimnion) averaging 

34 nearly 70°F and cool deeper waters (hypolimnion) ranging between 38.8 and 39.2°F. Mixing of 

35 these strata begins as the thermocline breaks down during September as a result of surface 

36 water cooling and continues until water temperatures are the same throughout the water column 

37 (EC 2000). The date of this overturn varies annually due to short term weather patterns and 

38 storms. The isotherms following the overturn tend to be parallel to the shore resulting in a 

39 freezing of nearshore waters with the deeper offshore waters remaining open. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Lake Ontario outflows, and thus lake water levels, are controlled by a series of dams on the 

2 St. Lawrence River under the authority of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control 

3 (ISLRBC). The ISLRBC requires that Lake Ontario water levels be maintained within a target 

4 range of 243 to 247 ft International Great Lakes Datum to support lake navigation and to provide 

5 water for power production facilities on the lake. The target level of 243 ft is maintained from 

6 April through November when lake water evaporation rates would be highest and the 

7 St. Lawrence River is likely close to low-flow conditions (ISLRBC 2004). 

8 Once an oligotrophic system, by 1970 Lake Ontario was almost entirely eutrophic, caused by 

9 high levels of anthropogenic nutrients (primarily phosphorous) and uncontrolled pollutant 

10 discharge to the lake. The eutrophication of Lake Ontario was recognized as a serious water 

11 quality problem by the U.S. and Canada and led to the creation of the bi-national Great Lakes 

12 Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972. Since then the lake has seen dramatic 

13 improvement in water quality. Much of this improvement can be attributed to stricter controls on 

14 land use in the Lake Ontario basin and lake-wide management plans sponsored by the GLWQA 

15 that reduced levels of non-point source pollution entering the lake. However, changes in lake 

16 water quality since the 1970s have altered the biological landscape within Lake Ontario. 

17 Nutrient supplies and other environmental pressures have had direct effects on all trophic levels 

18 within the lake ecosystem (Stewart et al. 1999). 

19 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted a study 

20 of water quality throughout New York State over the past 30 years, including selected basic 

21 water quality parameters of Lake Ontario; this information is summarized in Table 2-2. Data 

22 was collected in the Nine Mile Point area in 1972 and 1978, the City of Oswego water intake 

23 (approximately 8 mi southwest of JAFNPP) in 1998 and 1999, and at the Monroe County water 

24 intake (approximately 50 mi west of JAFNPP) in 2000 (NYSDEC 2000b). 

25 Today, the largest source of pollutants and nutrients (including phosphorous and nitrogen) 

26 entering Lake Ontario is through the Niagara River, which drains Lake Erie. As in the past, 

27 additional nutrients also still enter the lake through runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, 

28 sewage outflows, and erosional processes. The NYSDEC water quality study indicated that 

29 although over the past 30 years there have been general reductions in some pollutants, such as 

30 phosphorous and dissolved solids, nitrogen inputs to Lake Ontario have increased. Runoff from 

31 agricultural lands and atmospheric deposition are likely significant contributors to lake nitrogen 

32 levels. 

33 In another bi-national effort, in 1989 the U.S. and Canada developed the Lake Ontario Toxics 

34 Management Plan. The plan addressed persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs), 

35 which include mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins (NYSDEC 2000b). PBTs 

36 enter Lake Ontario through various tributaries and have historically accumulated in sediments at 

37 the bottom of the lake. Several portions of Lake Ontario’s New York shoreline are classified by 

38 the NYSDEC as “impaired,” requiring total maximum daily load (TMDL) development in order to 

39 reduce the input of the specific pollutants (NYSDEC 2006g). Some Lake Ontario biota saw 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-20 June 2007 

1 reductions in toxic chemical concentrations from the 1960s through the 1980s that were 

2 generally attributed to restrictions placed on the manufacture and use of PBTs, but those 

3 declines have since leveled off. This may be due in part to the sequestration of chemicals in the 

4 benthic lake sediments. Consumption advisories for certain lake fish species continue to be 

5 issued by NYSDEC based on PBT levels found in some fish samples (NYSDEC 2000b). 

6 Table 2-2. Selected Water Quality Parameters of Lake Ontario 

 Year 

Parameter 1972(a) 1978(b) 1998-99(c) 2000(e)

pH 8.0 8.4 7.96 7.6 

Total alkalinity (mg/L) 72–90 94.2 92 83 

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.01–0.28 0.027 0.006(d) 0.005(d)

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 107–186 202 NA 160 

Total nitrates (mg/L) 0.04–0.40 < 0.18 NA 0.34 

Turbidity 2–6 JTU 3.0 NTU 0.5 NTU 0.09 NTU 

mg/L = milligram(s) per liter 

JTU = Jackson Turbidity Unit(s) 

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit(s) 

(a) Source: AEC 1974 

(b) Source: NMPC 1985 

(c) Source (except total phosphorus): Heritage Power 2000 

(d) Source: EPA 2005 

(e) Source (except total phosphorus): MCWA 2001; pH and 

alkalinity data are from water distribution system and not from 

ambient lake water 

7 

8 JAFNPP uses a Betz Clam-Trol CT-1 (a chlorine-based molluscicide) program within their 

9 service and cooling water systems to control zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and 

10 quagga mussels (D. bugensis). The site-specific SPDES permit limits the administration of the 

11 molluscicide program to a maximum of four times per year and includes special conditions for 

12 outfall monitoring during applications and strict discharge limitations (Entergy 2006c). Biofouling 

13 control at JAFNPP is achieved through the application of sodium hypochlorite in the service 

14 water system and the condenser waterboxes. Sodium hypochlorite injection occurs 

15 continuously, but at a concentration and volume that does not result in the exceedance of the 

16 SPDES limit of 0.2 parts per million (ppm) total residual chlorine (TRC), as measured in the 

17 discharge canal. Waterbox chlorination is limited to two hours per day, not to exceed a total of 

18 nine hours per week, and during daytime hours only when ichthyoplankton entrainment levels 

19 are historically low. The JAFNPP SPDES permit also prescribes a waterbox chlorination 

20 limitation of 0.2 ppm TRC (Entergy 2006a). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Treated effluent from the sanitary waste water treatment system is regulated as Outfall 012 

2 before discharging into a drainage ditch that flows into Lake Ontario. The effluent is monitored 

3 for flow, biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, settable solids, fecal coliform, pH, and 

4 total residual chlorine. Maximum permitted flow is 60,000 gpd as a 30-day average. During 

5 2006, daily flow ranged from 400 to 25,000 gpd (Entergy 2006c). 

6 JAFNPP operates in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal discharge limitations 

7 (Entergy 2006c). The NRC staff review of the past five years of JAFNPP SPDES reports found 

8 no notices of violation. 

9 Groundwater is available in the Nine Mile Point area from both confined and unconfined 

10 aquifers. There are four hydrostratigraphic units in existence within the JAFNPP site area: non11 lithified sediments and soils, the Oswego Sandstone, the Pulaski Formation and the Whetstone 

12 Gulf Formation, in descending order. The unconfined aquifer is composed of clay-rich soils 

13 derived from glacial till and the uppermost portion of the Oswego Sandstone. Due to the 

14 increase of interbedded silts and clays within the Oswego Sandstone at depth, the sandstone 

15 becomes relatively impermeable at 20 ft. The first confined aquifer lies in both the lower portion 

16 of the Oswego sandstone and uppermost portion of the Pulaski Formation, which is composed 

17 of sandstone, siltstone and shale. An additional confined aquifer lies within the Pulaski 

18 Formation at depth within a sandstone unit bounded by siltstone and shale. The underlying 

19 Whetstone Gulf Formation has a low permeability as it is dominated by black shales with 

20 interbedded sandstone and siltstones. All three aquifers are confined under pressure and would 

21 result in artesian wells if utilized at the surface. 

22 Within a two mile radius of JAFNPP, the local water table elevation varies from 300 to 246 ft 

23 National Geodetic Vertical Datum with an average gradient of 0.7 percent to the north-northwest 

24 (toward Lake Ontario). The normal groundwater level within the site boundary is approximately 

25 255 ft and can have annual variations of up to 2 ft. 

26 Groundwater recharge in this area occurs as a result of precipitation and localized seepage 

27 from ponds and swamps through the surface soils into the unconfined aquifer. Due to the low 

28 permeability of the clay-rich soils in the immediate vicinity of the site, most of the precipitation 

29 runs off toward surface culverts or directly toward Lake Ontario. Groundwater recharge to the 

30 Oswego Sandstone most commonly occurs through filtration of water through the unsaturated 

31 zone of the unconfined aquifer and can also occur directly through local outcrops located to the 

32 south and southeast of JAFNPP. Recharge to the lower confined aquifers occurs through 

33 fractures in the Oswego Sandstone or directly through surface outcrops upgradient of the site. 

Due to a permeability of 1 x 10-5 34 cm/s and an average gradient of 0.7 percent, groundwater 

35 velocity within the unconfined aquifer is estimated at a few yards per year. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-22 June 2007 

1 2.2.4 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality 

2 2.2.4.1 Climate 

3 The climate of western New York State is representative of the humid continental type, warm 

4 summer subtype. The climate is designated Dfb in the Koeppen system and is sometimes 

5 referred to as hemiboreal. Typical of the Dfb climate zone, weather changes between summer 

6 and winter are very large around the JAFNPP site with cold, snowy winters and long, warm (not 

7 hot) summers. Latitude, topography, and proximity to large bodies of water such as Lake 

8 Ontario have a profound effect on the climate and short-term weather. 

9 JAFNPP’s proximity to Lake Ontario makes it subject to locally extreme amounts of precipitation 

10 in the winter. This phenomenon, called “lake effect snow,” is produced when cold arctic air 

11 crosses the warmer lake, absorbing water vapor, which then falls as precipitation on the 

12 adjacent shore. The elevated areas south and east of JAFNPP frequently set daily records for 

13 snowfall in the Untied States because the lake effect snow is enhanced by orographic uplift. 

14 The following climatological data is based on 30 years of observations (from 1971 to 2000) from 

15 the nearest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station in Oswego, New 

16 York (NOAA 2004a). Average minimum temperature in January was 16.7°F, and average 

17 maximum temperature in July was 80.0°F. Month-long average temperatures ranged from 

18 23.6°F in January to 70.8°F in July. Average monthly precipitation ranged from 2.83 in. in 

19 February to 4.47 in. in November. Average annual precipitation was 42.9 in. Precipitation 

20 occurred almost uniformly throughout the year, caused by advancing polar fronts in the winter 

21 and advection of tropical moisture in the summer. 

22 2.2.4.2 Meteorology 

23 Meteorological measurements for JAFNPP are collected nearby at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

24 Station through an agreement between the two managing companies (Entergy and 

25 Constellation Nuclear, respectively). Measurements are made from a 200-ft main tower and 

26 also at a nearby shorter tower (approximately 100 ft). At the main tower, winds and temperature 

27 are measured at three levels—at 30, 100, and 200 ft. The Nine Mile Point meteorological 

28 system determines atmospheric stability by using the EPA-approved Delta-T method. More 

29 information on the main tower and the data collected there is in the Nine Mile Point 

30 Environmental Impact Statement(NRC 2006, Section 2.2.4). 

31 Severe thunderstorms with winds exceeding 58 mph and/or property damage occur an average 

32 of five days per year in Oswego County (2001 through 2006) (NOAA 2004b). Since 1950, eight 

33 tornadoes have been reported in Oswego County (NOAA 2004b). The strongest tornado 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

reached F3(1) 1 strength near the town of Phoenix on May 2, 1983, and resulted in no injuries. 

2 The other seven tornadoes were categorized as F1 or lower. One of these struck a mobile 

3 home, resulting in minor injuries to three people. The probability of a tornado striking JAFNPP 

is estimated to be 3 x 10-3 4 in a reactor’s licensing period of 40 years (Entergy 2001). 

5 Wind resources are expressed in terms of wind power classes ranging from Class 1 to Class 7. 

6 Each class represents a range of mean wind power density or approximate mean wind speed at 

7 specified heights above the ground. The wind energy resource for most of the Lake Ontario 

8 shoreline of Oswego County is rated between Class 3 and 4 (Renewable Resource Data Center 

9 2004, Figure 3-25). Areas designated as Class 3 or greater are suitable for most wind energy 

10 applications. 

11 2.2.4.3 Air Quality 

12 JAFNPP is located in Oswego County which is part of the Central Air Quality Control Region 7 

13 of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. With the exception of 

14 ozone, Region 7 is designated as being in attainment of or as unclassifiable for all criteria 

15 pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 81.333. Jefferson County, northeast of Oswego County, is 

16 designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and classified as moderate for the 8-hour ozone 

17 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and marginal for the 1-hour. The Clean Air Act 

18 established Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is important. No areas designated as 

19 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I are within 62 mi of JAFNPP. 

20 There are four emergency diesel generators, two diesel fire pumps, and two auxiliary boilers on 

21 the JAFNPP site. The emergency generators and fire pumps are exempt from air permitting 

22 due to the small size and limited usage of these units. Emission from the boilers is regulated 

23 under a Certificate to Operate an Air Contamination Source (7-3556-00020/00012) issued by 

24 NYSDEC. This certificate limits fuel usage, fuel type, and hours of operation of the boilers. 

25 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 

26 Lake Ontario is the source of water for the circulating and service water system at JAFNPP. 

27 Station discharge from both the main condenser and service water system is returned to the 

28 lake. Site drainage includes two offsite ditches on either side of the plant and two onsite storm 

29 sewer outfalls; all ditches and outfalls discharge to Lake Ontario and are regulated under the 

30 plant’s SPDES permit (Entergy 2006c). There are no natural watercourses onsite. Associated 

31 transmission corridors cross 60 watercourses of which seven are classified by the New York 

32 State Water Resources Commission as suitable for water supplies and 27 for agriculture and 

33 industry (AEC 1973). 

 

(1) The Fujita six-point scale (F0 to F5) is used to rate the intensity of a tornado based on the damage it 

inflicts to structures and vegetation. Lowest intensity is F0; highest is F5. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-24 June 2007 

1 Lake Ontario, the source and the receiving water body for JAFNPP, is last in the chain of Great 

Lakes. It is the smallest of the five Great Lakes and with a watershed of 24,720 mi2 2 , Lake 

3 Ontario has the highest ratio of watershed land area to lake surface area of all the Great Lakes 

4 (EPA 2006a). The lake’s drainage basin is almost evenly split between the province of Ontario 

5 and the state of New York. Approximately 7 percent of the drainage basin is urbanized: major 

6 industrial centers on the lake shore include Hamilton and Toronto in Ontario and Rochester in 

7 New York. Although not categorized as urban, the Syracuse-Oswego area in New York is 

8 relatively densely populated. Forests cover about 49 percent of the basin, with agriculture 

9 practiced over approximately 39 percent. In general, the New York shoreline is less urbanized 

10 than the Canadian shoreline and is not intensively farmed (Stewart et al. 1999). 

11 Shipping is a major activity on Lake Ontario and has encouraged the development of 

12 manufacturing industry and port cities. The Port of Oswego, approximately 6 mi west of 

13 JAFNPP, had an overall annual tonnage of 457,770 in 2002. The port has a main channel 

14 depth of 27 ft, and its primary cargoes include aluminum, potash, urea, limestone, salt, cement, 

15 and petroleum products (GLSLSS 2006). Lake Ontario also supports a minor commercial 

16 fishing industry, grossing just $46,000 in 2004. Recreational fishing is much more important to 

17 the Lake Ontario area, with the total economic value to coastal communities estimated to range 

18 from $100 million to more than $200 million per year (EPA 2006c). 

19 Lake Ontario has two major basins: Kingston Basin, which is shallow and in the northeastern 

20 corner of the lake, and a deeper main basin that covers the majority of the lake. The bottom of 

21 Lake Ontario is relatively smooth with the exception of the sill that separates the Kingston and 

22 main basins. The main basin is further split into three sub-basins: Rochester, Mississauga, and 

23 Niagara (from east to west). With the majority of the lake’s water coming in from the Niagara 

24 River and the prevailing west-southwest winds, circulation in Lake Ontario flows in an easterly 

25 direction along the southern and eastern shores and within sub-basins of the lake (EPA 2006b). 

26 Being a relatively deep lake, Lake Ontario experiences seasonally dependent horizontal and 

27 vertical thermal stratification. Stratification occurs when different water temperatures create 

28 different water densities, which prevents mixing. Horizontal stratification occurs in the main 

29 basin between near-shore and offshore zones and lasts from mid-autumn until approximately 

30 mid-June when offshore waters finally warm and mixing can occur. For the remainder of the 

31 summer, main basin waters are vertically stratified, meaning that warm surface waters do not 

32 mix with cool, deeper waters. The vertical stratification begins to break down during September 

33 when surface waters begin to cool and slowly sink and mix with deeper waters. Mixing 

34 continues until an isothermal condition prevails throughout the winter (EPA 2006b). During the 

35 winter months, inshore areas of Lake Ontario freeze, but of all the Great Lakes, Lake Ontario 

36 has the least amount of ice cover, with typically 85 percent of the lake ice-free throughout the 

37 winter. In general, waters are warmer in the southeastern portion of the lake and cooler in the 

38 northwestern portion. Lake water temperatures typically range from 32 to 39.2°F in January and 

39 from 53.6 to 68°F in July (PC 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Lake Ontario is oligotrophic with low primary productivity—roughly half that of Lake Erie. Lake 

2 water clarity ranges from 16.4 to 32.8 ft. Over the years, the trophic status of Lake Ontario has 

3 continually been influenced by human activities, including point-source pollution from industry 

4 and waste disposal and non-point source pollution from agriculture and urban development. 

5 The lake is affected not only by its drainage basin but also by being the most downstream Great 

6 Lake. Thus, pollution sources in the upper Great Lakes impact Lake Ontario as well (EPA 

7 2006b). 

8 Since the first Euro-Americans arrived in the Great Lakes area, Lake Ontario has experienced 

9 ecological stress that included overfishing, anthropogenic eutrophication, land-use changes, 

10 contaminant discharge, loss and degradation of critical habitat, colonization of invasive species, 

11 and substantial declines and profound changes in fish communities (NYSDEC 2004). 

12 Lake Ontario was an oligotrophic system prior to European colonization of the Great Lakes 

13 area. However, with increasing industrial development on the northern shore of the lake and 

14 the subsequent increase in nutrient inputs (anthropogenic sources of phosphorous and 

15 nitrogen), the lake experienced excess algal growth and became mesotrophic with inshore 

16 areas becoming eutrophic. Phosphorous levels peaked in the 1960s and 1970s until water 

17 pollution controls were implemented throughout the Great Lakes. Since then, nutrient levels in 

18 the lake have declined, and the lake has returned to a more balanced oligotrophic state (Mills et 

19 al. 2005; EPA 2006b). 

20 Although water quality has improved over the last 20 years in response to lake-wide 

21 management plans, the Lake Ontario ecosystem is still very much in transition. NYSDEC and 

22 the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) annually stock the lake with salmonids to 

23 support a lucrative sport fishery. Non-native fish populations such as the alewife (Alosa 

24 pseudoharengus) are highly dynamic with large fluctuations in population from year to year, and 

25 pelagic zooplankton production is continually declining. Oligotrophic fish populations are slowly 

26 recovering, and invasive species such as quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) and the 

27 cladoceran waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi) are thriving (NYSDEC 2004; OMNR 2006). 

28 There have been a series of milestones in the management of Lake Ontario. In 1955, the 

29 Canadian/U.S Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries created the Great Lakes Fishery 

30 Commission (GLFC). The GLFC is a bi-national cooperative agency that coordinates fisheries 

31 research and facilitates cooperative fishery management among the state, provincial, tribal, and 

32 federal agencies. The GLFC is responsible for implementing the Joint Strategic Plan for 

33 Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (GLFC 1994). Eight states bordering the Great Lakes, 

34 the Province of Ontario, two intertribal agencies, and several federal agencies are signatory to 

35 this management plan, working together and leveraging each others’ resources to rehabilitate 

36 native lake species, control exotic species, prevent and manage fishery diseases, coordinate 

37 law enforcement, produce new research, publish state-of-the-lake reports, and determine total 

38 allowable catch and allocation agreements and fish stocking levels (GLFC 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-26 June 2007 

1 The GLFC also funded the 1971 Salmonid Communities in Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL-1) 

2 symposium, which examined the effects of cultural eutrophication, exploitation, and exotic 

3 species introduction on salmonid communities in the five Great Lakes. In 2004, these issues 

4 were revisited in a second symposium (SCOL-2) with an emphasis on linkages between trophic 

5 levels (GLFC 2007). 

6 In 1972, the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed between the 

7 International Joint Commission (IJC) of Canada and the United States. Both countries pledged 

8 to address the deterioration of Great Lakes water quality from point source and non-point 

9 source pollution. A new GLWQA was signed in 1978 that outlined a commitment to restoring 

10 and maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the Great Lakes. In 1987, 

11 the IJC drafted a protocol that focused on the overall human and aquatic ecosystem health of 

12 the Great Lakes. Remedial action plans and lake-wide management plans were developed that 

13 implemented an ecosystem approach to improving the Great Lakes waters. The plans are 

14 designed to work in concert with local resource management plans, such as those that address 

15 a specific fishery (IJC 2004). 

16 Close to JAFNPP, the Little Salmon and Oswego rivers are two of the ten major tributaries that 

17 feed Lake Ontario. Both rivers have been designated by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal 

18 Resources as “Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.” Little Salmon River empties into 

19 Lake Ontario at Mexico Point near the town of Mexico, approximately 10 mi east of JAFNPP. 

20 The river provides an important fish spawning and nursery area and supports large 

21 concentrations of warmwater species including northern pike (Esox lucius), largemouth bass 

22 (Micropterus salmoides), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), white sucker (Catostomus 

23 commersonii), and brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus). Little Salmon River is one of the 

24 primary salmonid habitats in eastern Lake Ontario. As a result of NYSDEC’s ongoing sport 

25 fishery stocking program, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon 

26 (Onchorhynchus kisutch), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus 

27 mykiss) can also be found in Little Salmon River during spawning periods (NYSDOS 2006). 

28 The Oswego River is located in the city of Oswego, approximately 4 mi west of JAFNPP. Land 

29 along this river has been impacted by extensive human disturbance, including a number of locks 

30 and dams that impede or act as barriers to fish migrating upriver to spawn. However, the river 

31 is still an important habitat for warmwater fish species including alewife, gizzard shad (Dorsoma 

32 cepedianum), brown bullhead, white perch (Morone americana), yellow perch (Perca 

33 flavescens), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass, walleye (Sander 

34 vitreus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). The 

35 river is the primary spawning and nursery area for walleye in the Oswego County area, and in 

36 1982, lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) were also spotted in the river, making it the only 

37 Lake Ontario tributary that historically supported this species. Stocked salmonids also attempt 

38 to use this river for spawning (NYSDOS 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Lake Ontario offshore waters have been dominated historically by lake trout (Salvelinus 

2 namaycush), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), deepwater sculpin (Myoxocephalus thompsoni), 

3 coregonids (Coregonus spp.), and burbot (Lota lota). By the 1970s, Lake Ontario’s major native 

4 fish stocks were near extinction as a result of cumulative ecological stressors including 

5 overfishing, anthropogenic eutrophication, industrial pollution, degradation and loss of habitat, 

6 and colonization of invasive species. 

7 The external parasite, sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), was also seriously impacting fish 

8 populations. Populations of the sea lamprey, an invasive species, sharply increased in the early 

9 1900s, coincident with high numbers of lake trout. It is believed that commercial fishing and sea 

10 lampreys acted together to drive large piscivores in Lake Ontario to near extinction (Mills et al. 

11 2005). Atlantic salmon, deepwater sculpin, lake trout, burbot, and coregonids all but 

12 disappeared, while non-native fish such as alewife, rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), and white 

13 perch proliferated. Alewife, a planktivore fish that is prey for large piscivores, first appeared in 

14 Lake Ontario by the late 1800s, and in the absence of abundant piscivores, the alewife 

15 population exploded. Rainbow smelt experienced significant increases around the same time 

16 and were implicated in the decline of native cisco (Coregonus artedii) populations (Jackson 

17 1997).

18 In 1968, the first year of what were to become annual releases, brown trout, Chinook salmon, 

19 coho salmon, and steelhead trout were stocked to reduce alewife populations and create a sport 

20 fishery. Between 1968 and the late 1980s, salmonid stocking rates rose steadily to more than 8 

21 million individuals per year. Concurrently, water conditions were improving and Lake Ontario 

22 returned to an oligotrophic system, but by 1990, the high rates of salmonid stocking and the low 

23 lake nutrient levels were affecting the Lake Ontario food web—including decreases in the size of 

24 salmon returning to spawn and reduced angler harvest rates, likely due to a reduction in prey. 

25 Current combined NYSDEC and OMNR salmonid stocking rates have been maintained 

26 between 4.0 and 5.5 million individuals per year. Improvements in habitat and water quality 

27 have resulted in the decline of Lake Ontario’s carrying capacity at all levels. Food web studies 

28 of the lower trophic levels conducted in the 1980s and 1990s indicated declines in algal 

29 abundance (phytoplankton) and zooplankton biomass and production. Because phytoplankton 

30 and zooplankton rely on the very nutrients that impact water quality, the effect of nutrient 

31 reductions extends into the food web (Jackson 1997; Mills et al. 2003). 

32 Currently, growth of stocked salmonids is sustained primarily by alewife populations and to a 

33 lesser degree by rainbow smelt and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Salmonid predation has 

34 been so excessive that the present alewife population has been reduced almost entirely to pre35 reproductive individuals: from the early 1980s to the 1990s, the alewife population declined 

36 42 percent (Jackson 1997). Alewives are the primary planktivores in Lake Ontario, and 

37 historically, intense feeding pressure on large plankton species by the alewife population has 

38 selected for smaller species. The precipitous alewife population decline has subsequently 

39 changed the Lake Ontario plankton community—there has been a shift from smaller to larger 

40 zooplankton species. Zooplankton have an intermediate position in the Lake Ontario food web 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-28 June 2007 

1 and are an important link between phytoplankton and fish. Larger zooplanktons also feed on 

2 smaller zooplankton species, and the presence of large zooplankton therefore competes with 

3 other invertebrates and fish for smaller zooplankton prey (NYSDEC 2004).

4 The lower food web declines in Lake Ontario were likely exacerbated by the new presence of 

5 exotic (invasive) species. By the 1990s, exotic species, including the zebra mussel; the quagga 

6 mussel; the amphipod Echinogammarus ischmus, a non-native cladoceran; the round goby 

7 (Neogobius melanostomus); and the bloody red shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) had been 

8 introduced to the Great Lakes via transoceanic shipping. Through their efficient phytoplankton 

9 grazing and ability to cover any available substrate quickly and entirely, zebra and quagga 

10 mussels significantly increased water clarity throughout the 1990s, causing profound impacts 

11 throughout the food web. Historically, the native amphipod Diporeia spp. accounted for 60 to 80 

12 percent of Lake Ontario’s benthic community. However, the spread of dreissenid mussels 

13 altered Lake Ontario’s benthic habitat. Diporeia spp. declined after dreissenid introduction, 

14 impacting bottom fish species including native lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) (Mills et 

15 al. 2003). More recent benthic studies indicate that quagga mussels have largely replaced 

16 zebra mussels in all benthic habitats of Lake Ontario; this transition may have occurred due to 

17 round goby predation on zebra mussels. Since first appearing in Lake Ontario in 1998, the 

18 round goby, an aggressive, bottom-dwelling fish, has established itself in Lake Ontario and is 

19 expected to trigger further changes in the benthic community. Additionally, where round gobies 

20 have become abundant, numbers of native bottom-dwelling fish have declined, such as 

21 tessellated darters (Etheostoma olmstedi) and sculpins (Cottidae spp.) (Stewart et al. 1999). 

22 Despite other improvements in the Lake Ontario ecosystem, the unintentional introduction of 

23 non-native species to the benthic, planktonic and fish communities will likely prevent Lake 

24 Ontario from ever returning to its original state. 

25 The reduction in available nutrients combined with the increased penetration of light and 

26 extended, seasonal, warm water periods, has also resulted in the return and increased growth 

27 of submerged aquatic vegetation, primarily filamentous Cladophora spp. The vegetation 

28 coverage provides protection and nursery areas for a number of invertebrate and fish species 

29 (NYSDEC 2003). However, the increasing clarity of Lake Ontario water may cause a shift of 

30 some light-sensitive fish species, such as the walleye, to relocate into deeper waters (Stewart et 

31 al. 1999). 

32 There are no aquatic species Federally listed as threatened or endangered under the 

33 Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the vicinity of JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b). Through 

34 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), no aquatic species (fish, molluscs, 

35 or aquatic plants) were identified as potentially occurring at the site or in watercourses along or 

36 across the associated transmission corridors. 

37 Five aquatic species that have been designated by New York State as threatened, endangered, 

38 or a species of special concern and that may occur in the vicinity of JAFNPP are listed in Table 

39 2-3. There were no reported takings of these fish at JFNPP in 2004 (EA 2005). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 2-3. Aquatic Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or a Species of Special 

2 Concern by New York State, Potentially Occurring in Oswego and Onondaga Counties

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status 

Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon — T 

Erimyzon sucetta lake chubsucker — T 

Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner — S 

Myoxocephalus thompsoni deepwater sculpin — E 

Prosopium cylindraceum round whitefish — E 

 — = No listing 

 E = Endangered 

 S = Species of Special Concern 

 T = Threatened 

Source: Entergy 2006c

3 

4 State-threatened lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) are found primarily in freshwater lakes 

5 and large rivers in northeastern North America. In New York, lake sturgeon have been found in 

6 the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Champlain, Cayuga 

7 Lake, the Seneca Canals, and in the Grasse, Oswego, and Oswegatchie rivers. The Oswego 

8 River is a historic spawning ground for lake sturgeon and is the only Lake Ontario tributary 

9 where lake sturgeon have been found in recent years. One of New York’s largest freshwater 

10 fish, mature adults are between 3 and 5 ft long and weigh between 10 and 80 pounds (lb). Lake 

11 sturgeon subsist primarily on small organisms: leeches, snails, clams and other invertebrates, 

12 small fish, and algae. They spawn from May to June in areas with clean, large rubble such as 

13 along windswept rocky shores and in the rapids of streams. Young fish grow rapidly but have a 

14 slow reproductive cycle: females do not reach sexual maturity until they are 14 to 23 years old, 

15 and they spawn only every four to six years during their 80-year lifespan. Lake sturgeon were 

16 historically abundant, but as their value increased, population levels decreased significantly due 

17 to overfishing. Other threats to lake sturgeon include the construction of dams that cut off 

18 upstream spawning grounds, channelization, and pollution (NYSDEC 1999e; WSG 2006). 

19 Lake chubsuckers (Erimyzon sucetta), a State-threatened species, are medium-sized with an 

20 average length of 8 to 10 in. They are found only in quiet, clear, well-vegetated waters because 

21 they are intolerant of turbid or silty conditions. Lake chubsuckers feed along the water bottom 

22 on copepods, cladocerans, and aquatic insect larvae. In New York, lake chubsuckers were 

23 historically found in embayments along the south shore of Lake Ontario and the eastern shore 

24 of Lake Erie. No lake chubsuckers have been caught in New York for more than 60 years. 

25 Siltation, wetland drainage, increased water turbidity, and pollution have likely caused the 

26 decline or extirpation of this species (ROM 2006; NYSDEC 1999b). 

27 The redfin shiner (Lythrurus umbratilis), a State species of special concern, occurs in the Great 

28 Lakes and Mississippi River Basin, western New York to Minnesota, south to Louisiana, and 

29 Gulf drainages west to Texas. The redfin shiner is essentially a pool dweller but can also be 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-30 June 2007 

1 found in moderate- to low-gradient streams with some vegetation and sand or gravel bottoms. 

2 Within New York, the redfin shiner has been found only at a few sites in Tonawando Creek, the 

3 Niagara River, and Johnson Creek. Redfin shiners are found in schools feeding on filamentous 

4 algae, bits of higher plants, and aquatic and terrestrial insects. They become sexually mature in 

5 their second or third summer and spawn from early June to mid-August in nests within sunfish 

6 nesting territories. One reason for their low occurrence may be that they require clear water 

7 during spawning, but the rest of the year they can tolerate siltation (NYSDEC 1999d; WSG 

8 2006). 

9 The State-endangered deepwater sculpin (Myoxocehalus thompsoni) is the largest of New 

10 York’s freshwater sculpins; they can be up to 9 in. long but average length is 2 to 5 in. 

11 Deepwater sculpin are found in deep, cool lake waters at depths ranging from 240 to 300 ft. 

12 Found in all the Great Lakes except for Erie, the deepwater sculpin was once prolific in Lake 

13 Ontario. Competition with alewife and rainbow smelt, as well as alewife and rainbow smelt 

14 predation on sculpin eggs and larvae, may have caused a decline in the deepwater sculpin 

15 population—the species was thought to be extirpated until catches were reported from 1996 to 

16 1999. The deepwater sculpin is a bottom feeder, so continual exposure to contaminated 

17 sediments may be another possible cause for their decline. NYSDEC identified the non-native 

18 round goby as another potential source of competition for this species (NYSDEC 1999a; OME 

19 1999). 

20 The State-endangered round whitefish (Psosopium cyclindraceum) has an average length of 

21 8 to 12 in., occasionally reaching 22 in. This species feeds primarily at or near the bottom on 

22 small aquatic organisms, including eggs of lake trout and other fish. Round whitefish were 

23 historically found in all the Great Lakes except Lake Erie; only seven New York State waters are 

24 known to contain round whitefish populations. Lake Ontario once supported a small round 

25 whitefish commercial fishery, but the last commercial catch was in 1942. Round whitefish are 

26 now protected from harvest or possession by the State of New York Endangered Species Law. 

27 Reasons for the species’ decline may include predation by yellow perch on round whitefish eggs 

28 and fry, loss or degradation of spawning sites, siltation, and lake acidification (WSG 2006; 

29 NYSDEC 1999c). 

30 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 

31 2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the JAFNPP Site 

32 JAFNPP is on a flat plain 20 ft above the shore of Lake Ontario, with hills to the immediate 

33 south of the property (USGS 1982). As part of the Erie and Ontario Lake Plain ecoregion, this 

34 area was shaped by glacial erosion and deposition processes (NYSDEC 2006d). After the last 

35 glacial period, which ended between 19,000 and 11,000 years ago (PRI 2006), the region was 

36 colonized by vegetation that probably consisted of upland forest and wetland communities (NRC 

37 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Typical natural communities in this area vary, depending on the underlying geology and soils, 

2 but include beech-maple, maple-basswood, and hemlock-northern hardwood forests; 

3 grasslands; shrub lands; and wetland communities (SUNY Oswego 2006a). When the property 

4 was purchased by Entergy, it was partially forested and being used for recreation and 

5 residential purposes (Entergy 2006). The area was once used as an artillery range (AEC 1973). 

6 Currently, the area immediately around the plant is maintained in a landscaped condition. The 

7 majority of the property (600 ac) is not landscaped and is expected to develop to climax 

8 communities unless further disturbed. 

9 Dominant communities on the site include 66 percent forest, 21 percent open grasslands, and 

10 10 percent wetlands and ponds (Entergy 2006c). These areas are in various states of 

11 succession, ranging from early grassland/meadow communities in recently disturbed areas to 

12 secondary growth hardwood forests (Entergy 2006c). Common tree species include sugar 

13 maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), Canadian hemlock (Tsuga 

14 canadensis), white ash (Fraxinus amerincana), basswood/American linden (Tilia americana), 

15 black birch / sweet birch (Betula lenta), yellow poplar/tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and 

16 oaks (Quercus spp.), including chestnut (Q. prinus), red (Q. rubra), black (Q. velutina), white 

17 (Q. alba), and bur oaks (Q. macrocarpa) (AEC 1973). Surveys for rare plants have not been 

18 performed at the site. 

19 The FWS National Wetlands Inventory database indicates that there are wetland areas on site 

20 (FWS 2006c). While no formal wetland delineation activities have been performed, Entergy 

21 estimates that there are approximately 70 ac of wetlands and ponds on the property (Entergy 

22 2006c). Swamps and arborvitae and cattail marshes are scattered throughout the area near the 

23 site (AEC 1973). 

24 A variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are commonly seen at the 

25 JAFNPP site and in the surrounding area. Reptiles including snakes, turtles, and tortoises may 

26 be found in the area, as well as amphibians including frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts 

27 (SUNY Oswego 2006c). 

28 Migratory waterfowl frequent the site and congregate near the discharge area offshore. These 

29 include greater scaup (Aythya marila), golden eye (Bucephala clangula), merganser (Mergus 

30 merganser), canvasback (A. valisineria), and oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) (Entergy 2006). 

31 The discharge area has been designated by the New York State Natural Heritage Program as 

32 part of a waterfowl winter concentration area. Impingement of diving ducks has not been 

33 observed at JAFNPP but has been an issue at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station just west of 

34 JAFNPP (NRC 2006). Removal of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and other food 

35 sources from intake structures is considered an effective method of reducing the chances of 

36 diving duck injury and mortality. 

37 Other birds that may breed in the area include the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), sharp38 shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (A. cooperii), common nighthawk (Chordeiles 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-32 June 2007 

1 minor), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus), horned lark (Eremophila 

2 alpestris), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), cerulean warbler (Dendroica 

3 cerulean), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus 

4 savannarum) (NRC 2006). 

5 Common small mammal species in the area include the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus 

6 leucopus), deer mouse (P. maniculatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), meadow jumping 

7 mouse (Zapus hudsonius), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus 

8 hudsonicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) (NMPC 1985). 

9 Larger mammals include red and gray foxes (Vulpes vulpes, Urocyon cinereoargenteus), 

10 coyotes (Canis latrans), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (SUNY Oswego 2006b). 

11 No wildlife management plans currently exist for the JAFNPP property. The site likely provides 

12 productive habitat for wildlife, and hunting is not allowed on the property. Some animal mortality 

13 may occur from vehicle collisions. Migratory bird collisions with buildings have been rare and 

14 are not anticipated to be a significant source of injury during the renewal term. Surveys for rare 

15 animals have not been performed at the site. 

16 The area around the plant is maintained through a combination of mowing and herbicide 

17 application. Lawns are mowed as needed. Two drainage swales are vegetated with low18 growing herbaceous cover, which should help to reduce and absorb runoff and protect water 

19 quality while providing some habitat for small animals (EPA 2006c). No maintenance activities 

20 occur around wetlands or Lake Ontario. RoundupTM herbicide is used for weed control in 

21 isolated locations by licensed applicators using hand sprayers. Entergy is required to submit 

22 annual pesticide use reports to NYSDEC, listing qualified applicators. These reports estimate 

23 herbicide use at 33 gallons (gal) in 2003, 30 gal in 2004, and 17 gal in 2005 (Entergy 2004b, 

24 2005c, 2006d). When used according to label directions, such herbicide applications are not 

25 expected to have significant environmental impacts. 

26 Important terrestrial habitats near JAFNPP include Teal Marsh 4 mi west of the site, a rare 

27 shrub fen 4 mi south of the site, and Butterfly Creek Wetlands 6 mi east of the site (NRC 2006). 

28 Local parks where wildlife may comprise important recreational attractions include Selkirk 

29 Shores State Park five mi east of the site, Fairhaven Beach State Park 20 mi southwest of the 

30 site, and Beaver Lake Nature Center 25 mi south of the site (NYSHPO 2006a; NYSHPO 2006c; 

31 Onondaga County Parks 2006). Little environmental interaction occurs between these areas 

32 and the JAFNPP site, with the exception of bird travel between the site and these locations. 

33 Ecological issues of statewide concern include chronic wasting disease (CWD) in white-tailed 

34 deer (NYSDEC 2006a), botulism in shore birds (NYSDEC 2006e), and vegetation damage 

35 resulting from caterpillars (NYSDEC 2006b) and wood wasps (NYSDEC 2006f). The NRC staff 

36 is not aware of any linkage between continued operation of JAFNPP and these issues. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.2.6.2 Terrestrial Resources in Transmission Corridors 

2 There are four transmission lines that connect JAFNPP to other facilities and substations 

3 (Entergy 2006c). See Table 2-1. Two of the transmission lines, the Edic and Scriba 345-kV 

4 lines, are within the scope of license renewal. The Edic transmission line runs approximately 

5 70 mi southeast to the Edic Substation near Utica, New York. The corridor associated with this 

6 line is 150-ft wide and crosses Erie-Ontario Lake plain and fringe areas of Tug Hill plateau and 

7 the Mohawk Valley (AEC 1973). These areas are predominantly forested, with some 

8 agricultural, low-density residential, and wetland areas (AEC 1973). Important resource areas 

9 crossed by this line include Catfish Creek, Butterfly Creek, the Little Salmon River, Mohawk 

10 River, Nine Mile Creek, numerous wetlands, and various state wildlife management areas 

11 (Microsoft 2005). 

12 The Edic line is owned and maintained by NYPA (Entergy 2006c). The NRC staff met with 

13 NYPA personnel on December 4, 2006, to discuss their transmission line maintenance program. 

14 NYPA maps land use and vegetative cover within the transmission corridor using a geographic 

15 information system. This information is used to develop a maintenance plan for each mapped 

16 parcel to remove only tall-growing species that may interfere with line operations, while allowing 

17 other species to grow. Dead trees that may fall into the lines are removed from the edges of the 

18 ROW by corridor maintenance personnel (NYPA 1998). Herbicides are applied to individual 

19 plants by licensed applicators only as needed to ensure that that tall-growing vegetation does 

20 not interfere with line operations. Maintenance personnel follow the NYPA Systemwide Right21 of-Way Management Plan (NYPA 1998). 

22 The transmission line towers are constructed of weathering steel, which requires little 

23 maintenance and is less reflective than galvanized steel (AEC 1973). There is evidence that 

24 some portions of the transmission line corridor are used by off-road vehicles and hunters, but 

25 these activities appear to be limited in area and intensity. 

26 Two invasive exotic plant species, common reed (Phragmites australis) and Japanese 

27 knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), have been noted by NYPA personnel as occurring within 

28 the Edic transmission corridor. Common reed is a threat to wetland areas because it crowds 

29 out native vegetation and may negatively alter wildlife habitat. It is commonly controlled to 

30 protect native species of plants and animals and promote a balanced, productive native 

31 ecosystem. This is typically performed using herbicides, but mowing and controlled burns may 

32 be effective in removing it (PCA 2006a). Japanese knotweed is an introduced species that can 

33 rapidly crowd out native plant species and alter native ecosystems. It is commonly controlled 

34 with diluted pesticides applied to a cut stem or to the leaves (PCA 2006b). 

35 The eastern portion of the Edic transmission line passes near the towns of Annesville, Lee, 

36 Western, Floyd, Trenton, and Marcy, where chronic wasting disease (CWD) in white-tailed deer 

37 is an issue of concern (NYSDEC 2006c). This disease is contagious between deer and leads to 

38 severe weight loss and death, but there is no evidence that it is transmissible to humans or 

39 livestock (NYSDEC 2006a). NYSDEC is working to control the spread of CWD in this area. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-34 June 2007 

1 Continued operation and maintenance of the lines is not anticipated to contribute appreciably to 

2 the spread of this disease among the white-tailed deer population. 

3 The second transmission line within the scope of this license renewal review is the 345-kV 

4 Scriba line. The Scriba line is approximately 4900 feet in length and runs southward from the 

5 JAFNPP 345-kV switchyard over Entergy property, then turns westward, crossing a portion of 

6 the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station site and enters the Scriba substation. The portion of the 

7 transmission corridor that is not on the JAFNPP site is maintained by NYPA, the owner of the 

8 line. The Scriba line crosses forested and landscaped areas maintained by JAFNPP and NYPA 

9 using periodic mowing and vegetation control procedures. 

10 2.2.6.3 Terrestrial Species of Concern 

11 Terrestrial species that are listed by the FWS or the State of New York and have the potential to 

12 occur on or in the vicinity of the JAFNPP site or along the Edic and Scriba transmission 

13 corridors are presented in Table 2-4. 

14 The NRC staff met with NYPA on December 4, 2006. At this meeting, the NRC staff was 

15 informed that no threatened or endangered species have been reported by maintenance 

16 personnel as occurring in or near the transmission corridor. Corridor maintenance personnel 

17 are trained in identifying endangered species and are expected to take measures to avoid 

18 damage to these species if they are identified within the transmission line corridor during the 

19 renewal period. 

20 Consultation with New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) revealed the existence of two 

21 important natural heritage areas near the Edic transmission line corridor. The areas consist of 

22 State-listed upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) habitat and a rare fen. In addition, the 

23 NYNHP staff identified the area immediately offshore from the JAFNPP site as an important 

24 State-recognized waterfowl winter concentration area. The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus 

25 podiceps) and least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) are known to forage nearby. Both species are 

26 listed as threatened by the State of New York. 

27 Table 2-4. Federally Listed and New York State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially 

28 Occurring in the Vicinity of JAFNPP and in Associated Transmission Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Reptiles 

Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson salamander — S 

Ambystoma laterale blue-spotted salamander — S 

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle — S 

Clemmys insculpta wood turtle — S 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T E 

Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake — T 

Sisturus catenatus catenatus massasauga rattlesnake C E 

Birds 

Accipiter cooperli Cooper’s hawk — S 

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk — S 

Ammodramus henslowli Henslow’s sparrow — T 

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow — S 

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle — E 

Asio flammeus short-eared owl — E 

Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper — T 

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk — S 

Charadrius melodius piping plover E E 

Chlidonias niger black tern — E 

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk — S 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier — T 

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren — T 

Dendroica cerulean cerulean warbler — S 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark — S 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon — E 

Gavia immer common loon — S 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T — 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern — T 

Table 2-4 (cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Birds (cont.) 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike — E 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker — S 

Pandion haliaetus osprey — S 

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe — T 

Sterna hirundo common tern — T 

Vermivora chrysoptera golden-winged warbler — S 

Mammals 

Myotis leibii small-footed bat — S 

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E E 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-36 June 2007 

Plants 

Carex chordorrhiza creeping sedge — T 

Eleocharis quadrangulata angled spikerush — E 

Eleocharis obtuse var. ovata blunt spikerush — E 

Lycopodium complanatum northern running pine — E 

Polygonum setaceum var.

interjectum 

swamp smartweed — E 

Polystichum archostichoides Christmas fern — S 

Thelypteris noveboracensis New York fern — S 

Trillium flexipes nodding trillium — E 

Trillium sessile toad-shade — E 

Trillium spp. trillium — S 

 — = No listing 

 C = Candidate for federal listing 

 E = Endangered 

 S = Species of Special Concern (New York State) 

 T = Threatened 

Source: 

Entergy 2006c (except creeping sedge) 

NYSDEC 2006g (creeping sedge) 

1 

2 Federally Protected Species 

3 The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is a chestnut-brown, medium-sized bat that 

4 forages for insects near streamside and upland forests (FWS 2006b). These bats roost and 

5 hibernate in caves or mines, known as hibernacula, or under the loose bark of recently dead 

6 trees. Reasons for the decline of this species include natural mortality, human disturbance of 

7 hibernating bats, and deforestation, especially the removal of dead standing trees and trees 

8 near streams (FWS 1983). Indiana bats may be utilizing large dead trees with loose bark either 

9 onsite or along the margins of the Edic or Scribal transmission corridors. There have been no 

10 reports of Indiana bats using dead trees along the transmission corridors; however, there has 

11 been no systematic survey of this potential habitat. 

12 The threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is a very small black turtle that lives in open 

13 sedge meadows and fens bordered by wooded areas (FWS 2001). The bog turtle’s diet 

14 consists primarily of insects but also includes plants, frogs, and carrion (Bury 1979). The 

15 greatest threats to the bog turtle include the degradation and destruction of open wetland 

16 habitat and illegal collection (Groombridge 1982). Two potential sources of habitat loss within 

17 the transmission corridor, if such habitat is present, are the colonization by common reed and 

18 the natural progression by trees. The common reed establishes a dense monoculture that is 

19 unsuitable for many wetland species, including bog turtles (FWS 2001). Because the bog turtle 

20 depends on open wetlands without any tree cover, the current transmission corridor 

21 maintenance program may preserve potential bog turtle habitat. The NRC staff is unaware of 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 any reported occurrences of bog turtles inhabiting wetlands along the Edic or Scriba 

2 transmission corridors; however, there has not been a systematic survey of these lines for this 

3 species. 

4 Federally protected species identified in the review of Nine Mile Point include the massasauga 

5 rattlesnake, bald eagle, and piping plover. The massasauga rattlesnake (Sisturus catenatus 

6 catenatus) is a candidate species for Federal protection. It lives in wet prairies, sedge 

7 meadows, and early successional fields, and natural succession of woody vegetation may 

8 cause habitat deterioration (NRC 2006). It is not known to occur near the JAFNPP site. 

9 The threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a large bird of prey that is usually 

10 found near large bodies of water. The bald eagle is a transient species and is not found in the 

11 vicinity of JAFNPP or associated transmission line rights-of-way. 

12 The endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodius) is a small, stocky sandy-colored bird 

13 resembling a sandpiper. Like the bald eagle, it may migrate through the area, but are not found 

14 in the vicinity of the JAFNPP site or associated transmission line rights-of-way (NRC 2006). 

15 State-Protected Species 

16 The NRC staff consulted with NYNHP on December 7, 2006 to determine which State-listed 

17 species were known to occur near JAFNPP and the Edic and Scriba transmission lines. The 

18 NYNHP identified three State-threatened bird species and one State-threatened plant species. 

19 No other State-listed species were identified as occurring near the site on along the Edic and 

20 Scriba transmission corridors. 

21 The State-threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) is a small brown-and-white 

22 mottled bird that inhabits open, grassy areas, including pastures, upland meadows, and fallow 

23 fields. This species feeds on invertebrates and grains. It has declined due to excessive hunting 

24 in the past and has not recovered from this historical stress (CDEP 2004b). One area of known 

25 upland sandpiper habitat was identified by the NYNHP as occurring near the JAFNPP site. 

26 The State-threatened pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) is a diving duck that forages in 

27 an area near the JAFNPP site. It lives in marshes and ponds and feeds mostly on aquatic 

28 invertebrates, occasionally eating fish, reptiles and amphibians. Although this species is found 

29 throughout North America, it is rare in New York (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 2003). 

30 The State-threatened least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) is found in emergent vegetation in 

31 freshwater marshes not far from the JAFNPP site. It feeds on small fish, amphibians, insects, 

32 invertebrates, and occasionally shrews and mice. Its decline is attributed to the destruction of 

33 wetland habitat (CDEP 2004a). 

34 The State-threatened creeping sedge (Carex chordorrhiza) is a wetland plant known to occur 

35 near the JAFNPP site. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-38 June 2007 

1 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 

2 JAFNPP conducts an annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) in which 

3 radiological impacts to employees, the public, and the environment in and around the JAFNPP 

4 site are monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards. The objectives of 

5 the REMP are to: 

6 • Measure and evaluate the effects of facility operation on the environs and verify the 

7 effectiveness of the controls on radioactive material sources 

8 • Monitor natural radiation levels in the environs of the JAFNPP site 

9 • Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of applicable Federal regulatory 

10 agencies, including technical specifications and the ODCM 

11 Radiological releases are summarized in two JAFNPP reports: the Annual Radiological 

12 Environmental Operating Report (Entergy 2005b) and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release 

13 Report (Entergy 2006a; 2005a; 2004a; 2003; 2002a; 2002b). Limits for all radiological releases 

14 are specified in the JAFNPP ODCM (Entergy 2004c) and used to meet Federal standards and 

15 requirements. The REMP includes monitoring of the waterborne environment (surface, 

16 sediment from shoreline); airborne environment (radioiodine and particulates, direct radiation); 

17 and ingestion pathways (milk, fish, food products). During 2005, 2318 analyses were performed 

18 on collected samples of environmental media and showed no significant or measurable 

19 radiological impact from the operations at JAFNPP (Entergy 2005b). 

20 The New York State Department of Health also measures the levels of radiation exposure and 

21 concentration of radioactive material at locations surrounding Nine Mile Point and JAFNPP. 

22 The State measures direct radiation and radioactivity in air, milk, water, sediments, vegetation, 

23 and fish. The State’s 10-year monitoring data from 1995 through 2004 shows radiation levels 

24 typical for background levels for air, water, milk, fish, sediment samples, vegetation, and direct 

25 radiation (New York State Department of Health 2007). 

26 Historical data on releases from JAFNPP and the resultant dose calculations demonstrate that 

27 the calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of JAFNPP were a small 

28 fraction of the limits specified in the JAFNPP ODCM (Entergy 2004c) to meet 10 CFR Part 20; 

29 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and EPA radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190. For 2005, dose 

30 estimates were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data and 

31 conservative models to simulate the transport mechanisms. The results are described in the 

32 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Entergy 2006a). A summary of the 

33 calculated maximum dose to an individual located at the JAFNPP boundary from liquid and 

34 gaseous effluents released during 2005 is as follows: 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 • The maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general public from liquid 

effluents was 1.68 10-5 2 millirem (mrem), well below the 3-mrem-dose criteria in 10 CFR 

3 Part 50, Appendix I. 

4 • The maximum whole-body dose to the likely most-exposed member of the general public 

5 from gaseous effluents was 4.39 mrem, below the 5-mrem-dose criteria in 10 CFR 

6 Part 50, Appendix I. 

7 The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or 

8 exposures from JAFNPP operations during the renewal period and, the impacts to the 

9 environment are therefore not expected to change. 

10 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 

11 The NRC staff reviewed the JAFNPP Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2006c) and 

12 information obtained from County, City, school district, and local economic development staff. 

13 The following sections describe the housing market, community infrastructure, population, and 

14 economy in the region surrounding the JAFNPP site. 

15 2.2.8.1 Housing 

16 JAFNPP employs a permanent workforce of 716 employees (Entergy 2006c). Approximately 

17 78 percent live in Oswego County, New York, and 18 percent in Onondaga County, New York 

18 (Table 2-5). Both counties are in the Syracuse metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which also 

19 includes Cayuga and Madison counties. Given the residential locations of JAFNPP employees, 

20 the most significant impacts of plant operations are likely to occur in Oswego and Onondaga 

21 counties. The focus of the analysis in this draft environmental impact statement (draft SEIS) is 

22 therefore on the impacts of JAFNPP in these two counties. 

23 

24 Table 2-5. JAFNPP Permanent Employee 

25 Residence by County in 2006 

County 

Number of JAFNPP 

Personnel 

Percentage 

of Total 

Oswego 556 77.7% 

Onondaga 127 17.7% 

Other 33 4.6% 

Total 716 100.0% 

Source: Entergy 2006c 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-40 June 2007 

1 

2 JAFNPP schedules refueling outages at 24-month intervals. During refueling outages, site 

3 employment increases by 700 to 900 workers for approximately 30 days. These workers are 

4 assumed to be from the same geographic areas as the permanent JAFNPP staff. 

5 The number of housing units and housing vacancies in Oswego and Onondaga counties in 

6 2000 and 2005 are shown in Table 2-6. In Oswego County, the total number of housing units 

7 and occupied units grew at an average annual rate of 0.34 and 0.64 percent, respectively, from 

8 2000 to 2005. With an annual average population growth rate of 1.1 percent during this period, 

9 the number of units available grew more slowly than the demand for housing. 

10 Table 2-6. Number of Occupied, Vacant, and Total Housing Units 

11 in Oswego and Onondaga Counties, New York, in 2000 and 2005 

Year 

County 

Housing 

Units 2000 2005 

Approximate 

Change 

Oswego Occupied 45,522 46,964 +3.2% 

Vacant 7,309 6,766 –7.4% 

 Total 52,831 53,730 +1.7% 

Onondaga Occupied 181,153 183,032 +1.0% 

Vacant 15,480 17,704 +14.4% 

 Total 196,633 200,736 +2.1% 

Source: USCB 2006a 

12 

13 In Onondaga County, the total number of housing units grew at an annual average rate of 

14 0.42 percent from 2000 to 2005, while average annual growth of occupied units was slightly less 

15 at 0.20 percent (USCB 2006a). 

16 2.2.8.2 Public Services 

17 This section contains a discussion of public services including water supply, education, and 

18 transportation. 

19 Water Supply 

20 Slightly more than half of Oswego County’s population receives potable water from one of the 

21 county’s 29 public water districts, with the remaining population receiving water from private 

22 groundwater wells (NRC 2006). Public water districts in the county obtain water from Lake 

23 Ontario or a variety of groundwater aquifers and springs and the Onondaga County Water 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Authority (OCWA) (OCDPCD 1997). Public water suppliers draw water from three principal 

2 groundwater aquifers (Sand Ridge, Fulton, and Tug Hill) with substantial groundwater resources 

3 available from other local or regional aquifers that have been largely unused (OCDPCD 1997). 

4 The three major public water supply systems in Oswego County are the Oswego Water System, 

5 the City of Fulton, and the Metropolitan Water Board. 

6 Table 2-7 lists the daily water consumption and maximum daily capacity for the three major 

7 public water supply systems in Oswego County. 

8 Table 2-7. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Oswego County, 

9 Average Daily Use, and Maximum Daily Capacity

Water Supplier 

Average Daily Use 

in million gpd 

Maximum Daily Capacity 

in million gpd 

Oswego Water System 8.0 20.1 

City of Fulton 2.4 2.4 

Metropolitan Water Board 25.0 62.5 

Source: NRC 2006 

10 

11 The Oswego Water System (OWS) provides water service to approximately 23,950 customers 

12 in the communities of Oswego, Minetto, Scriba, and Volney, and potable water to JAFNPP 

13 (OCDPCD 1997). Current JAFNPP usage is approximately 137,500 gpd with no restrictions on 

14 supply (Entergy 2006g). While the OWS could potentially withdraw up to approximately 

15 62.5 million gpd from Lake Ontario, the design capacity of the water plant is only 20.1 million 

16 gpd (NRC 2006). County planning officials estimate that the capacity of the OWS is adequate 

17 to meet the demands of an additional 4000 to 8000 residential customers (OCDPCD 1997).

18 The City of Fulton water supplier serves approximately 12,900 customers. The City has 

19 10 groundwater wells extracting up to 2.4 million gpd. As average daily demand exceeds 

20 supply in the city, the City of Fulton has an agreement with the OCWA to obtain up to 3 million 

21 gpd to cover the extra demand (OCDPCD 1997). 

22 The Metropolitan Water Board (MWB) functions as a potable water wholesaler to public water 

23 districts and water authorities in both Oswego and Onondaga counties. Most of the MWB’s 

24 water is sold to the OCWA, with 25 percent of its pipeline capacity available to Oswego County. 

25 While the capacity of MWB is 60 million gpd, the MWB withdrew an average of only 25 million 

26 gpd in 1998, of which 200,000 gpd was provided to communities in Oswego County. The MWB 

27 therefore has large excess capacity to support future growth in the county (OCDPCD 1997). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-42 June 2007 

1 Education 

2 JANFPP is located in the Mexico Central School District, which had an enrollment of 

3 2682 students in 2005. Including the Mexico Central School District, Oswego County contains 

4 9 school districts. In 2000, there were 35,240 students enrolled in schools in the county with an 

5 average class size of 21 students. The average expenditure per student in low-need districts in 

6 New York is approximately $15,000. Onondaga County has a total of 18 school districts. Total 

7 enrollment in the district is approximately 132,240 students based on data from the 2000 

8 Census Bureau (Entergy 2006g). 

9 Transportation 

10 The road structure in the immediate vicinity of JAFNPP consists primarily of smaller county 

11 roads rather than state or interstate highways. JAFNPP is accessed from the east by Lake 

12 Road, a two-lane paved road east of the intersection of County Route 1A and Lakeview Road 

13 (see Figure 2-2). According to the Oswego County Planning and Community Development 

14 Department, the average daily traffic count for County Route 1A from County Route 1 to Lakeview 

15 Road was 4900 vehicles in 1995 (NRC 2006). 

16 Due to the rural nature of JAFNPP’s location, there is no state level of service determination for 

17 the county roads that service JAFNPP and the immediate area. The Oswego County 

18 Department of Public Works reviewed traffic patterns for the major roads around the JAFNPP as 

19 part of a reconstruction project for County Route 1A. The County determined that traffic counts 

20 were within acceptable levels (NRC 2006). 

21 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 

22 In order to accommodate and regulate growth and development, Oswego and Onondaga 

23 counties have developed county-specific comprehensive growth management plans 

24 characterizing current conditions and setting standards, regulations, and goals for land use and 

25 development. Land-use planning and zoning regulations have been developed by towns, 

26 villages, and municipalities within Oswego and Onondaga counties. Therefore, land use 

27 standards may vary greatly in different regions within the counties. Neither county has 

28 implemented growth control measures that would limit residential housing development. 

29 Agriculture remains the predominant land use in the county, but rural residential development 

30 has increased. In all or parts of many towns, residential development surrounding major 

31 employment centers has reached or is approaching suburban density. Most towns in Oswego 

32 County have developed some type of land-use regulation, either zoning or subdivision 

33 regulations. Although elements of the rural landscape remain, the community character is 

34 clearly residential (OCDPCD 1997). Residential growth has been strongest in towns in southern 

35 Oswego County and the town of Scriba in northern Oswego County. Commercial and industrial 

36 land uses, particularly energy production, such as the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and Sithe 

37 Industries, which operates a natural gas fueled power plant, have centered near the cities of 

38 Oswego and Fulton and their surrounding areas. State-regulated wetlands account for 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 13 percent of the total land area in Oswego County, and development is restricted in these 

2 areas (OCDPCD 1999). 

3 Onondaga County is somewhat more developed, with an increase of both residential and 

4 commercial land uses in towns and villages near Syracuse. Growth has been steady 

5 throughout northern and central Onondaga County. County planning officials expect residential 

6 growth to continue in northern and central Onondaga County following the Onondaga County 

7 Settlement Plan (Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency 2001). This plan proposes to 

8 control growth within the county by guiding county infrastructure investments only to developed 

9 areas. 

10 Seventeen state parks, 20 state wildlife management areas, and one national wildlife refuge are 

11 located within a 50-mi radius of JAFNPP. The Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge is north of 

12 Cayuga Lake in Seneca County, approximately 44 mi southwest of the site (NRC 2006). 

13 Land use in Oswego and Onondaga counties is listed in Table 2-8. 

14 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 

15 The area around JAFNPP is generally flat, forested, and rural. The most prominent features on 

16 the site are the reactor building and the off-gas stack, which is 385 ft high. Due to the forest 

17 cover in the area, the physical plant is not visible from local communities. However, plant 

18 structures can be seen by recreational boaters and fishermen on Lake Ontario. 

19 Table 2-8. Land Use in Oswego and Onondaga Counties 

Percentage of Total 

Land Use 

Oswego County 

(1995) 

Onondaga County 

(2006) 

Agriculture, forested, vacant 55% 51% 

Residential 36% 29% 

Public 6% 10% 

Commercial 3% 10% 

Total 100% 100% 

Sources: Oswego County: OCPCD 1997; Onondaga County: SyracuseOnondaga County Planning Agency 2006 

20 

21 Currently, there are no reports of noise complaints from the areas surrounding JAFNPP or from 

22 recreational users of Lake Ontario. Additionally, noise concerns have not been considered a 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-44 June 2007 

1 problem at the site due to the plant’s distance from local communities (Entergy 2006c). EPA 

2 recommends that noise levels for residential areas near the boundary of an industrial facility not 

3 exceed an annual equivalent sound level of 55 decibels. There is no expected increase in noise 

4 levels associated with the proposed license renewal activities. 

5 2.2.8.5 Demography 

6 In 2000, approximately 109,440 persons lived within a 20-mi radius of JAFNPP, which equates 

to a population density of 87 persons per mi2 7 . This density translates to a Category 3 (60 to 

120 persons per mi2

 or fewer than 60 persons per mi2 8 with at least one community of 25,000 or 

9 more persons within 20 mi) using the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) measure 

10 of sparseness (Entergy 2006c). At the same time, there were approximately 914,668 persons 

living within a 50-mi radius of the plant, for a density of 117 persons per mi2 11 . The Syracuse 

12 MSA, located within 50 mi of the site, had a total population in 2000 of 732,117. Therefore, 

13 JAFNPP falls into Category 3 (one or more cities with 100,000 or more persons and fewer than 

190 persons per mi2 14 within 50 mi) of the NRC sparseness and proximity matrix. A Category 3 

15 value indicates that JAFNPP is in a medium density population area (NRC 2006). 

16 Table 2-9 shows population growth rates and projections from 1970 to 2020 in Oswego and 

17 Onondaga counties. Oswego County grew at a relatively slow annual rate of less than 

18 0.1 percent for the period of 1990 to 2000. The average annual growth rate for New York for 

19 this period was 0.5 percent. Only slight increases in population are expected for the period 

20 2000 through 2020. The population declined in Onondaga County during the 1990s and this 

21 trend is expected to continue during the period 2000 to 2020 (NRC 2006). 

22 In 2000, Oswego, the largest city in Oswego County, located approximately 5 mi southwest of 

23 JAFNPP had a population of 17,954 persons (USCB 2006a). The second largest city, Fulton, 

24 located approximately 12 mi south of JAFNPP had a population of 11,855 persons. The town of 

25 Scriba had an estimated population of 7331 persons. The U.S. Census Bureau lists 21 other 

26 towns in Oswego County, all of which have populations between 500 and 9000 persons (USCB 

27 2006a). Most of the remaining population lives in unincorporated rural areas (OCDPCD 1997). 

28 Although some towns and municipalities surrounding Syracuse have experienced modest 

29 growth, Onondaga County and Syracuse declined in population from 1990 to 2000. In 2000 the 

30 Onondaga Reservation in southern Onondaga County had an estimated population of 

31 1473 persons (NRC 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 2-9. Population Growth in Oswego and Onondaga Counties, 

2 New York, from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2020 

Oswego County Onondaga County 

Year Population 

Annual Growth 

Percent(a) Population 

Annual Growth 

Percent(a)

1970 100,897 — 472,835 — 

1980 113,931 +1.2 463,920 –0.2 

1990 121,771 +0.7 468,973 +0.01 

2000 122,377 +0.05 458,336 –0.02 

2010 123,400 +0.08 442,531 –0.4 

2020 123,591 +0.02 423,235 –0.4 

— = No data available.

(a) Annual percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade. 

Sources: Population data for 1970 through 2000 (USCB 2006); projected 

population data for 2010 and 2020 (NRC 2006a) 

3 

4 Transient Population 

5 Within 50 mi of JAFNPP, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal 

6 visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In Oswego County, 

7 6.6 percent of all housing units are considered temporary housing for seasonal, recreational, or 

8 occasional use. By comparison, temporary housing accounts for only 1.0 percent and 

9 3.1 percent of total housing units in Onondaga County and the State of New York, respectively 

10 (NRC 2006). 

11 Migrant Farm Workers 

12 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

13 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 

14 may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural 

15 areas. Others may be permanent residents near JAFNPP who travel from farm to farm 

16 harvesting crops. 

17 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 

18 and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 

19 workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would 

20 be “underrepresented” in USCB minority and low-income population counts. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-46 June 2007 

1 Onondaga and Oswego counties host relatively small numbers of migrant workers. According 

2 to 2002 Census of Agriculture estimates, 1745 temporary farm laborers (those working fewer 

3 than 150 days per year) were employed on 170 farms in Onondaga County, and 718 were 

4 employed on 93 farms in Oswego County (Entergy 2006g). 

5 2.2.8.6 Economy 

6 This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 

7 unemployment, and taxes. 

8 Employment and Income 

9 Between 1990 and 2004, total employment in Oswego County increased 2.5 percent (24,396 to 

10 25,011 persons) and decreased in Onondaga County by 3.6 percent (232,120 to 223,649 

11 persons) (USCB 2006b). Government and health care sectors employed the largest number of 

12 people in both counties followed closely by retail, manufacturing, and the service industry. The 

13 largest employer in Oswego County in 2006 was the State University of New York at Oswego 

14 (SUNY Oswego) with 3934 employees (Table 2-10). The majority of jobs in Oswego County are 

15 located in the cities of Oswego and Fulton (Oswego County 2006). 

16 Personal income in Oswego County totaled $2.9 million in 2004, with a per capita personal 

17 income of $23,481. In Onondaga County, personal income totaled $14.7 million, with a per 

18 capita income of $32,122. Both are lower than the state’s per capita personal income in 2004, 

19 which was $38,364 (FedStats 2006). 

20 Unemployment 

21 The unemployment rate in Oswego and Onondaga counties in October 2006 was 4.3 and 

22 3.7 percent, respectively. Although there have been fluctuations, the overall rates in both 

23 counties have remained about the same over the past decade. The current rate for the state 

24 (November 2006) is 4.0 percent (NYSDOL 2006). 

25 Taxes 

26 JAFNPP is assessed annual property taxes by Oswego County, the Town of Scriba, and Mexico 

27 Central Schools. Property taxes paid to Oswego County and the Town of Scriba fund services 

28 such as transportation, education, public health, and public safety. See Table 2-11. 

29 The continued availability of JAFNPP and the associated tax base is an important feature in the 

30 ability of the Town of Scriba and Oswego County communities to continue to invest in 

31 infrastructure and to draw industry and new residents. 

32 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 2-10. Major Employers in Oswego County in 2006 

Firm 

Number of 

Employees 

SUNY Oswego 3934 

County of Oswego 1048 

Constellation Energy Group 900 

Central Square School District 841 

Oswego Health 730 

Oswego City School District 723 

Novelis Corporation 714 

Fulton School District 647 

Huhtamaki Packaging 630 

Wal-Mart 620 

Oswego Opportunities (non-profit) 604 

Oswego County Bringing Our Community 

Education Solutions (BOCES) 

569 

Entergy Nuclear Northeast 560 

Source: Oswego County 2006 

2 

3 In 2005, Entergy paid approximately $7.2 million in taxes for JAFNPP. It is estimated that a 

4 minimum of $38.1 million in taxes will be paid by Entergy for JAFNPP through the original 

5 license period (Entergy 2006c). These property taxes, and other local taxes, along with 

6 JAFNPP operating payroll and locally purchased goods and services, aid the local economy. 

7 The energy market in the state of New York has been deregulated to encourage the 

8 development of competition in the production and sale of electricity. A study performed by the 

9 New York State Board of Real Property Services concluded that the value of many power10 generating plants is likely to decline in a deregulated market. Therefore, Entergy expects that 

11 future property taxes assessed through the license renewal term should be similar to or may be 

12 less than the estimated in lieu payments (NRC 2006). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-48 June 2007 

1 Table 2-11. Oswego County, Town of Scriba, and Mexico Central Schools Tax Revenues, 

2 2002 to 2005; JAFNPP Property Tax, 2002 to 2005; and JAFNPP Property Tax 

3 as a Percentage of Tax Revenues 

Entity Year 

Tax Revenues 

(in millions of 

dollars) 

Property Tax 

Paid by JAFNPP 

(in millions of 

dollars) 

JAFNPP Property 

Tax as Percentage 

of Tax Revenues 

Oswego County 2002 $152.9 $2.9 1.9% 

2003 $156.1 $2.9 1.9% 

2004 $172.5 $2.9 1.7% 

2005 $162.4 $2.9 1.8% 

2006 $161.0 $2.9 1.8% 

Town of Scriba 2002 $4.0 $0.4 10.9% 

2003 $4.9 $0.4 9.0% 

2004 $4.3 $0.4 10.3% 

2005 $5.1 $0.4 8.6% 

2006 $4.6 $0.4 9.4% 

Mexico Central 2002 $32.4 $3.9 12.1% 

Schools 

2003 $32.7 $3.9 12.0% 

2004 $34.1 $3.9 11.5% 

2005 $34.0 $3.9 11.4% 

2006 $34.0 $3.9 11.6% 

Source: Entergy 2006c (years 2002–2005) 

 Entergy 2006g (year 2006) 

4 

5 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

6 This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological 

7 resources at the JAFNPP site and in the surrounding area. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 

2 The region around JAFNPP contains prehistoric and historic Native American and Euro3 American cultural resources. There are 43 properties listed in the National Register of Historic 

4 Places within approximately 10 mi of JAFNPP (Entergy 2006c). The nearest National Register 

5 site is the Riverside Cemetery in Scriba; none are located in areas affected by operation of 

6 JAFNPP. 

7 Paleo Indians occupied North America from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, subsisting on hunting 

8 game and gathering plant material. In the New York area, Paleo Indians migrated into an 

9 environment changed by retreating glacial ice. Evidence from archaeological work in the state 

10 suggests that small game and plants played a significant role in the lives of the people. Stone 

11 tools show little variability over wide areas of North and South America, but raw material for 

12 these tools often have sources far from where archaeologists find the tools. Known Paleo13 Indian sites near JAFNPP include the Potts Site southeast of Scriba (Ritchie 1994). 

14 During the Archaic Period, from approximately 10,000 years ago to about 3500 years ago, 

15 people underwent local changes to adapt to resources. In the New York area, as forests 

16 evolved from spruce and pine to mixed deciduous communities, populations near present day 

17 JAFNPP probably were low in density to begin with but steadily increased in density as both 

18 resource quality and the cultural means to access resources improved. Archaeologists find 

19 evidence of more occupation by the end of the Archaic Period when climate reached its modern 

20 condition. They interpret the settlement patterns they find as suggestive of an increase in 

21 breadth of resources sought by prehistoric people as they lived in smaller territories. Archaic 

22 people collected, hunted, and gathered most of what they needed for survival in their home 

23 territory. Large base camps found near major water sources provided a focal point for groups 

24 during the hard months. During other seasons, camps divided and people engaged in more 

25 mobile foraging activities. Primary areas of occupation were along the Oswego River about 

26 7 mi to the west of JAFNPP. Small hunting parties may have crossed the JAFNPP site and 

27 hunting encampments could be present. One late Archaic archaeological deposit near the 

28 JAFNPP area is the Oberlander 1 site in Oswego County on the Oneida River (Ritchie 1994). 

29 The Transitional Period, from approximately 3500 years ago to about 1000 years ago, is viewed 

30 by New York archaeologists as representing a continuum of change in adaptation by prehistoric 

31 peoples. The central defining characteristic of the period is the introduction of stone (steatite) 

32 vessels at the beginning and the first production of pottery at the end (Ritchie and Funk 1973). 

33 Over the same period, burial treatment became more elaborate, and people once again got 

34 some materials for making stone tools from distant sources (Ritchie and Funk 1973). 

35 The “Woodland” culture occupied the region between 3000 years ago until the time of European 

36 contact. In the Woodland culture, Native Americans became regionally distinct cultural entities. 

37 Woodland people ultimately became dependent on maize agriculture, lived in villages, used the 

38 bow and arrow in hunting, and began to regularly make and use pottery. Known examples of 

39 prehistoric sites are rare on the shore of Lake Ontario. Known archaeological resources found 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-50 June 2007 

1 in Oswego County are concentrated along the Oswego River, Oneida Lake, along the Salmon 

2 River, and at the mouth of the Salmon River. 

3 JAFNPP is situated within a region bordered by Lake Ontario to the north. No major drainage 

4 occurs within 5 mi. Any large prehistoric sites would most likely be found along major 

5 waterways away from JAFNPP. Since JAFNPP is not within the daily foraging radius of any 

6 major river valley, prehistoric people visiting the area could have made overnight camps along 

7 minor streams as they hunted and collected local resources. The terrain to the south and east 

8 of JAFNPP consists of glacial kettle ponds and wetlands surrounded by small knolls and hills. 

9 Paleo-Indian and Archaic Period peoples could have foraged for resources in and around these 

10 kettle ponds. Later prehistoric groups could have used this area for hunting and foraging on a 

11 reduced scale. JAFNPP is also situated on a rocky coastal bluff. This, along with the lack of a 

12 beach, would not have been attractive for fishing. Any archaeological sites found in the vicinity 

13 of the JAFNPP would consist of small scatters of stone tools and debris from making stone 

14 tools, associated with cooking hearths. 

15 The Native American societies in the region shared several important characteristics at the time 

16 they were first contacted by Europeans. These included an economic base that combined 

17 hunting and gathering with growing domesticated plants; and an annual settlement that varied in 

18 population size between semi-permanent river-side villages in summer, large camps in winter, 

19 and population dispersal among scattered camps in the spring and fall. 

20 The JAFNPP site is located on Onondaga Indian Nation’s eighteenth century lands, although 

21 the territorial boundaries between Native American groups were in flux throughout the historic 

22 period and until the mid-nineteenth century. Treaties between New York Indians and the United 

23 States government in 1794 and 1838 eroded tribal territorial holdings in the state of New York. 

24 European settlement and exploration of the region occurred slowly with most of the settlement 

25 activity concentrated away from JAFNPP near the mouth of the Oswego River near Forts 

26 Ontario and Oswego. 

27 In 1788, the state purchased large tracts of land from the Onondaga, Oneida, and Cayuga 

28 nations; the lands, which were divided into parcels, included Scriba’s Patent, and that included 

29 the JAFNPP. George Scriba, a resident of Holland, New York, took possession of nearly 

30 0.5 million ac of land in the patent. The patent was divided into 16 townships in Oswego 

31 County, and George Scriba began to sell portions to speculators and settlers (Kozub and Carter 

32 2003). 

33 The town of Scriba was created in 1811, although settlers in the area arrived as early as 1798. 

34 The scene for the first non-Indian settlement was at “Scriba Corners.” The township of Scriba 

35 flourished throughout the nineteenth century with small farms, apple orchards, and a booming 

36 cider industry. Seven homesteads, a railroad line, and a stave factory (for cider barrels) existed 

37 on the JAFNPP tract in 1867 (Stone 1867). 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The early economy was based on timber harvesting and lumber production. As forests were 

2 cut, residents moved to farming, especially dairy and fruit production (Churchill 1895). The 

3 Oswego Canal opened in 1828 and the Syracuse & Oswego Railroad opened in 1848. The 

4 canal and railroad precipitated surges in the lumber industry and in agriculture (Churchill 1895). 

5 By 1855 more than half of the county’s workers were farmers (Wellman 1987). However, by the 

6 late 1800s, the shipping industry in Oswego collapsed, as did agriculture, and farmers began to 

7 leave. It took Oswego County 90 years to return to the population level of 1870. By 1900, at 

8 least 12 residences had located in the JAFNPP area (USGS 1900). The number of farms and 

9 homes remained relatively stable until 1955, when there were 14 residences (USGS 1955). 

10 Camp Oswego, also known as the Camp Drum Anti-Aircraft Artillery Firing Range, was located 

11 immediately to the west of JAFNPP on property now occupied by Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

12 Station (USGS 1955). The camp was established during World War II and continued to operate 

13 well into the 1950s as a summer training base. Sometime after 1956, the camp was closed and 

14 the land was later purchased by Niagara-Mohawk Electric Company for construction of the Nine 

15 Mile Point Nuclear Station. 

16 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at JAFNPP 

17 During preparation and review of the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of 

18 James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (AEC 1973), it was determined that no known historic 

19 places and archaeological sites existed within the plant site or in the ROW for the transmission 

20 line. The New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted during the early 

21 stages of site construction for information about archaeological resources in the vicinity of 

22 JAFNPP and received certification that the plant would not have a harmful effect on any sites of 

23 historic and archaeological importance (AEC 1973). Subsequently, Entergy contacted the New 

24 York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO) regarding license 

25 renewal for JAFNPP in February 2006 (Entergy 2006c). In April 2006, NYSHPO responded to 

26 Entergy stating that they consider the project area to be “sensitive for archaeological resources” 

27 (NYSHPO 2006b). 

28 The JAFNPP site is generally flat, with the area surrounding the plant largely forested and rural 

29 (Entergy 2006c). Aerial photographs show that a considerable portion (approximately one-third) 

30 of the site has been disturbed due to the construction of JAFNPP. After a review of NYSHPO 

31 site files, NRC staff confirmed that no known archaeological and historic architectural sites have 

32 been recorded at JAFNPP. In addition, according to NYSHPO records, there have been several 

33 archaeological studies and surveys conducted in the vicinity of JAFNPP and one actual study of 

34 the site. The results of these studies are summarized chronologically below. 

35 The first known archaeological survey in the vicinity of JAFNPP was conducted in 1977 by Pratt 

36 and Pratt Archaeological Associates, Inc., for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. This report 

37 consisted of a literature search and survey for siting a power line and substation (Nine Mile 

38 Point Nuclear Station Unit 2—Volney 765-kV line) that crossed JAFNPP property. The literature 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-52 June 2007 

1 review found no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites or National Register properties within 

2 the proposed substation site and corridor area. However, the report indicated there was a high 

3 potential for finding historic sites within the project corridor but only a moderate potential that 

4 these sites would be impacted by the proposed project. In 1983, Pratt and Pratt Archaeological 

5 Associates, Inc., published an addendum to the 1977 report, which did not change the 

6 conclusions of the earlier report. 

7 In 1987, a comprehensive literature review and cultural resource inventory was conducted at the 

8 JAFNPP site by Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Again, the literature review found no 

9 recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites on file at the New York State Museum or 

10 SHPO. However, Hartgen noted that due to environmental conditions, the JAFNPP site and 

11 surrounding area could have been used for foraging and hunting by limited numbers of 

12 prehistoric peoples for short durations, and concluded that there was a low to moderate 

13 probability of prehistoric sites being found on the plant site. The survey also reported that 

14 historic development within the JAFNPP site consisted primarily of scattered homes along North 

15 Lake Road and Oswego County Route 29. As late as 1955, the number of structures identified 

16 on maps within the JAFNPP property was only 16. Given that these historic structures once 

17 stood on the JAFNPP site, the potential for finding historic resources on the site is high. 

18 Most of the other archaeological studies and surveys conducted between 1987 and 2004 

19 consisted of literature searches for water and electric transmission line and roadway projects. 

20 These studies and surveys found no significant prehistoric or historic sites within their project 

21 areas. 

22 In October 2006, Entergy contracted Enercon Services, Inc., to perform a phase 1A literature 

23 review and archaeological sensitivity assessment for the JAFNPP site. The assessment 

24 included a walk-over of selected undeveloped portions of the JAFNPP site that were identified 

25 as being potentially sensitive for cultural resources. As stated in previous archaeological 

26 reviews, Enercon also concluded that there is a potential for finding prehistoric sites on the 

27 small knolls and hills next to kettle ponds across the eastern and southern portions of the 

28 JAFNPP property. The assessment also concluded that since the site was mostly orchard 

29 farmland prior to the construction of JAFNPP, it is very likely that historic resources associated 

30 with those farms exist on the site. 

31 A walk-over of selected undeveloped portions of the JAFNPP site by NRC staff confirmed the 

32 existence of historic resources on the plant site. Early maps of the JAFNPP area indicate that a 

33 number of structures, mostly of nineteenth-century origin, existed on the JAFNPP site prior to 

34 construction. Most of these sites today consist of foundations and probable associated historic 

35 artifact scatters. Prehistoric cultural resources could also be present in the relatively 

36 undisturbed southern and eastern portions of the JAFNPP site in areas next to kettle ponds. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations 

2 The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 

3 renewal of the operating license for JAFNPP. Any such activity could result in cumulative 

4 environmental impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating 

5 agency in the preparation of the JAFNPP SEIS. 

6 The 7068-ac Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, located approximately 44 mi southwest of 

7 JAFNPP serves as a major resting area for waterfowl and other waterbirds on their journeys to 

8 and from nesting areas in northeastern and east-central Canada. This refuge is also in the 

9 middle of one of the most active flight lanes in the Atlantic Flyway (FWS 2006a). 

10 The Onondaga Reservation, a 5953-ac Indian reservation, is located in Onondaga County. As 

11 of the 2000 census, the Indian reservation had a population of 1473 (Answers.com 2006). 

12 JAFNPP shares an eastern boundary with the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, a two-unit 

13 electricity-generating nuclear power plant operated by Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC. 

14 There are also approximately 25 hydropower electricity-generating facilities within 50 mi of the 

15 JAFNPP site. 

16 NRC is required under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to 

17 consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or 

18 special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Federal agency comment 

19 correspondence is included in Appendix E. 

20 2.2.10.1 Coastal Zone Management Act 

21 The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) grants the National Oceanic and 

22 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the authority to encourage and assist states and territories 

23 with developing management programs that preserve, protect, develop, and, when possible, 

24 restore coastal zone resources. A "coastal zone" is generally described as the coastal waters 

25 and the adjacent shore lands strongly influenced by each other and includes islands, transitional 

26 and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, beaches, and Great Lakes waters (NOAA 2007). 

27 Federal activities that are reasonably likely to affect coastal use or resources, such as license 

28 renewal of nuclear power plants, must be consistent with the approved State coastal 

29 management program (CMP). The federal consistency provision is promulgated in Section 

30 307(c)(3)(a) of the CZMA and requires applicants for Federal licenses or permits to certify that 

31 any proposed activity in the coastal zone is consistent with the enforceable policies of the State 

32 CMP (NOAA 2007). A copy of the applicant’s consistency certification, as submitted to the 

33 Federal agency, is provided to the State agency responsible for conducting consistency 

34 reviews. Upon receipt of all necessary information, the State has six months to notify the 

35 applicant and Federal agency of whether it concurs with or objects to the applicant’s 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-54 June 2007 

1 certification. The Federal license or permit being sought by the applicant cannot be granted 

2 without State approval of the consistency certification (DOC 2003). 

3 In 1982, NOAA certified New York State’s CMP, as codified in 19 NYCRR Parts 600–601. 

4 Implementation of the CMP and a consistency review are performed by the New York State 

5 Department of State Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS 2007). JAFNPP is located on a 

6 Great Lakes coastline that falls under the jurisdiction of the CZMA, and license renewal is a 

7 Federal activity that requires a consistency determination. As such, Entergy submitted a copy 

8 of its New York State CMP certification, as contained within Attachment D of the ER (Entergy 

9 2006c), to the State on July 31, 2006. New York State requires review of the draft SEIS prior to 

10 making a consistency determination. To ensure the six-month review time frame is maintained, 

11 upon request of the State, Entergy withdrew its consistency certification and will resubmit the 

12 certification closer to the date of the draft SEIS issuance (Entergy 2006e). 

13 2.2.10.2 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

14 Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), an applicant for a Federal license or 

15 permit to conduct any activity that may result in discharge into navigable waters must obtain 

16 certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the 

17 CWA. A license or permit cannot be granted by the Federal agency until this certification has 

18 been obtained or waived by the State. Furthermore, a license or permit cannot be granted if 

19 certification has been denied by the State, interstate agency, or the EPA Administrator. The 

20 401 Water Quality Certification sets forth applicable effluent limitations and prescribes 

21 monitoring requirements to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with those 

22 limitations. Any Federal license or permit for a 401 Water Quality Certification that has been 

23 obtained may be suspended or revoked by the issuing Federal agency upon judgment that the 

24 facility or licensed activity has violated its certification or any applicable provisions of the CWA. 

25 In New York, the NYSDEC Department of Water reviews and issues Section 401 Water Quality 

26 Certifications. JAFNPP’s original 401 Certification and Initial Reporting Requirements is dated 

27 June 1, 1973, and accompanied the original licensing action by the NRC. In accordance with 

28 Section 401 regulations, Entergy submited a Section 401 Water Quality Certification application 

29 to NYSDEC in April 2007 (Entergy 2007b) to accompany the request for license renewal. Upon 

30 receipt of the application, NYSDEC will have 12 months to review the application and grant or 

31 deny a certification. NYSDEC anticipates issuing a decision for JAFNPP in March 2008, 

32 approximately three months prior to the NRC’s expected license renewal decision in May 2008 

33 (assuming the standard 22-month NRC license renewal review timeline). Until NYSDEC has 

34 issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for JAFNPP, the NRC will not be able to grant 

35 the license renewal. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 2.3 References

2 6 NYCRR Part 374. Title 6 of the Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York, Part 

3 374.3. “Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes – Standards for Universal Waste.”

4 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

5 Protection Against Radiation.” 

6 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

7 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

8 19 NYCRR Parts 600–601. Title 19 of the Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New 

9 York Chapter XIII: Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways, Parts 600 - 

10 603: Local Government Waterfront Revitalization Programs. 

11 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

12 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

13 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

14 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

15 40 CFR Part 260. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 260 

16 “Hazardous Waste Management System: General.” 

17 40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261, 

18 “Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” 

19 40 CFR Part 273. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273, 

20 “Standards for Universal Waste Management.” 

21 Answers.com. 2006. Onondaga Reservation, New York. Available URL: 

22 http://www.answers.com/topic/onondaga-reservation-new-york (accessed September 5, 2006). 

23 Boyd, D. and J. Biberhofer. 1999. “Large Volume Sampling at Six Lake Ontario Tributaries 

24 During 1997 and 1998: Project Synopsis and Summary of Selected Results.” Available URL: 

25 http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/3927e.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007). 

26 Accessible at ML070160222. 

27 Bury, R.B. 1979. “Review of the ecology and conservation of the bog turtle, Clemmys 

28 muhlenbergii.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific 

29 Report — Wildlife 2 19: l-9. 

30 Churchill, J.C. (ed). 1895. Landmarks of Oswego County New York. C.D. Mason and 

31 Company: Syracuse, New York. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-56 June 2007 

1 Clean Water Act of 1977. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

2 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A). 

3 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). 2004a. “Least Bittern Fact 

4 Sheet.” Available URL: http://dep.state.ct.us/burnatr/wildlife/factshts/lebitt.htm (accessed 

5 December 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070120341. 

6 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). 2004b. “Upland Sandpiper Fact 

7 Sheet.” Available URL: http://dep.state.ct.us/burnatr/wildlife/factshts/upsand.htm (accessed 

8 December 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070120339. 

9 Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 2003. “All About Birds: Pied-billed Grebe.” Available URL: 

10 http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/ BirdGuide/Pied-billed_Grebe_dtl.html (accessed 

11 December 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070120343. 

12 EA Science and Technology. 2005. 2004 SPDES Biological Monitoring Report James A. 

13 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (Permit No. NY 0020109, Section 10, CP-04.03). Newburgh, 

14 New York. Accessible at ML062970416. 

15 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2001. 

16 Nuclear James A. Fitzpatrick, James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety Analysis 

17 Report.

18 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2002a. 

19 Effluent and Waste Disposal, Semi-Annual Report, January 1, 2001 – June 30, 2001. James A. 

20 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

21 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2002b. 

22 Effluent and Waste Disposal, Semi-Annual Report, July 1, 2001 – December 31, 2001. 

23 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

24 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. 

25 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002. James A 

26 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

27 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004a. 

28 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2003. James A. 

29 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

30 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004b. 

31 Letter to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation transmitting Pesticide Use 

32 Annual Report – 2003. Accessible at ML063620528. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004c. 

2 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual [ODCM], James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, DVP3 01.02, Revision 9. 

4 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005a. 

5 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2004. James A. 

6 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

7 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005b. 

8 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005. 

9 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

10 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005c. 

11 Letter to New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation transmitting Pesticide Use Annual 

12 Report – 2004. Accessible at ML063620527. 

13 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005d. 

14 Letter from P. Sullivan, Entergy, to E. Dassatti, NYSDEC. November 3, 2005. Accessible at 

15 ML063620372. 

16 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

17 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005. James A. 

18 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59. 

19 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

20 Entergy Nuclear Waste Minimization Plan. ENWMP Revision 0. July 2006. Accessible at 

21 ML063630214. 

22 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006c. 

23 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

24 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

25 Accessible at ML062160557. 

26 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006d. 

27 Letter to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation transmitting Pesticide Use 

28 Annual Report – 2005. Accessible at ML063620524. 

29 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006e. 

30 Letter to New York State Department of State requesting withdrawal of Coastal Zone 

31 Management Consistency Certification. November 20, 2006. Accessible at ML063620296. 

32 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC (Entergy). 2006f. 

33 Proposal For Information Collection To Address Compliance With the Clean Water Act §316(b) 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-58 June 2007 

1 Phase II Regulations at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (SPDES Permit No. NY 

2 0020109) Lycoming, New York. Lycoming, New York. Accessible at ML063560153. 

3 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006g. 

4 White Paper Response for Site Audit Documents Request. Accessible at ML063620277. 

5 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. 

6 Email from M. Rodgers, Entergy, to J. Muir, NRC. Subject: Firing Range Question and 

7 Answers. January 26, 2007. Accessible at ML070260528. 

8 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. 

9 Letter from P. Dietrich, Entergy, to NYSDEC regarding submittal of Joint Permit Application, 401 

10 Water Quality Certification. April 10, 2007. Accessible at ML071170388. 

11 Environment Canada (EC). 2000. State of Lakes Ecosystem Conference. Nearshore Waters 

12 of the Great Lakes. Available at: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/nearshore13 water/paper/part1.html (accessed April 9. 2007). Accessible at ML071000457. 

14 FedStats. 2006. “MapStats: New York.” Available URL: http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/ 

15 states/36000.html (accessed December 21, 2006). Accessible at ML071130377. 

16 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1994. Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great 

17 Lakes Fisheries. GLFC: Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available URL: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/ 

18 sglcon.htm (accessed January 31, 2007). 

19 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 2006. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Available 

20 URL: http://www.glfc.org/ (accessed November 29, 2006). Accessible at ML070160387. 

21 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 2007. Lake Committees: Science Transfer 

22 Program. Available URL: http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/stp.php (accessed February 8, 2007). 

23 Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System (GLSLSS). 2006. Port of Oswego. Available URL: 

24 http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/ports/portofoswego.html (accessed October 17, 2006). 

25 Accessible at ML070160395. 

26 Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia Red Data Book: Testudines, Crocodylia, 

27 Rhynchocephalia. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

28 (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. Part 1. 

29 Heritage Power, LLC. 2000. Heritage Station Application for Certification of a Major Generating 

30 Facility Under Article X of the New York State Public Service Law. 

31 International Joint Commission (IJC). 2004. Twelfth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water 

32 Quality. Available URL: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/12br/english/report/index.html 

33 (accessed February 8, 2007). Accessible at ML070390585. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control (ISLRBC). 2002a. Lake Ontario St. 

2 Lawrence River Regulation. Available URL: http://www.islrbc.org/new-Version/brochure.html 

3 (accessed November 7, 2004). Accessible at ML060940107. 

4 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control (ISLRBC). 2002b. FAQ. Available URL: 

5 http://www.islrbc.org/new-Version/faqs.html (accessed November 7, 2004). Accessible at 

6 ML060940110. 

7 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control (ISLRBC). 2004. Available URL: 

8 http://www.ijc.org/en/home/main_accueil.htm (accessed November 7, 2004). Accessible at 

9 ML060940115. 

10 Jackson, L.J. 1997. “Piscivores, Predation, and PCBs in Lake Ontario’s Pelagic Food Web.” 

11 Ecological Applications, (7)3:991-1001. Accessible at ML070170447. 

12 Kozub, A.Z. and C.C. Carter. 2003. Cultural Resource Management Program Report 2002 

13 Highway Program PIN 23045.50.121 NY 104 Towns of Scriba and New Haven, Oswego 

14 County, New York. Binghamton University, State University of New York; Binghamton, New 

15 York. 

16 Microsoft Corporation. 2005. “Microsoft Terraserver Imagery.” Available URL: 

17 http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/default.aspx (accessed December 27, 2006). 

18 Mills, E.L., R. Dermott, M. Munawar, S. Millard, O. Johannsson, and L. Rudstam. 2003. Status 

19 of the Lake Ontario Food Web in a Changing Ecosystem: the 2003 Lake Ontario Lower Aquatic 

20 Food Web Assessment (LOLA). Available URL: http://epa.gov/greatlakes/lakeont/lola/ 

21 lola2006.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070160569. 

22 Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. 

23 Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, and J.C. Makarewicz. 2005. A Synthesis of Ecological and Fish24 Community Changes in Lake Ontario, 1970–2000. Available URL: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/ 

25 TechReports/Tr67.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070160214. 

26 Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA). 2001. “2000 Water Quality Monitoring Program 

27 Summary,” MCWA 2000 Annual Water Quality Report. Rochester, New York. 

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

29 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004a. Climatology of the U.S. #84 

30 – Daily Normals Online Individual Station, Oswego East, New York, NY COOP ID#306314. 

31 National Climatic Data Center, NOAA. Available URL: http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi32 bin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl (accessed January 5, 2007). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-60 June 2007 

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004b. Storm Events. National 

2 Climatic Data Center, NOAA. Available URL: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/ 

3 wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms (accessed January 4, 2007). 

4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Ocean and Coastal 

5 Resource Management: Federal Consistency. Available URL: http://www.coastalmanagement. 

6 noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.html (accessed January 25, 2007). 

7 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1998. Systemwide Right-of-Way Management Plan. 

8 Accessible at ML063620305. 

9 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 2000. Letter from J. Kahabka, NYPA, to J. Dolan, Jr., 

10 NYSDEC. (June 2, 2000). Accessible at ML063620533. 

11 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999a. Endangered & 

12 Threatened Fishes of New York – Deepwater Sculpin. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny 

13 .us/website/dfwmr/fish/fishspecs/endgtext.html#deepwatersculpin (accessed January 16, 2007). 

14 Accessible at ML070160375. 

15 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999b. Endangered & 

16 Threatened Fishes of New York – Lake Chubsucker. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny 

17 .us/website/dfwmr/fish/fishspecs/endgtext.html#lakechubsucker (accessed January 16, 2007). 

18 Accessible at ML070160380. 

19 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999c. Endangered & 

20 Threatened Fishes of New York – Round Whitefish. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ 

21 website/dfwmr/fish/fishspecs/endgtext.html#roundwhitefish (accessed January 16, 2007). 

22 Accessible at ML070160371. 

23 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999d. Redfin Shiner 

24 Fact Sheet. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/ 

25 redfinshine.html (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070160421. 

26 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999e. New York’s 

27 Sturgeon: Lake Sturgeon. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/ 

28 fishspecs/sturtext.html#lakesturgeon (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at 

29 ML070160401. 

30 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2000a. Letter from 

31 B. Barrow, NYSDEC, to W. Slade, NYPA. September 15, 2000. Accessible at ML063620533. 

32 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2000b. New York 

33 State Water Quality 2000—Submitted Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water 

34 Act Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-217). Albany, New York. October. Available URL: 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/305b00.pdf (accessed November 7, 2004). Accessible 

2 at ML060940126. 

3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2001. New York State 

4 Department of Environmental Conservation State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

5 Discharge Permit. NY-0020109. August 1, 2001. 

6 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2004. 2004 Status of 

7 the Lake Ontario Ecosystem: A Biomonitoring Approach. Available URL: http://www.dec.state 

8 .ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/lorpt04sec20.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at 

9 ML070160338. 

10 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006a. “Current 

11 Situation on Chronic Wasting Disease in New York.” Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ 

12 websitedfwmr/wildlife/deer/currentcwd.html (accessed December 26, 2006). Accessible at 

13 ML070120324. 

14 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006b. Press release: 

15 “DEC Provides Information on Spring Caterpillar Pests.” Available URL: http://www.dec.state 

16 .ny.us/website/dlf/privland/forprot/health/caterpillar/index.html (accessed November 14, 2006). 

17 Accessible at ML070120322. 

18 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006c. “Distribution of 

19 Samples Collected Statewide for the Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance Project.” Available 

20 URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/deer/cwdmap.html (accessed 

21 December 26, 2006). Accessible at ML070120318. 

22 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006d. “Habitats in 

23 New York State.” Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/swg/habitats.html 

24 Habitats in New York State (accessed December 29, 2006). Accessible at ML070120317. 

25 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006e. “Investigation 

26 of Lake Ontario Shore Bird and Fish Deaths Continues.” Available URL: http://www.dec.state 

27 .ny.us/website/environmentdec/2006b/birdfishdeath072006.html (accessed November 14, 

28 2006). Accessible at ML070120316. 

29 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006f. Press release: 

30 “New York State Announces Efforts to Help Control Spread of Sirex Wood Wasp.” Available 

31 URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2006/2006152.html (accessed 

32 November 14, 2006). Accessible at ML070120313. 

33 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006g. Letter from T. 

34 Seoane, Information Services, New York Natural Heritage Program. Subject: Natural Heritage 

35 Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities. Not publicly available. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-62 June 2007 

1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006g. “2006 Section 

2 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL.” Available URL http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ 

3 website/dow/303d2006.pdf (accessed April 9, 2007). Accessible at ML071000465. 

4 New York State Department of Health. 2007. 1995 – 2004 Annual Report, Report of 

5 Environmental Radiation In New York State (Working Draft). New York State Department of 

6 Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection. 

7 New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL). 2006. “Workforce New York.” Available 

8 URL: http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ (accessed December 21, 2006). Accessible at 

9 ML071130372. 

10 New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS). 2006. 

11 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Available URL: http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/ 

12 waterfront_natural_narratives.asp (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070160399. 

13 New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS). 2007. Coastal 

14 Resources Online: Consistency Review. Available URL: http://nyswaterfronts.com/ 

15 consistency.asp (accessed January 25, 2007). 

16 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO). 2006a. “Fair 

17 Haven Beach State Park” Available URL: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/ info.asp?parkID=34 

18 (accessed December 27, 2006). Accessible at ML070120311. 

19 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO). 2006b. 

20 Letter from H. Heter, Historic Preservation Program Specialist, New York State Office of Parks, 

21 Recreation and Historic Preservation, to T.A. Sullivan, Site Vice President, JAFNPP. Subject: 

22 JAFNPP License Renewal, Town of Scriba, Oswego County. April 27, 2006. 

23 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO). 2006c. 

24 “Selkirk Shores State Park” Available URL: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/info.asp 

25 ?parkID=24 (accessed December 27, 2006). Accessible at ML070120309. 

26 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC). 1975. Nine Mile Point Unit 1 316(a) 

27 Demonstration Submission, NPDES Permit NY 0001015. Syracuse, New York. 

28 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC). 1985. Environmental Report: Operating License 

29 State Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2. Volume 1. February 8, 1985. 

30 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS). 2002a. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station— 

31 Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report (Updated). Revision 15, Docket Number 50-410, Lycoming, 

32 New York. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Onondoga County Parks. 2006. “Beaver Lake Nature Center. “ Available URL: 

2 http://onondagacountyparks.com/parks/beaver/ (accessed December 27, 2006). Accessible at 

3 ML070120302. 

4 Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME). 1999. Deepwater Sculpin return to Lake Ontario. 

5 Available URL: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/cons/3628e.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007). 

6 Accessible at ML070160342. 

7 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2006. MNR Fish Stocking Summary 2005. 

8 Available URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/fishing/stocking2005.html (accessed January 16, 

9 2007). Accessible at ML070160398. 

10 Oswego County Department of Planning and Community Development (OCDPCD). 1997. 

11 Oswego County Comprehensive Plan. OCDPCD, Oswego, New York. Available URL: 

12 http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/pdf/compplan.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006). Accessible at 

13 ML071130370. 

14 Oswego County Department of Planning and Community Development (OCDPCD). 1999. 

15 Oswego County Development Regulation Guide. OCDPCD, Oswego, New York. Accessible at 

16 ML071140281. 

17 Oswego County. 2006. 2007 Oswego County Business Guide. Oswego, New York. 

18 Accessible at ML071130379. Accessible at ML071140266. 

19 The Paleontological Research Institution (PRI). 2006. “Formation of the Finger Lakes.” 

20 Available URL: http://www.priweb.org/ed/finger_lakes/nystate_geo3.html (accessed 

21 November 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070120391. 

22 Parks Canada (PC). 2006. Lake Ontario. Available URL: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc 

23 -nmca/systemplan/itm4-/gla6_e.asp (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at 

24 ML070160415. 

25 Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), Alien Plant Working Group. 2006a. “Common Reed.” 

26 Available URL: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/phau1.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 

27 Accessible at ML070120384. 

28 Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), Alien Plant Working Group. 2006b. “Japanese Knotweed.” 

29 Available URL: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pocu1.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 

30 Accessible at ML070120378. 

31 Renewable Resource Data Center. 2004. New York annual average wind power. Available 

32 URL: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-25m.html (accessed October 20, 

33 2005). 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-64 June 2007 

1 Ritchie, W.A. and R.E. Funk. 1973. Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. University 

2 of New York, Albany. 

3 Ritchie, W.A. 1994. The Archaeology of New York State. Purple Mountain Press, Limited, 

4 New York, New York. 

5 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2006. Species at Risk – Lake Chubsucker. Available URL: 

6 http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=&id=76 (accessed January 16, 

7 2007). Accessible at ML070160411. 

8 State University of New York (SUNY) at Oswego. 2006a. “Biology of Rice Creek Field Station.” 

9 Available URL: http://www.oswego.edu/academics/opportunities/rice_creek_field_station/ 

10 biology/index.html (accessed November 14, 2006). Accessible at ML070120376. 

11 State University of New York (SUNY) at Oswego. 2006b. “Mammals of Rice Creek Field 

12 Station” Available URL: http://www.oswego.edu/academics/opportunities/rice_creek_field 

13 _station/biology/vertebrates/mammals.html (accessed November 28, 2006). Accessible at 

14 ML070120351. 

15 State University of New York (SUNY) at Oswego. 2006c. “Reptiles and Amphibians of Rice 

16 Creek Field Station.” Available URL: http://www.oswego.edu/academics/opportunities/ 

17 rice_creek_field_ station/biology/vertebrates/herps.html (accessed November 14, 2006). 

18 Accessible at ML070120351. 

19 Stewart, T.J., R.E. Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers, and M.E. Daniels. 1999. 

20 “Fish-Community Objectives For Lake Ontario.” Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 99-l. 

21 Available URL: //www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp99_1.pdf (accessed January 16, 2006). 

22 Accessible at ML070160345. 

23 Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency. 2001. Onondaga County Settlement Plan. The 

24 Regional Plan and Pilot Projects, Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, Syracuse, New York. 

25 Accessible at ML071140268. 

26 Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency. 2006. County Land Use Data. 

27 Stone, C.K. 1867. Topographical Atlas of Oswego County. Philadelphia. 

28 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. 15 USC s/s 2601 et seq. 

29 United States Department of Commerce (DOC). 2003. Consistency Appeal of Millennium 

30 Pipeline Co., L.P. from an Objection by the State of New York. Available URL: http://www.ogc 

31 .doc.gov/czma.nsf/F9A7796F451A71048525720400718AAB/$File/Milennium+Decision.pdf 

32 ?OpenElement (accessed January 25, 2007). 

33 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Buffalo District) (USACE). 2002. Monthly Bulletin of Great 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-65 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Lakes Water Levels. Available URL: http://huron.1re.usace.army.mil/levels/bltnhmpg.html 

2 (accessed October 24, 2002). Accessible at ML060960348. 

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

4 Operation of James A. JAFNPP Nuclear Power Plant. Docket No. 50-333. Directorate of 

5 Licensing. Washington, D.C. Accessible at ML062360088. 

6 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

7 Operation of Nine Mile Nuclear Station Unit 1. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Docket 

8 No. 50-220. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C. January 1974. 

9 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006a. “American Fact Finder.” Available URL: http://factfinder 

10 .census.gov (accessed October 5, 2006). Accessible at ML071130367. 

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006b. “2004 County Business Patterns (NAICS).” Available 

12 URL: http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml (accessed October 30, 2006). 

13 Accessible at ML071130362. 

14 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. New York Agricultural Statistics Service. Onandago 

15 County (New York) Farm Statistics. Available URL: www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/ 

16 New_York/County_Profiles/Onondaga.pdf (accessed September 25, 2006). Accessible at 

17 ML071140264. 

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, New York State Department of 

19 Environmental Conservation, and Ontario Ministry of the Environment (EPA et al.). 1998. 

20 “Stage 1: Problem Definition.” Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario. Available URL: 

21 http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont (accessed on November 7, 2004). Accessible at 

22 ML060940262. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Great Lakes Monitoring Limnology 

24 Program. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/limnology/#tp (accessed 

25 February 8, 2005). Accessible at ML060940275. 

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. Great Lakes: Lake Ontario. Available 

27 URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ontario.html (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at 

28 ML070160391. 

29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. Lake Ontario Lakewide Management 

30 Plan Status. Available URL: http://epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/2006/LO2006.pdf (accessed January 

31 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070160337. 

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006c. “Vegetated Buffers.” Available URL: 

33 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results&view=

34 specific&bmp=50 (accessed December 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070120337. 
Plant and the Environment 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 2-66 June 2007 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006d. The Great Lakes: An Environmental 

2 Atlas and Resource Book. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/gl-fact1.html 

3 (accessed April 9, 2007). Accessible at ML071000465. 

4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat. Available URL: 

5 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/051215.pdf (accessed December 29, 2006). 

6 Accessible at ML070110342. 

7 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. “Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern 

8 Population Recovery Plan.” Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/ 

9 2001/010515.pdf (accessed December 28, 2006.) Accessible at ML070110336. 

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006a. Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge. Available 

11 URL: http://www.fws.gov/r5mnwr (accessed September 5, 2006). Accessible at ML071140281. 

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006b. “Species Profile: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)” 

13 Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A000 (accessed 

14 December 29, 2006). Accessible at ML070120336. 

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006c. “Wetlands Digital Data.” Available URL: 

16 http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html (accessed November 14, 2006). Accessible at 

17 ML070120330. 

18 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1900. Fulton, New York. 15-minute quadrangle map 

19 [reprinted 1932]. 

20 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1955. Fulton, New York, N4315-W7615/17.5X15, 15-minute 

21 quadrangle map. 

22 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. West of Texas, New York. 7.5-minute quadrangle map 

23 (1955 edition photo, revised in 1982). 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related 

25 tothe Operation of Nine Mile Nuclear Station Unit 2. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 

26 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, New 

27 York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Long Island Lighting Company. Docket No. 50-410. 

28 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Washington, D.C. May 1985. 

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

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

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

32 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

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

34 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 
Plant and the Environment 

June 2007 2-67 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 

3 and 2. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 24. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

4 Washington, D.C. 

5 Wellman, J. (ed). 1987. Landmarks of Oswego. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 

6 New York. 

7 Wisconsin Sea Grant (WSG). 2006. Fish of Lake Ontario. Available URL: http://www.seagrant 

8 .wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/LakeOntFishIndex.html (accessed January 16, 2007). Accessible at 

9 ML070160384. 

10 Zilkoski, D.B., J.H. Richards, and G.M. Young. 1992. Results of the General Adjustment of the 

11 North American Vertical Datum of 1988. National Geodetic Survey. 

June 2007 3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT 

2 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999). 4 (1) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the 

5 analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional 

6 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a 

7 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of 

8 the following criteria: 

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

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

11 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

13 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 

14 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

19 required in this draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and 

20 significant information is identified. 

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

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

23 License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These 

24 actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type 

25 of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment 

26 determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1. 

27 Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these conclu28 sions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. 

29 These are listed in Table 3-2. 

 

(1) 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 3-2 June 2007 

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

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, 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 

GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY

Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water 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 

2 

3 Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to refurbishment that are not applicable to James A. 

4 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) because they are related to plant design features or 

5 site characteristics not found at the James A FitzPatrick site are listed in Appendix F. 

6 The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the 

7 analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. Entergy 

8 Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) indicated that it has 

9 performed an evaluation of structures and components pursuant to Section 54.21 of Title 10 of 

10 the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.21) to identify activities that are necessary to 

11 continue operation of JAFNPP during the requested 20-year period of extended operation. 

12 These activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities 

13 and are described in the Environmental Report (ER; Entergy 2006). 

14 However, Entergy stated that the replacement of these components and the additional 

15 inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and 

16 inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of 
 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

June 2007 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 

GEIS 

Sections 

10 CFR 51.53

(c)(3)(ii)

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 

maintenance areas) 

3.3 F 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I 

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I 

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I 

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I 

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J 

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not 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 

NRC staff’s environmental impact statement. 

2 

3 plant operations as evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of 

4 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (AEC 1973). In addition, Entergy’s evaluation of 

5 structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any major plant 

6 refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued operation of 

7 JAFNPP beyond the end of the existing operating license. Therefore, refurbishment is not 

8 considered in this draft SEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 3-4 June 2007 

1 3.1 References

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

4 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

5 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

6 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006. 

7 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: – 

8 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

9 Accessible at ML062160557. 

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

11 Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. Power Authority of the State of New 

12 York. Docket No. 50-333. Washington, D.C. Accessible at ML062360088. 

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

14 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear 

15 Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

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

17 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Office of 

18 Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 
June 2007 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION 

2 Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal 

3 term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996a; 1999).(1) 4 The GEIS 

5 includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to 

6 all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then 

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

8 are those that meet all of the following criteria: 

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

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

11 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

13 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 

14 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

19 required unless new and significant information is identified. 

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

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

22 This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in 

23 Table B-1 of Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), Subpart A, 

24 Appendix B and are applicable to the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP). 

25 Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the JAFNPP cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses 

26 issues related to transmission lines and onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological 

27 impacts of normal operation, and Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic 

28 impacts of normal operation during the renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to 

29 groundwater use and quality, while Section 4.6 discusses the impacts of renewal-term operations 

30 on threatened and endangered species. Section 4.7 addresses potential new information that 

31 was raised during the scoping period, and Section 4.8 discusses cumulative impacts. The results 

 

1 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-2 June 2007 

1 of the evaluation of environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are 

2 summarized in Section 4.9. Finally, Section 4.10 lists the references for Chapter 4. Category 1 

3 and Category 2 issues that are not applicable to JAFNPP because they are related to plant-design 

4 features or site characteristics not found at JAFNPP are listed in Appendix F. 

5 4.1 Cooling System

6 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable to 

7 the JAFNPP cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. Entergy 

8 Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) stated in its 

9 Environmental Report, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal 

10 Application, Appendix E: Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage

11 (JAFNPP ER) (Entergy 2006a), that it is not aware of any new and significant information 

12 associated with the renewal of the JAFNPP operating license (OL). The NRC staff has not 

13 identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER 

14 (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available 

15 information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these 

16 issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of the issues, the NRC staff concluded in 

17 the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not 

18 likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

19 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, 

20 for each of these issues follows: 

21 • Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the 

22 GEIS, the Commission found that 

23 Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating 

24 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license 

25 renewal term. 

26 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

27 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

28 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

29 would be no impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the 

30 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the JAFNPP 

2 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 

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.3 

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4 

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4 

Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3 

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS) 

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5 

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6 

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6 

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7 

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8 

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9 

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 

exposed to sublethal stresses 

4.2.2.1.10 

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11 

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 

Noise 4.3.7 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-4 June 2007 

1 • Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the 

2 GEIS, the Commission found that 

3 Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating 

4 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license 

5 renewal term. 

6 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

7 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

8 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

9 would be no impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the 

10 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

11 • Altered thermal stratification of lakes. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

12 found that 

13 Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating 

14 nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license 

15 renewal term. 

16 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

17 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

18 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

19 would be no impacts of altered thermal stratification of lakes during the renewal term beyond 

20 those discussed in the GEIS. 

21 • Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

22 Commission found that 

23 These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

24 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

25 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

26 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

27 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

28 would be no impacts of temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during the 

29 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

30 • Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

31 Commission found that 

32 Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power 

33 plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to 

34 be a problem during the license renewal term. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

2 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

3 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

4 would be no impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the renewal 

5 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

6 • Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

7 Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

8 plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

9 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

10 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

11 evaluation of other available information including plant monitoring data and technical 

12 reports. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts of 

13 eutrophication during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

14 • Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

15 found that 

16 Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not 

17 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

18 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

19 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

20 evaluation of other available information including the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

21 System (SPDES) permit for JAFNPP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would 

22 be no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the renewal term beyond 

23 those discussed in the GEIS. 

24 • Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the GEIS, 

25 the Commission found that 

26 Effects are readily controlled through [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

27 System] NPDES permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are not 

28 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

29 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

30 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

31 evaluation of other available information including the SPDES permit for JAFNPP. 

32 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts of discharges of sanitary 

33 wastes and minor chemical spills during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

34 GEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-6 June 2007 

1 • Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

2 Commission found that 

3 These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

4 power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been 

5 satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem 

6 during the license renewal term. 

7 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

8 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

9 evaluation of other available information including the SPDES permit for JAFNPP. 

10 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts of discharges of other 

11 metals in wastewater during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

12 • Water-use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems). Based on information in the 

13 GEIS, the Commission found that 

14 These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

15 plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. 

16 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

17 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

18 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

19 would be no impacts of water-use conflicts for plants with once-through cooling systems 

20 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

21 • Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

22 Commission found that 

23 Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants 

24 but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes 

25 with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license 

26 renewal term. 

27 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

28 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

29 evaluation of available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be 

30 no impacts of accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during the renewal term 

31 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

32 • Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

33 Commission found that 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a 

2 problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem 

3 during the license renewal term. 

4 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

5 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

6 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

7 would be no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the renewal 

8 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

9 • Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

10 Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with 

11 once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been 

12 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or 

13 cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal 

14 term. 

15 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

16 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

17 evaluation of other available information, including JAFNPP’s original CWA Section 316(a) 

18 demonstration report (NYPA 1976). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be 

19 no impacts of cold shock during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

20 • Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

21 found that 

22 Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

23 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

24 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

25 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

26 evaluation of other available information, including JAFNPP’s original CWA Section 316(a) 

27 demonstration report (NYPA 1976). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be 

28 no impacts of thermal plume barriers to migrating fish during the renewal term beyond those 

29 discussed in the GEIS. 

30 • Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found 

31 that 

32 Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the 

33 larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-8 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

2 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

3 evaluation of other available information, including JAFNPP’s original CWA Section 316(a) 

4 demonstration report (NYPA 1976). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be 

5 no impacts on distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal term beyond those 

6 discussed in the GEIS. 

7 • Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

8 Commission found that 

9 Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating 

10 nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a 

11 problem during the license renewal term. 

12 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

13 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

14 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

15 would be no impacts of premature emergence of aquatic insects during the renewal term 

16 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

17 • Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

18 Commission found that 

19 Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear 

20 power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily 

21 mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

22 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem 

23 during the license renewal term. 

24 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

25 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

26 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

27 no impacts of gas supersaturation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

28 GEIS. 

29 • Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

30 found that 

31 Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a 

32 once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been 

33 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or 

34 cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal 

35 term. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

2 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

3 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

4 would be no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the renewal term beyond those 

5 discussed in the GEIS. 

6 • Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal 

7 stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

8 These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

9 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal 

10 term. 

11 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

12 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

13 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

14 would be no impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 

15 exposed to sublethal stresses during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

16 • Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

17 found that 

18 Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single 

19 nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was 

20 a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

21 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem 

22 during the license renewal term. 

23 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

24 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

25 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

26 would be no impacts of stimulation of nuisance organisms during the renewal term beyond 

27 those discussed in the GEIS. 

28 • Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

29 Commission found that 

30 Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued 

31 application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker 

32 exposures. 

33 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

34 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

35 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-10 June 2007 

1 would be no impacts of microbiological organisms during the renewal term beyond those 

2 discussed in the GEIS. 

3 • Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

4 Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not 

5 expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term. 

6 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

7 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

8 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

9 would be no impacts of noise during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

10 The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are 

11 applicable to JAFNPP are listed in Table 4-2 and discussed in the sections that follow. 

12 Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the JAFNPP 

13 Cooling System During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 

GEIS 

Section 

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

SEIS 

Section 

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

(FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2 B 4.1.1 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3 B 4.1.2 

Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4 B 4.1.3 

14 

15 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 

16 For power plants with once-through cooling systems, the entrainment of fish and shellfish in 

17 early life stages into cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered 

18 a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific assessment before license renewal. Applicable 

19 Category 2 issues are listed in Table 4-2. The NRC staff reviewed the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 

20 2006a) and related documents, including Entergy’s Proposal for Information Collection dated 

21 January 31, 2006 (Entergy 2006b), and the 2004 SPDES Biological Monitoring Report for the 

22 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, dated May 2005 (EA 2005), and visited the JAFNPP 

23 site several times. The NRC staff also reviewed the applicant’s most current SPDES permit 

24 (NY-0020109) and the accompanying fact sheet, the State of New York Best Technology 

25 Available (BTA) determination letter dated March 1, 1996, and the State of New York 401 

26 Certification letter dated November 5, 1975 (Entergy 2006a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), common name of the Federal Water 

2 Pollution Control Act, requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling 

3 water intake structures reflect the best available technology for minimizing adverse 

4 environmental impacts (33 U.S.C. 1326). Entrainment of fish and shellfish into the cooling water 

5 system is a potential adverse environmental impact that can be minimized by the use of best 

6 available technology. Licensees may be required as part of the NPDES renewal to alter the 

7 intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify facility operation, or take other mitigative 

8 measures. Licensees must comply with Section 316(b) of the CWA. However, EPA’s Phase II 

9 Rule has been suspended and compliance with the rule is based on EPA’s best professional 

10 judgment. 

11 JAFNPP has a once-through heat dissipation system that uses water from Lake Ontario for 

12 condenser cooling and service water. Under normal operating conditions at JAFNPP, all three 

13 circulating water pumps are operating to produce a combined intake flow of 352,600 gallons per 

14 minute (gpm) (518 million gallons per day [gpd]), as measured through the condensers. Three 

15 50 percent-capacity service water pumps also draw water from the intake bay, downstream of 

16 the traveling screens, at a rate of 36,000 gpm (52 million gpd). At the submerged offshore 

17 intake structure, water velocity at the outer face of the bar racks is 1.2 feet per second (ft/s) and 

18 1.6 ft/s through the bar racks. Once in the D-shaped intake tunnel, average water velocity is 

19 4.7 ft/s. Reinforced invert paving and wire mesh-reinforced gunite lining provides for hydraulic 

20 smoothness throughout the tunnel (Entergy 2006a). Once in the screenwell-pumphouse intake 

21 bay, the water flows through the trash bars and traveling screens. Each traveling screen has a 

22 design capacity flow rate of 125,000 gpm and design approach velocity of 1.2 ft/s; the screens 

23 rotate from 10 to 20 feet per minute (ft/m). Screen wash pumps operate periodically and in 

24 response to pressure differentials to remove debris from the traveling screens. Screen wash 

25 pumps take water from the service water system and spray the traveling screens at a rate of 

720 gpm/screen, at a minimum of 80 pounds per square inch (lb/in2 26 ) gauge pressure (Entergy 

27 2006b). 

28 The maximum allowable temperature rise of the cooling system water through the main 

29 condenser is 32.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above ambient water temperature (Entergy 2006a). 

30 Organisms entrained in the intake flow that are small enough to pass through the vertical 

31 traveling screens enter the station cooling system where they are subjected to thermal stress 

32 and mechanical and hydraulic forces. In a study of the Haddam Neck Plant, a nuclear power 

33 plant with a once-through cooling system that formerly operated on the Connecticut River, it was 

34 found that mechanical damage is the main cause of entrainment mortality, while thermal shock 

35 was responsible for only about 20 percent of mortality (Marcy 2004). While some entrainment 

36 survival may occur, for this review NRC staff conservatively assumed that 100 percent of 

37 entrained organisms die. 

38 During periods of cold weather, when inlet water temperature is below 45°F, warm discharge 

39 water is recirculated from the discharge tunnel into the intake bay by a tempering gate—the 

40 amount of raw intake water is reduced approximately 16 to 18 percent during this mode of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-12 June 2007 

1 operation. Total entrainment loss is directly proportional to both the density of ichthyoplankton 

2 in the nearfield source of water and to the raw water intake flow during the period of 

3 consideration. JAFNPP has compiled monthly actual intake flow data from January 1998 

4 through July 2005, and actual pumping rates have historically been lower than plant-design 

5 flows. This is because the circulating water pumps operate at various head differentials and the 

6 plant’s cooling water needs vary in response to reduced generation, environmental conditions, 

7 and periodic maintenance outages. This historical operation is considered representative of the 

8 current and expected future cooling water intake flow operations at JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b). 

9 In the late 1960s, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) and the Niagara Mohawk Power 

10 Corporation conducted ecological studies in the nearshore vicinity of the Nine Mile Point 

11 promontory to determine the potential impact of power plants on the Lake Ontario aquatic 

12 ecosystem. Part of this program included weekly monitoring of the distribution of fish eggs and 

13 larvae at contour depths from 20 to 100 ft, from April through December of 1973 through 1979. 

14 Egg collections consisted primarily of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and rainbow smelt 

15 (Osmerus mordax); larval samples were also dominated by alewife. Alewife were the primary 

16 component of the ichthyoplankton community, followed by rainbow smelt, white perch (Morone 

17 americana), sculpin (Cottidae spp.), and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi). Low 

18 numbers of other species were collected, including yellow perch (Perca flaverscens), rainbow 

19 smelt, and Morone spp., but overall, the data indicated that the Nine Mile Point vicinity was a 

20 significant spawning habitat for only alewife and rainbow smelt. A study of species composition 

21 and distribution of fish larvae collected in the Nine Mile Point area published in 1975 concluded 

22 the area is not a desirable spawning or nursery habitat because of extensive nearshore wave 

23 action and unsuitable bedrock and rubble substrate (TI 1979). 

24 The ecological studies revealed that the temporal distribution of eggs and larvae in the Nine 

25 Mile Point vicinity is generally characterized by two spawning groups: those that spawn from 

26 winter to early spring (burbot [Lota lota], Coregonus spp., rainbow smelt, and yellow perch), and 

27 those that spawn from late spring through summer (alewife, white perch, and carp [Cyprinus 

28 carpio]). Subsequently, eggs and larvae from these groups are most abundant from April to 

29 June and from July to August, respectively. Eggs and larvae were most abundant at the 20-ft 

30 contour depth; their numbers were lower at deeper contours (TI 1979). 

31 Because Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) Unit 1 is so close to JAFNPP and NMPNS’s 

32 intake and cooling systems are similar to JAFNPP’s, entrainment data from NMPNS were 

33 reviewed for this analysis. NMPNS sampled water directly from the Unit 1 intake forebay once 

34 or twice a month from 1973 through 1978. The species composition of the intake water was 

35 generally very similar to the species composition of Lake Ontario, except that intake water 

36 ichthyoplankton densities were lower than lake water ichthyoplankton densities and species that 

37 occurred at low frequencies in the lake samples were not detected at all in the intake water 

38 samples. Temporal abundance was also similar (Entergy 2006b). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The first year NMPNS Unit 1 entrainment data were collected when both NMPNS Unit 1 and 

2 JAFNPP were operating was 1976. Burbot and Coregonus spp. were most frequently entrained 

3 at NMPNS Unit 1 in the early spring, rainbow smelt in mid-spring, and alewife in late spring and 

4 summer. Abundance of entrained fish was highest in the summer due to the large alewife 

population: weekly average alewife densities were 0 to 34.4 eggs per cubic meter (m3 5 ) and 0 to 

0.5 larvae per m3

. Weekly average rainbow smelt densities were 0 to 0.15 eggs per m3 6 and 0 to 

0.02 larvae per m3 7 . Conservatively assuming the maximum weekly density and that NMPNS 

8 Unit 1 was running at full capacity, weekly entrainment totals were estimated at 350 million 

9 alewife eggs and 4.9 million alewife larvae; and 1.5 million rainbow smelt eggs and 205,000 

10 rainbow smelt larvae. For perspective, these numbers were extrapolated using alewife 

11 fecundity data and compared to the estimated standing stock number of alewife in the U.S. 

12 waters of Lake Ontario (12.56 billion in 1976), resulting in an estimated loss of approximately 

13 0.0002 percent of alewife population females and 0.014 percent alewife larvae. An estimated 

14 0.00001 percent female rainbow smelt population loss was calculated for egg entrainment and 

15 0.025 percent for larval entrainment (Entergy 2006b). 

16 A 1997 NMPNS entrainment study showed much lower total entrainment numbers than the 

17 1977 data: corrected for flow into the plant, an estimated 86.6 million ichthyoplankton were 

18 entrained from April through August at NMPNS Unit 1. Alewife represented 90.7 percent of the 

19 ichthyoplankton entrainment, followed by the tessellated darter at 4.2 percent (3.6 million) and 

20 the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) at 2.8 percent (2.4 million). Rainbow smelt 

21 accounted for only 0.1 percent. The difference in the 1977 and 1997 entrainment numbers is 

22 likely due primarily to the difference in abundance of alewife and rainbow smelt lake-wide 

23 (Entergy 2006b). Both alewife and rainbow smelt populations throughout Lake Ontario have 

24 likely declined due to excessive salmonid predation and lake-wide food web changes that 

25 occurred primarily in response to Dreissenid spp. invasion and lake water quality improvements 

26 (Mills et al. 2003). 

27 The status of Lake Ontario’s alewife population is of particular concern. As prey fish for stocked 

28 salmonids, alewife support the lake’s major sport fisheries, which are strong contributors to local 

29 economies. To put the 1997 alewife entrainment data into perspective, NRC staff calculated 

30 alewife fecundity loss in a similar manner to the 1976 calculations above. In performing these 

31 calculations, NRC used a 1997 Lake Ontario (U.S. waters) alewife standing stock population of 

32 941,300,000 (Entergy 2006a); assumed a 1:1 sex ratio; assumed an alewife average lifetime 

33 fecundity of 26,272 eggs (Entergy 2006b); and conservatively assumed the entire percentage of 

34 entrained alewife ichthyoplankton was composed of eggs. In estimating total entrainment for all 

35 of 1997, NRC staff also conservatively assumed that the April to August rate of entrainment was 

36 maintained throughout the entire year, which due to the spawning habits of alewife and lower 

37 intake flows during winter months, is highly unlikely. By multiplying the number of female 

38 alewife by fecundity and dividing this number by entrainment, the estimated loss of population 

39 fecundity in the U.S. waters of Lake Ontario caused by NMPNS Unit 1 was 0.0015 percent for 

40 1997. This minor percentage of ichthyoplankton loss would not result in a detectable impact on 

41 the lake’s alewife population. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-14 June 2007 

1 On January 24, 2006, JAFNPP applied for a renewal of its New York SPDES permit, which was 

2 scheduled to expire on August 1, 2006. Until this renewal permit is finalized, the existing permit 

3 (NY-0020109) remains in effect. As stated earlier, no entrainment studies have been completed 

4 by JAFNPP since the original Nine Mile Point promontory baseline ecology studies done in the 

5 1970s. On July 9, 2004, the EPA published a final rule that addressed cooling water intake 

6 structures at existing facilities with flow levels that exceed a minimum threshold value of 50 

7 million gpd (316(b) Phase II regulations). Owners of such facilities that did not utilize closed 

8 cycle cooling were provided a number of compliance alternatives to demonstrate compliance 

9 with the new regulations. The demonstration is implemented through the NPDES permitting 

10 program. To demonstrate compliance, JAFNPP is currently conducting a one-year entrainment 

11 sampling program that was approved by the New York State Department of Environmental 

12 Conservation (NYSDEC). The program began in April 2006 and will conclude in March 2007. A 

13 second year of entrainment sampling may occur to verify the 2006 results. An entrainment 

14 survival study may also be undertaken if it appears there is a high survival rate for 

15 ichthyoplankton. The goal of the entrainment program is to estimate the seasonal and annual 

16 total abundance of fish eggs and larvae that flow into the cooling water intake system. The goal 

17 of the survival study, if undertaken, would be to determine the effects the cooling water intake 

18 system has on entrained organisms (Entergy 2006b). The majority of fish, fish larvae, and eggs 

19 are not expected to survive passage through the JAFNPP cooling system, as cooling water 

20 temperature rises up to 32.4°F above ambient intake water temperature and organisms would 

21 experience significant hydrodynamic changes and mechanic forces (AEC 1973). 

22 In the 2006 JAFNPP entrainment sampling program, intake water was sampled weekly from 

23 April to November of 2006 and every two weeks from November 2006 through March 2007. 

24 One daytime and one nighttime sample were taken on the same day each week from the 

25 forebay at two sample depths, 14 ft and 20 ft below the water surface, for a total of 160 

26 entrainment samples. The sampling was conducted using a pump with 3-inch (in.) intake and 

discharge hoses and a plankton net suspended in a tank. Each sample was at least 100 m3 27 

28 (26,417 gallons) as calibrated by an in-line flow meter (Entergy 2006b). As of the date of 

29 publication of this draft SEIS, the results of the one year study are not available. Nevertheless, 

30 the NRC staff did review preliminary (unpublished) study data to support this analysis. 

31 In reviewing the historical entrainment data at NMPNS Unit 1, it appears that the primary factor 

32 influencing entrainment rates is the abundance of eggs and larvae in the water near the plant 

33 intake. Potential entrainment losses at JAFNPP, when compared to the standing stock of the 

34 lake’s fish species, are not likely to adversely affect the Lake Ontario fish community. A study 

35 on entrainment and impingement rates at a nuclear power plant located on the Upper 

36 Mississippi River (LaJeone and Monzingo 2000) concluded that naturally occurring 

37 environmental conditions have a greater effect on fish populations than plant operations, and 

38 fluctuations in the annual impingement and entrainment numbers reflect primarily river 

39 conditions and fish populations’ responses to them. The estimated 0.0015 percent fecundity 

40 loss of the female alewife in Lake Ontario (U.S. waters) standing stock from NMPNS Unit 1 in 

41 1997 was a conservative estimate of the potential entrainment impact that is possible at 

42 JAFNPP and would not result in a detectable impact on the alewife fishery. Until the results of 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 the 2006 entrainment study are finalized, there can be no definitive quantification of the current 

2 entrainment impacts on Lake Ontario at JAFNPP. However, based on the results of historical 

3 entrainment studies, similar operations at NMPNS Unit 1, and no change in operations at 

4 JAFNPP during the license renewal term, there is no evidence to suggest that past, current, or 

5 future entrainment of eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms of these species would destabilize or 

6 noticeably alter any important attribute of Lake Ontario. The preliminary data from the recent 

7 entrainment study at JAFNPP supports this conclusion. Therefore, the NRC staff has 

8 determined that the potential impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish by JAFNPP during the 

9 20-year renewal period would be SMALL. The NRC staff identified potential mitigation 

10 measures, including closed cycle cooling, and derating the facility and scheduling outages 

11 during historic periods of high ichthyoplankton density. However, the NRC staff concluded that 

12 none of the mitigation measures considered would be beneficial enough to reduce the 

13 significance of the adverse entrainment impacts to the Lake Ontario fishery. Under the 

14 provisions of the state NPDES permitting program, however, NYSDEC may impose further 

15 restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impact of entrainment. 

16 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 

17 For plants with once-through cooling systems, the impingement of fish and shellfish on debris 

18 screens associated with plant cooling systems is considered a Category 2 issue, which requires 

19 a site-specific assessment before license renewal. The NRC staff reviewed the JAFNPP ER 

20 (Entergy 2006a) and related documents, including Entergy’s Proposal for Information Collection 

21 dated January 31, 2006 (Entergy 2006b), and the 2004 SPDES Biological Monitoring Report for 

22 the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, dated May 2005 (EA 2005), and visited the 

23 JAFNPP site several times. The NRC staff also reviewed the applicant’s most current SPDES 

24 permit (NY-0020109) and the accompanying fact sheet, the State of New York Best Technology 

25 Available (BTA) determination letter dated March 1, 1996, and the 401 Certification letter dated 

26 November 5, 1975 (Entergy 2006a). 

27 Section 316(b) of the CWA, requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of 

28 cooling water intake structures reflect the best available technology for minimizing adverse 

29 environmental impacts (33 U.S.C. 1326). Impingement of fish and shellfish into the cooling 

30 water system is a potential adverse environmental impact that can be minimized by the use of 

31 best technology available. Licensees may be required as part of the NPDES renewal to alter 

32 the intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify facility operation, or take other 

33 mitigative measures. Licensees must comply with Section 316(b) of the CWA. However, EPA’s 

34 Phase II Rule has been suspended and compliance with the rule is based on EPA’s best 

35 professional judgment. 

36 JAFNPP does not have a fish return system for fish impinged on the traveling screens. 

37 Therefore, impinged fish are not returned to the lake and do not survive (Entergy 2006a). 

38 JAFNPP operates a high-frequency/high-amplitude acoustic fish deterrence system (FDS) 

39 annually from April through October that is specifically designed to deter alewife. Historical 

40 studies have shown that 97 percent of alewife impingement occurs during these months (Ross 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-16 June 2007 

1 and Dunning 1996). The JAFNPP FDS consists of nine overlapping, wide-beam, high2 frequency transducers mounted on top of the submerged intake structure. The transducers 

3 produce an array sound field, ensuring 360° coverage from the water surface to the lake bottom 

4 and extending at least 33 ft from the perimeter of the intake structure. Per the JAFNPP SPDES 

5 permit, the FDS is dewinterized and operational by the first week of April each year and is 

6 removed from service (winterized) each October. The FDS was put into long-term operation in 

7 1998 (EA 2005). 

8 Impingement of fish was monitored at JAFNPP annually from 1976 to 1997 and again in 2004. 

9 In issuing the most recent SPDES permit, NYSDEC determined that JAFNPP’s impingement 

10 database was adequate to support a transition to a long-term, less intensive monitoring 

11 program, requiring the plant to conduct only one, one-year impingement program during the 

12 five-year permit period from 2001 to 2006 (Entergy 2006a). The results of JAFNPP 

13 impingement monitoring from 1976 to 1997 are summarized in Table 4-3. Generally, alewife 

14 and rainbow smelt account for the majority of individuals impinged from 1976 through 1994. 

15 The threespine stickleback is the third-most frequently impinged species, but larger 

16 impingement numbers did not occur until 1995 to 1997 and 2004 with one anomaly year in 1978 

17 (EA 2005). These impingement trends reflect lake-wide conditions. The abundance of alewife 

18 and rainbow smelt has declined over the past decade due to ecological stressors, invasive 

19 species, and increasing predatory pressure; concurrently the threespine stickleback population 

20 has greatly increased. Fish population studies of Lake Ontario suggest that the lake pelagic fish 

21 community may be undergoing a change (Schaner and Prindle 2004). 

22 The 2004 SPDES Biological Monitoring Report for JAFNPP also suggests that weather 

23 conditions can dramatically affect impingement rates, with other studies supporting this 

24 observation. An exceptionally high number of alewife were impinged in 1976 (almost 4 million 

25 fish) as compared to the rest of the data from 1977 to 1997 and 2004; the latter data is more 

26 representative than the 1976 data of impingement abundance observed during the past two 

27 decades. Although annual die-offs of alewife occur every year, a catastrophic die-off of alewife 

28 occurred in the winter and early spring of 1977, resulting in an estimated 60 to 75 percent loss 

29 of the adult alewife population, explaining the high 1976 impingement numbers (EA 2005). 

30 The alewife was the most common species taken during the entire 22-year impingement study. 

31 Rainbow smelt were most abundant in 1978, 1979, 1987, 1990, and 1992, and typically the 

32 second-most abundant species impinged each year. Comparing impingement rates to lake33 wide population estimates for U.S. waters, in 1997 alewife and rainbow smelt impingement at 

34 JAFNPP represented only 0.0015 percent and 0.0012 percent of the populations, respectively 

35 (EA 2005). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 4-3. Results of Impingement Monitoring at JAFNPP from 1976 through 1997 

2 (Corrected for Flow and Traveling Screen Efficiencies) 

Fish Impingement, 

1976–1997 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Total 

Number Fish 

Impinged(a) 

Range of Annual 

Number of Fish 

Impinged(a)

Percentage of 

Fish Impinged, 

Average Over 

22-Year Period 

(1976–1997) 

Alosa 

pseudoharengus 

alewife 7,546,639 1,312–3,916,717 58.73% 

Cottus spp. sculpins 35,232 747–4,916 0.27% 

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 116,239 26–26,173 0.90% 

Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 34,423 68–6,708 0.27% 

Gasterosteus 

aculeatus 

threespine 

stickleback 

3,114,822 78–1,392,763 24.24% 

Morone americana white perch 69,669 53–13,353 0.54% 

Notropis atherinoides spottail shiner 82,245 282–11,683 0.64% 

Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt 1,780,388 1,527–282,373 13.86% 

Percopsis 

omiscomaycus 

trout perch 70,120 180–12,183 0.55% 

Source: EA 2005 

(a) Number of fish taken on the intake screens over a one year period. 

3 

4 The alewife is of special concern because Lake Ontario’s valuable salmonid sport fishery is 

5 primarily dependent on this single-forage species. Alewife populations show high mortality rates 

6 after especially cold winters and have historically experienced mass die-offs. Alewife are easily 

7 stressed and during peak population levels, stress can result in large spring die-offs. 

8 Susceptibility to cold is related to inadequate lipid reserves, and in spring, alewife are in a 

9 weakened condition due to lack of forage in the winter and by the stress related to spawning 

10 (Eshenroder at al. 1995). They are affected by both osmotic stress associated with life in fresh 

11 water and exposure to fluctuating water temperatures when they move to inshore waters (e.g., 

12 exposure to colder waters during an upwelling event can cause the fish to die). Stressed fish 

13 are more susceptible to impingement because they exhibit little or no motility and are passively 

14 drawn into the intake (UWSGI 2002). 

15 This alewife population instability has been compounded by excessive salmonid predation—in 

16 1991 the predator demand was estimated to be equal to the total prey production, and modeling 

17 suggested that a die-off of more than 25 percent above average would cause the alewife 

18 population to crash (Stewart and Schaner 2002). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data indicate 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-18 June 2007 

1 that Lake Ontario alewife numbers are moderate and have remained stable since the mid2 1990s. Abundance is considerably less than it was in the 1980s, but as discussed in 

3 Section 2.2.5 of this draft SEIS, the alewife population decrease was likely caused by excessive 

4 salmonid predation and changes in the Lake Ontario food web (O’Gorman et al. 2005). In 

5 response to the decreasing alewife population, New York State and Ontario, Canada, both 

6 reduced their salmonid stocking programs in 1993. However, in 1997 the stocking rates were 

7 increased slightly again. Additionally, since 1997, increasing natural reproduction of Chinook 

8 salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) has been observed, so predation pressure continues on 

9 the alewife (Schaner and Prindle 2004). O’Gorman et al. (2005) report that although the 2004 

10 alewife population in the U.S. waters of Lake Ontario is well below the long-term (19-year) 

11 average, the wet weight condition of adult alewife in the fall of 2004 was higher than in any year 

12 since 1980, indicating the population was more in balance with the productivity of Lake Ontario. 

13 This recent population stabilization may be occurring because of fewer individuals to compete 

14 for food, a switch in alewife diet from the zebra muscle-decimated amphipod Diporeia sp. to the 

15 possum shrimp (Mysis sp.), and the population’s subsequent movement toward deeper lake 

16 waters, where they avoid the intake structure altogether (EA 2005). 

17 Rainbow smelt impingement rates appear to be influenced by meteorological conditions (strong 

18 winds and increased wave action) and lake-wide population changes due to cannibalism of 

19 young smelt by adult smelt and salmonid predation on adult smelt (EA 2005). Similar to the 

20 alewife population, changes in the Lake Ontario ecosystem brought on by improvements in 

21 water quality and invasive species have altered the distribution of the rainbow smelt population 

22 away from the area of the intake structure and to deeper portions of the Lake where food is 

23 more plentiful (Mills et al. 2005). 

24 Impingement abundance of other fish, including white perch, yellow perch, smallmouth bass 

25 (Micropterus dolomieu), and salmonids also appears to fluctuate with regard to population 

26 dynamics and short-term meteorological events that influence the impingement process. 

27 Results from the JAFNPP impingement monitoring program in 1976 to 1997 and 2004 indicate 

28 that late fall and winter storms tend to increase impingement of the young-of-year fish for these 

29 species. During the 2004 impingement monitoring, no rare, threatened, or endangered species 

30 were collected at JAFNPP (EA 2005). Data from the 2004 impingement monitoring are 

31 summarized in Table 4-4. The total impingement at JAFNPP in 2004 was 230,534 organisms, 

32 of which threespine stickleback comprised 87.44 percent of total impingement, alewife 

33 7.29 percent, rainbow smelt 0.66 percent, smallmouth bass 0.48 percent, white perch 

34 0.21 percent, yellow perch 0.17 percent, salmonids 0.06 percent, and all others species 

35 3.69 percent (EA 2005). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 4-4. Results of Impingement Monitoring at JAFNPP, 2004 

2 (Corrected for Flow and Traveling Screen Efficiencies) 

Fish Impingement, 2004 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Total Number 

of Fish 

Impinged(a) 

Average Monthly 

Number of Fish 

Impinged(a)

Percentage of Fish 

Impinged, 

Annual Average, 

2004 

Alosa Pseudoharengus alewife 9,203 767 21.40% 

Cottus spp. sculpins 432 36 1.00% 

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 35 3 0.08% 

Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 18 2 0.04% 

Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine 

stickleback 

32,543 2,712 75.66% 

Morone americana white perch 71 6 0.17% 

Notropis atherinoides spottail shiner 118 10 0.27% 

Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt 315 26 0.73% 

Percopsis 

omiscomaycus 

trout perch 275 23 0.64% 

Source: EA 2005 

(a) Total number of fish taken on the intake screens during 2004. 

3 

4 The 2004 alewife and rainbow smelt impingement rates comprise just 0.0074 percent and 

5 0.0001 percent of estimated lake-wide populations, respectively, when compared to 2005 lake6 wide standing stock estimates of alewife and rainbow smelt. These represent very minor losses 

7 to the populations. The 2005 standing stock numbers were estimated by a joint pelagic 

8 planktivore monitoring program conducted by the NYSDEC and the Ontario Ministry of Natural 

9 Resources(OMNR). The NYSDEC/OMNR report indicated that the 2005 alewife population was 

10 the lowest since the bi-national pelagic planktivore monitoring program began in 1997, making 

11 0.0074 percent a conservative estimate; however, the rainbow smelt population had increased 

12 in 2005 from two previous low years (Schaner and LaPan 2005). Threespine stickleback is an 

13 invasive species that has been prominent in the Lake Ontario ecosystem since the early 1990s. 

14 There is no formal monitoring program conducted for this species, but monitoring programs for 

15 pelagic fish of interest (alewife and rainbow smelt) have noted that threespine stickleback have 

16 been the dominant catch in most lake tows (Schaner and Prindle 2004). 

17 Since the inception of the JAFNPP impingement monitoring program, a total of 2966 salmonids 

18 (corrected for intake flow and traveling screen efficiencies) have been impinged from 1976 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-20 June 2007 

1 through 1997, and in 2004. In 2005 alone, the NYSDEC salmonid stocking program stocked 

2 3,554,745 salmonids in Lake Ontario and its tributaries (Eckert 2005). OMNR also conducts its 

3 own stocking program. Concentrated stocking efforts began in 1980, with Ontario and New 

4 York limiting stocking to a total of 8 million salmonids per year. In response to the prey fish 

5 population concerns, current combined stocking levels have been maintained between 4 and 

6 5.5 million salmonids per year since 1993 (Mills et al. 2003). 

7 A number of biological, environmental, and meteorological factors may work in concert to 

8 influence yearly variations in impingement species abundance. The recent increase in 

9 threespine stickleback impingements may be partly caused by the lake-wide decrease in alewife 

10 and the dominating presence of zebra mussels. Impingement rates are highest in the spring 

11 and peak in May when approximately 35 percent of all impingement occurs. This corresponds 

12 with fish migrating toward warmer inshore waters to spawn. The timing of the migration may 

13 vary according to meteorological conditions. Impingement rates then begin to fall again in June 

14 as fish migrate back to deeper waters after spawning. Impingement rates once again increase 

15 from October through December, when 21 percent of all impingement occurs. This is thought to 

16 occur because at this time, young-of-year fish, especially alewife and rainbow smelt, grow to a 

17 size that is particularly susceptible to impingement. Certain meteorological conditions, such as 

18 strong westerly and northwesterly winds, wave height, and water temperature, also appear to 

19 influence young-of-year impingement at this time of year (EA 2005). 

20 Other factors impacting impingement include the timing and duration of station outages for 

21 refueling and maintenance. During maintenance or refueling outages, typically only one or two 

22 of the three main circulating water pumps are operational, significantly reducing the flow of lake 

23 water into the plant. The reduced flow through the intake generally results in reduced 

24 impingement. In recent years, plants outages have become less frequent and shorter in 

25 duration due to improvements in plant operational efficiency, so outage reduction effects on 

26 impingement are less than those that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s (EA 2005). Warm 

27 discharge water is also recirculated during periods of cold weather, reducing lake water flow into 

28 the plant. JAFNPP has compiled monthly actual intake flow data from January 1998 through 

29 July 2005, and actual pumping rates have historically been lower than plant-design flows. This 

30 is because the circulating water pumps operate at various head differentials and the plant’s 

31 cooling water needs vary in response to reduced generation, environmental conditions, and 

32 periodic maintenance outages. These historical data are considered representative of the 

33 current and expected future cooling water intake flow operations at JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b). 

34 Generally, meteorological conditions that change fish populations appear to have the most 

35 profound effect on impingement rates at JAFNPP. Periodic die-offs of populations occur due to 

36 a combination of climatic conditions and the physical condition of population individuals. As 

37 mentioned above, this was most prominently seen in the winter/spring 1977 alewife die-off: the 

38 alewife impingement rate dropped from 3,916,717 fish in 1976 to 187,305 in 1977 (EA 2005). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Historically, changes in fish populations around JAFNPP have likely been the result of naturally 

2 occurring fluctuations. When the changes are profound (such as a mass winter die-off of 

3 alewife), they are easily observed in the annual estimates of fish impinged at JAFNPP. 

4 However, when the changes are subtle and over a longer period of time, it is difficult to 

5 differentiate between meteorological conditions and daily plant operations, the two main factors 

6 in fish impingement. 

7 Due to the susceptibility of alewife to be impinged in the intake area, the delicate nature of 

8 alewife, and the strong fright response to high frequency sound that alewife demonstrate, at the 

9 time of JAFNPP’s last SPDES permit issuance, NYSDEC determined the FDS installed at 

10 JAFNPP was the best technology available for reducing impingement impacts (Entergy 2006a). 

11 This determination is documented in a letter from the NYSDEC dated March 1, 1996. Testing of 

12 the FDS occurred in spring of 1991 and 1993, and it was shown to reduce alewife impingement 

13 by over 87 percent. Another deterrence system test was conducted in 1997, and preliminary 

14 results confirmed the FDS reduced alewife impingement by 87 percent (EA 2005). The FDS 

15 has only been proven to deter alewife; no studies have been done to document its effectiveness 

16 on other pelagic species. Since the FDS was installed, there have been no significant alewife 

17 impingement events at JAFNPP.

18 In the JAFNPP Proposal for Information Collection dated January 31, 2006 (Entergy 2006b), 

19 submitted to the NYSDEC to satisfy 316(b) Phase II regulations, JAFNPP proposed to obtain no 

20 new impingement data because a recent annual impingement study had been completed in 

21 2004. Since plant operations will not change significantly, these 2004 impingement rates are 

22 indicative of future impingement rates, and are considered by the NRC staff to be too small to 

23 have any observable impact on the lake-wide populations and biomass. Based on the results of 

24 past impingement studies and the operating history of the JAFNPP intake structure and FDS, 

25 the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts of impingement for fish and shellfish at 

26 JAFNPP are SMALL. The NRC staff identified potential mitigation measures, including installing 

27 a fish return system, closed cycle cooling, and derating the facility and scheduling plant outages 

28 during historic peak impingement periods. However, the NRC staff concluded that none of the 

29 mitigation measures considered would be beneficial enough to reduce the significance of 

30 adverse impingement impacts to the Lake Ontario fishery. Under the provisions of the state 

31 NPDES permitting program, however, NYSDEC may impose further restrictions or require 

32 modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impact of impingement. 

33 4.1.3 Heat Shock 

34 Heat shock can be defined as acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden elevation 

35 of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and can lead to 

36 death. Heat shock is most likely to occur when an offline unit returns to service or when a 

37 station has a discharge canal, effectively trapping fish in the flow of the heated discharge from 

38 the plant. For plants with once-through cooling systems, the effects of heat shock are listed as 

39 a Category 2 issue, requiring a plant-specific assessment before license renewal. In the GEIS, 

40 the NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock a Category 2 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-22 June 2007 

1 issue for once-through plants because of continuing concerns about thermal-discharge effects 

2 and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in the future in response to changing 

3 environmental conditions. Information to be considered includes (1) the type of cooling system 

4 (whether once-through or cooling pond) and (2) evidence of a CWA Section 316(a) variance or 

5 equivalent State documentation. To perform this evaluation, the NRC staff visited the JAFNPP 

6 site several times, reviewed the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), reviewed JAFNPP’s original 

7 CWA Section 316(a) demonstration report (NYPA 1976), and reviewed JAFNPP’s most current 

8 SPDES permit (NY-0020109), which was issued on August 1, 2001, and is in force until a new 

9 permit is issued by NYSDEC (Entergy 2006a). 

10 Section 316(a) of the CWA establishes a process whereby the applicant can demonstrate that 

11 the established thermal discharge limitations are more stringent than necessary to protect 

12 balanced indigenous populations of fish and wildlife and obtain facility-specific thermal 

13 discharge limits (33 U.S.C. 1326). The JAFNPP CWA Section 316(a) demonstration was 

14 submitted to the NYSDEC in 1976 by NYPA, the former owner of JAFNPP. The demonstration 

15 was based on pre-operational and post-operational engineering, hydrological, and ecological 

16 data, and concluded that thermal discharge from the plant would not result in any long-term 

17 adverse impacts to the Lake Ontario ecosystem. The JAFNPP CWA Section 316(a) 

18 demonstration followed procedures prescribed by the EPA during meetings between NYPA and 

19 EPA, and as outlined in the draft EPA document, 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual and Guide 

20 for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements, dated 

21 May 1, 1977 (EPA 1977). The 316(a) demonstration included a description of the plant, 

22 baseline hydrographic characteristics of Lake Ontario and the site, plant thermal discharge 

23 characteristics, a description of the biological community in the Nine Mile Point vicinity and a 

24 selection of representative fish species, and an evaluation of potential impacts of the plant’s 

25 thermal discharge. The potential thermal discharge effects were based on thermal tolerance 

26 and behavior data for the representative fish species, field data collected in the vicinity of 

27 JAFNPP, and a review of literature on the effect of thermal discharges. It was concluded that 

28 the multi-port diffuser design of the JAFNPP discharge structure would prevent the thermal 

29 discharge from harming the biological community in the Nine Mile Point vicinity (NYPA 1976). 

30 NYSDEC accepted the conclusions of the 316(a) demonstration in their first issuance of the 

31 JAFNPP SPDES permit containing the CWA Section 316(a) variance specifying alternative 

32 thermal effluent limitations for the plant, and subsequently in renewed permits issued thereafter. 

33 JAFNPP’s SPDES permit states that thermal discharge from the plant ensures the “protection 

34 and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in Lake 

35 Ontario” and as such, the plant is allowed alternative effluent limitations. These limitations are 

36 included in Part 1, Condition 8 of the plant’s SPDES permit and state that the water temperature 

37 at the surface of the lake shall not be raised more than 3°F over the ambient temperature of the 

water, with the exception of a 35-acre (ac) (1.524.6 x 106 ft2 38 ) mixing zone from the point of 

39 discharge. To ensure this condition is met, the permit allows a maximum discharge temperature 

40 of 112°F as measured at the discharge outlet in the screenwell-pumphouse, with a maximum 

41 allowable intake-discharge temperature difference (ΔT) of 32.4°F. The net addition of heat 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

rejected to Lake Ontario is limited to 6.00 x 109 1 British thermal units per hour (BTU/hr) (Entergy 

2 2006a). Total heat rejected to the lake is a function of electrical load—heat rejection increases 

3 with an increase in electrical load. When JAFNPP is operating at full power, the heat rejection 

rate is calculated to be 5.714 x 109 4 BTU/hr (NYPA 1976). 

5 Because of the proximity of NMPNS (3200 ft west of JAFNPP), the U.S. Atomic Energy 

6 Commission (AEC) in its 1973 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of 

7 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant determined that under certain conditions JAFNPP 

8 discharge could exceed New York State thermal criteria (AEC 1973). As such, and as a 

9 condition of the plant SPDES permit, JAFNPP conducts a thermal monitoring program 

10 consisting of continual discharge temperature and ΔT recording, and has proposed mitigation 

11 measures, such as flow reductions, should corrective action be needed to maintain compliance 

12 with the New York State thermal criteria. To date, no additional mitigation measures have been 

13 necessary. JAFNPP submits quarterly reports to NYSDEC that contain information on daily 

14 electrical output, water use, and intake and discharge water temperatures (Entergy 2006a; 

15 AEC 1973). 

16 Heat shock to fish is a function of the temperature increase that the fish are subjected to in the 

17 discharge flow area and the residence time of the fish in the heated discharge flow (Fry 1971; 

18 Dean 1973). Cold shock can occur when fish acclimated to warm effluents are abruptly 

19 exposed to very low ambient temperatures. This may occur during plant outages when 

20 discharge flow is lower than during normal operation (NYPA 1976). According to JAFNPP 

21 personnel, to date, there have been no heat or cold shock events during station operation that 

22 have resulted in the immediate distress or acute mortality of fish. If such an event were 

23 observed by JAFNPP personnel, the incident would have to be reported to NYSDEC as a 

24 condition of the SPDES permit (Section 5b[1][iv]) (Entergy 2006a). 

25 The multi-port diffuser design and offshore location of JAFNPP’s discharge structure have likely 

26 prevented heat and cold shock events. Analysis of the JAFNPP diffuser design in the 1976 

27 NYPA 316(a) demonstration indicated that the discharge plume (before surfacing) decreases in 

28 ΔT from 31.5°F to 13.5°F in one second and further decreases to 9°F four seconds after 

29 discharge. Additionally, hydrothermal field surveys confirmed the rapid dilution of the thermal 

effluent: the 3°F isotherm would cover a maximum surface area of 27.5 ac (1196 x 103

 ft2 30 ), well 

31 within the maximum 35-ac mixing zone allowed in the JAFNPP SPDES permit Section 316(a) 

32 variance (NYPA 1976). 

33 The 316(a) demonstration study reported that voluntary exposure to the heated effluent by 

34 representative fish species would not likely cause mortalities because the velocity of the 

35 discharge stream would not allow fish to maintain themselves long enough in an area where the 

36 discharge water temperature would be lethal. Fish behavior studies have indicated that when 

37 given a range of temperatures, fish demonstrate avoidance responses to unsuitable 

38 temperatures; the offshore, open area location of the JAFNPP discharge structure allows fish to 

39 avoid the heated discharge stream. The design of the multi-port diffuser discharge structure 

40 could entrain fish into the high-velocity discharge jet stream, but it was demonstrated that fish 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-24 June 2007 

1 entrained at the point of discharge would be in safe water temperatures in less than one 

2 second, making plume entrainment mortality unlikely. Regarding cold shock, acclimation to 

3 elevated temperatures is a precondition for cold shock mortality. The diffuser jets at JAFNPP 

4 preclude this acclimation as fish are not able to maintain themselves in the area of heated 

5 discharge. Additionally, during plant outages, because of JAFNPP’s proximity to NMPNS 

6 (providing another source of heated discharge) and the location of the discharge structure, cold 

7 shock would not be expected to impact fish in the JAFNPP vicinity (NYPA 1976). 

8 The NRC staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, 

9 visited the site, and reviewed other public sources of information on heat shock. Plant operating 

10 conditions have not changed significantly since the original 316(a) demonstration, and it can 

11 therefore be reasonably concluded that the extent and distribution of JAFNPP’s thermal plume 

12 has remained relatively unchanged. The NRC staff evaluated the potential impacts to aquatic 

13 resources due to heat shock during continued operation and determined that thermal impacts 

14 were unlikely because of the design and location of the JAFNPP discharge structure. 

15 Furthermore, there have been no observable impacts related to plant thermal discharges. 

16 Therefore, it is the NRC staff’s conclusion that the potential impacts to fish and shellfish due to 

17 heat shock during the renewal term are SMALL. The NRC staff identified potential mitigation 

18 measures, including closed cycle cooling, helper cooling towers, derating the plant, and certain 

19 operational procedures. However, the NRC staff concluded that none of the mitigation 

20 measures considered would be beneficial enough to reduce the significance of heat shock 

21 impacts to Lake Ontario. 

22 4.2 Transmission Lines

23 The JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a) describes two 345-kilovolt (kV) and two 115-kV transmission 

24 lines that connect JAFNPP with the transmission system (see Section 2.1.7 of this draft SEIS for 

25 a description of the transmission lines). Two of the limes, the Edic and the Scriba 345-kV lines, 

26 are within the scope of the license renewal review. Offsite line maintenance for both lines is 

27 accomplished by the lines’ owner, NYPA. For the two 345-kV transmission line right-of-ways 

28 (ROWs), NYPA uses a vegetation management plan approved by the New York State Public 

29 Service Commission. NYPA uses an integrated vegetation management computer application, 

30 which employs geographic information system technology. The vegetation management 

31 program is designed to control tall-growing tree species and to enhance the abundance of lower 

32 growing desirable vegetation. Field inventories are conducted annually for the ROW scheduled 

33 for clearing the following year. The inventories and treatment recommendations are reviewed 

34 and approved by the NYPA forestry staff. The majority of clearing is performed using 

35 mechanical methods. Herbicide applications are individually applied to selected plant species 

36 by licensed contractors, and a safe buffer is maintained around wetlands, and stream and river 

37 crossings. A safe buffer is also used around wells and springs that are used for residential 

38 water supplies. Areas where herbicides are used are posted with information regarding the 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 chemicals used and when they were applied. Herbicides are not applied on NYPA ROWs using 

2 aerial application methods. 

3 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to 

4 transmission lines from JAFNPP are listed in Table 4-5. Entergy stated in the JAFNPP ER that 

5 it was not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the 

6 JAFNPP OL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 

7 independent review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping 

8 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

9 that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of 

10 those issues, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts would be SMALL, and 

11 additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 

12 warranted. 

13 Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the JAFNPP Transmission 

14 Lines During the Renewal Term 

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, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) 

4.5.6.3 

Floodplains 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 

15 

16 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR 

17 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows: 

18 • Power line ROW management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on information in 

19 the GEIS, the Commission found that 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-26 June 2007 

1 The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small 

2 significance at all sites. 

3 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

4 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

5 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

6 impacts of power line ROW maintenance during the renewal term beyond those discussed 

7 in the GEIS. 

8 • Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found 

9 that 

10 Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites. 

11 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

12 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

13 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

14 impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed 

15 in the GEIS. 

16 • Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, 

17 wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

18 No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna 

19 have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the 

20 license renewal term. 

21 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

22 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

23 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

24 impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term beyond those 

25 discussed in the GEIS. 

26 • Floodplains and wetland on power line ROW. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

27 Commission found that 

28 Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power 

29 lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant 

30 impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. 

31 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

32 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

33 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 impacts of power line ROWs on floodplains and wetlands during the renewal term beyond 

2 those discussed in the GEIS. 

3 • Air quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GEIS, the 

4 Commission found that 

5 Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not 

6 contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. 

7 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

8 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

9 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

10 air quality impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in 

11 the GEIS. 

12 • Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

13 Projected onsite land use changes required during the renewal period would be a 

14 small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is 

15 controlled by the applicant. 

16 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

17 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

18 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

19 onsite land-use impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

20 • Power line ROW. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

21 Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in 

22 restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance. 

23 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

24 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

25 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 

26 impacts of power line ROWs on land use during the renewal term beyond those discussed 

27 in the GEIS. 

28 One issue related to transmission lines is a Category 2 issue, and another issue related to 

29 transmission lines is being treated as a Category 2 issue. These issues are listed in Table 4-6 

30 and are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-28 June 2007 

1 Table 4-6. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the 

2 JAFNPP Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

SEIS 

Section 

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields—acute effects 

(electric shock) 

4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1 

Electromagnetic fields—chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2 

3 

4 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects 

5 Based on the GEIS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 

6 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 

7 problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the 

8 license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 

9 the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 

10 of this draft SEIS. 

11 In the GEIS, the NRC staff found that without a review of the conformance of each nuclear plant 

12 transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC®) criteria, it was not possible to 

13 determine the significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual plant 

14 transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was not addressed in 

15 the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity of transmission 

16 lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to upgrade line 

17 voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an assessment of 

18 the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific 

19 purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations 

20 of the NESC® for preventing electric shock from induced currents. 

21 As described in Section 2.1.7 of this draft SEIS, two single-circuit 345-kV lines exiting the 

22 switchyard connect JAFNPP to the transmission grid. One line, approximately 70 miles (mi) 

23 long, connects to the transmission system at NYPA‘s Edic Substation. The other line, 

24 approximately 4900 ft (0.9 mi) long, connects to the transmission system at the National Grid 

25 Scriba Substation located on the NMPNS site. Although JAFNPP owns the lines within the site 

26 property boundary, lines exiting the property boundary are owned and maintained by NYPA. 

27 These two lines were evaluated concerning adherence to the NESC® steady-state limit 

28 (Entergy 2006a). 

29 As stated above, the NESC® specifies minimum vertical clearances to the ground for electric 

30 lines. For electric lines operating at voltages exceeding 98-kV alternating current (AC) to 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 ground, the clearance provided must limit the steady-state current due to electrostatic effects to 

2 5 milliamperes (mA) if the largest anticipated vehicle were short-circuited to ground. The largest 

3 vehicle anticipated under JAFNPP’s 345-kV lines is a tractor-trailer that is 65 ft long and13.5 ft 

4 tall, parked along a roadway. The 5-mA design standard limits electric fields within the ROW to 

5 7 to 8 kV/meter (Entergy 2006a). 

6 According to the NYPA Transmission Engineering Department, the two 345-kV transmission 

7 lines at JAFNPP are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with the design criteria 

8 listed in the GEIS, Section 4.5.4.1. Specifically, these lines meet a more stringent induced 

9 shock standard than the 5-mA design criterion of NESC® (1981). The State of New York Public 

10 Service Commission (NYPSC) requires that transmission lines in New York be designed so that 

11 the short-circuit current to ground, produced from the largest anticipated vehicle or object, is 

12 limited to less than 4.5 mA. This allows no more than 7.0 kV/meter electric field levels on the 

13 ROWs. In 1991, NYPA demonstrated to the NYPSC that its transmission lines, including the 

14 two 345-kV lines associated with JAFNPP, do not exceed safety levels of 6.5 kV/meter for 

15 electric fields or 4.5 mA for induced shocks (Entergy 2006a). 

16 Nuisance shocks are further controlled through NYPA’s annual routine inspection of ROWs for 

17 land intrusion, along with its program of informing landowners about induced shock hazards and 

18 assisting them with grounding any metallic structures in or near a ROW. 

19 Entergy’s assessment concluded that electric shock is of SMALL significance for the JAFNPP 

20 345-kV transmission lines (Entergy 2006a). The lines are operated within their original design 

21 specifications, the ROWs are routinely monitored for any land-use changes, and NYPA has 

22 demonstrated that the 345-kV transmission lines meet the NESC® (1981) requirements for 

23 preventing induced shock hazards. Due to the small significance of the issue, mitigation 

24 measures such as installing warning signs at road crossings or increasing clearances are not 

25 warranted. 

26 Based on a review of the available information, including that provided by the applicant (Entergy 

27 2006a), the NRC staff’s site audit, the scoping process, and an evaluation of other information, 

28 the staff concludes that the potential impacts for electric shock during the renewal term are 

29 SMALL. The NRC staff identified potential mitigation measures, including installing road signs 

30 at road crossings and increased clearances. However, the NRC staff concluded that none of 

31 the mitigation measures considered would be beneficial enough to reduce the significance of 

32 the adverse impacts to people.

33 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects 

34 In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from power lines are not 

35 designated as Category 1 or 2 and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 

36 health implications of these fields. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-30 June 2007 

1 The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 

2 this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 

3 research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). An NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) 

4 contains the following conclusion: 

5 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field) 

6 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that 

7 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant 

8 aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States 

9 uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is 

10 warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated 

11 community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other 

12 cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently 

13 warrant concern. 

14 This statement is not sufficient to cause the NRC staff to change its position with respect to the 

15 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. Footnote 4 to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

16 Appendix B, states 

17 If in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has 

18 been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects 

19 from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific 

20 reviews of those health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, 

21 applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue. 

22 The NRC staff considers the GEIS finding of “Uncertain” still appropriate and will continue to 

23 follow developments on this issue. 

24 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

25 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to 

26 JAFNPP in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-7. Entergy stated in its ER 

27 (Entergy 2006a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the 

28 renewal of the JAFNPP OL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant 

29 information during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER, the staff’s site audit, the scoping 

30 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

31 that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For 

32 these issues, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional 

33 plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts 

2 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 

3 

4 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR 

5 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows: 

6 • Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

7 Commission found that 

8 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with 

9 normal operations. 

10 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

11 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

12 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

13 would be no impacts of radiation exposures to the public during the renewal term beyond 

14 those discussed in the GEIS. 

15 • Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the 

16 GEIS, the Commission found that 

17 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are 

18 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal 

19 maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits. 

20 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

21 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

22 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

23 would be no impacts of occupational radiation exposures during the renewal term beyond 

24 those discussed in the GEIS. 

25 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-32 June 2007 

1 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Term

2 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to 

3 socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-8. JAFNPP stated in its 

4 ER (Entergy 2006a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with 

5 the renewal of the JAFNPP OL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant 

6 information during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER, the staff’s site audit, the scoping 

7 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

8 that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For 

9 these issues, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional 

10 plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

11 Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section 

SOCIOECONOMICS

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 

12 

13 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1 

14 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, for each of these issues follows: 

15 • Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on 

16 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. 

17 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

18 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

19 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

20 would be no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation during the 

21 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 • Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

2 Commission found that 

Only impacts of small significance are expected. 

3 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

4 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

5 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

6 would be no impacts on education during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

7 GEIS. 

8 • Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

9 Commission found that 

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. 

10 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

11 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

12 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

13 would be no aesthetic impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

14 • Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in the 

15 GEIS, the Commission found that 

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. 

16 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

17 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

18 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

19 would be no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those 

20 discussed in the GEIS. 

21 Table 4-9 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and 

22 environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-34 June 2007 

1 Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics 

2 and Environmental Justice During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section 

10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

SEIS 

Section 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1 

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2 

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 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(a) 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 NRC staff’s environmental impact statement. 

3 

4 4.4.1 Housing Impacts 

5 In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS, which 

6 presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors, sparseness and 

7 proximity (GEIS, Section C.1.4). Sparseness measures population density within 20 mi of the 

8 site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 50 mi. Each factor has 

9 categories of density and size (GEIS, Table C.1). A matrix is used to rank the population 

10 category as low, medium, or high (GEIS, Figure C.1). 

11 In 2000, approximately 109,440 persons lived within a 20-mi radius of JAFNPP (Entergy 

2006a), which equates to a population density of 87 persons per square mile (mi2 12 ). This density 

translates to Category 3 (60 to 120 persons per mi2

 or fewer than 60 persons per mi2 13 with at 

14 least one community of 25,000 or more persons within 20 mi) using the GEIS sparseness factor. 

15 At the same time, there were approximately 914,668 persons living within a 50-mi radius of the 

plant, for a density of 117 persons per mi2 16 . The Syracuse MSA, located within 50 mi of the site, 

17 had a total population in 2000 of 732,117. Therefore, JAFNPP falls into Category 3 (one or 

more cities with 100,000 or more persons and fewer than 190 persons per mi2 18 within 50 mi) 

19 using the GEIS proximity factor. A Category 3 value indicates that JAFNPP is in a medium20 density population area (NRC 2006a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Refurbishment activities and continued operations could result in housing impacts due to 

2 increased staffing. However, there are no major refurbishment activities required for JAFNPP 

3 license renewal. Therefore, there would be no refurbishment-related impacts to area housing. 

4 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, states that impacts on housing availability 

5 are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium-density population area 

6 where growth-control measures are not in effect. Oswego County is not subject to growth7 control measures that would limit housing development, and Entergy does not anticipate a need 

8 for additional full-time workers during the license renewal period. 

9 Since Entergy has no plans to add employees to support plant operations during the license 

10 renewal period, there would be no increase in demand for housing in the vicinity of the JAFNPP 

11 site. Therefore, there would be no housing impacts during the license renewal period and no 

12 mitigation would be required. 

13 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts 

14 Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the 

15 ability of the system to respond to demand and thus there is no need to add capital facilities. 

16 Impacts are considered MODERATE if service capabilities are overtaxed during periods of peak 

17 demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if services (e.g., water, sewer) are substantially 

18 degraded and additional capacity is needed to meet ongoing demand. The GEIS indicates that, 

19 in the absence of new and significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public 

20 utilities that could be significant are impacts on public water supplies. 

21 Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plant22 related population growth. Section 2.1.8.1 of this draft SEIS describes the JAFNPP permitted 

23 withdrawal rate and actual use of water. The Oswego Water System (OWS) provides potable 

24 water to JAFNPP (OCDPCD 1997). Current plant usage averages 137,500 gpd with no 

25 restrictions on supply. The OWS serves approximately 23,950 customers in the Oswego, 

26 Minetta, Scriba, and Volney. The water plant obtains its water from Lake Ontario and has an 

27 allowable withdrawal allocation of approximately 62.5 million gpd. The full design capacity of 

28 the water plant is 20.1 million gpd, although 8 million gpd is reserved for Sithe Energies, Inc., 

29 with the remaining 12 million gpd available for other industrial, residential, and commercial 

30 customers. In 2001, consumptive daily demand averaged 8 million gpd, and peak demand was 

31 approximately 10 million gpd (NRC 2006a). 

32 Since Entergy has no plans to add employees to support plant operations during the license 

33 renewal period, there would be no increase in demand for public water. Therefore, there would 

34 be no impacts to public water supply during the license renewal period and no mitigation would 

35 be required. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-36 June 2007 

1 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use 

2 Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, 

3 Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B notes that "significant 

4 changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from 

5 license renewal." 

6 Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant 

7 operation during the license renewal term as follows: 

8 SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern. 

9 MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern. 

10 LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern. 

11 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public 

12 services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of 

13 the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license renewal 

14 term should consider (1) the size of the plant’s payments relative to the community’s total 

15 revenues, (2) the nature of the community’s existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to 

16 which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If 

17 the plant’s tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community’s total revenue, tax18 driven land-use changes during the plant’s license renewal term would be SMALL, especially 

19 where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided adequate 

20 public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS states that if tax 

21 payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction’s revenue, the 

22 significance level would be SMALL. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be medium to 

23 large relative to the community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be 

24 MODERATE. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be a dominant source of the 

25 community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE. This would be 

26 especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of development or has not 

27 provided adequate public services to support and guide development. 

28 4.4.3.1 Population-Related Impacts 

29 Since Entergy has no plans to add employees to support plant operations during the license 

30 renewal period; there would be no change in land use conditions in the vicinity of the JAFNPP 

31 site. Therefore, there would be no population-related land use impacts during the license 

32 renewal period and no mitigation would be required. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 4.4.3.2 Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts 

2 JAFNPP is assessed annual property taxes by Oswego County, the Town of Scriba, and Mexico 

3 Central Schools. Property taxes paid to Oswego County and the Town of Scriba fund such 

4 services as transportation, education, public health, and public safety. 

5 Entergy has entered into an agreement with Oswego County, the Town of Scriba, and the 

6 Mexico Central Schools regarding property taxes paid to those entities for JAFNPP. The 

7 agreement stipulates that Entergy, instead of paying property taxes for JAFNPP based on the 

8 assessed value of the plant, will make standardized annual payments in lieu of taxes to the 

9 taxing entities. 

10 Since Entergy has indicated that there would be no major plant refurbishment or license 

11 renewal-related construction activities necessary to support the continued operation of the 

12 JAFNPP beyond the end of the existing operating license term during the license renewal 

13 period, there would be no increase in the assessed value of JAFNPP and annual payments to 

14 the Town of Scriba, the Mexico Central Schools, and Oswego County would remain constant 

15 throughout the license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax 

16 revenue-related land-use impacts during the license-renewal period and no mitigation would be 

17 required. 

18 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts 

19 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, states 

20 Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated during the term of the 

21 renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase 

22 in traffic associated with additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions 

23 may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. 

24 All applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) to assess the impacts of highway traffic 

25 generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of 

26 the renewed license. 

27 Since Entergy has no plans to add employees to support plant operations during the license 

28 renewal period, there would be no change in traffic volume and levels of service on roadways in 

29 the vicinity of the JAFNPP site. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts during the 

30 license renewal period and no mitigation would be required.

31 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

32 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, requires Federal agencies 

33 to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The 

34 historic-review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-38 June 2007 

1 by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36 CFR Part 800. The renewal of an OL for 

2 a nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known or potential 

3 historic properties that may be located on or near the plant site. In accordance with the 

4 provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic 

5 properties in the areas of potential effect. If no historic properties are present or affected, the 

6 NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) before proceeding. If it 

7 is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve 

8 possible adverse effects of the undertaking. 

9 As discussed in Section 2.2.9.2 of this draft SEIS, Entergy contacted the New York State Office 

10 of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO) on February 9, 2006, regarding 

11 preparation of its application for the license renewal of JAFNPP (Entergy 2006a). In 

12 accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC contacted the NYSHPO (NRC 2006b), the Advisory 

13 Council on Historic Preservation (NRC 2006c), and the appropriate Federally recognized Native 

14 American Tribes with current and historical ties to the region on September 15, 2006. 

15 On December 4, 2006, NRC staff conducted a search of the NYSHPO files for the region 

16 around JAFNPP. Although no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been recorded on 

17 the JAFNPP property or along the associated transmission line corridors, literature reviews, 

18 surveys, and sensitivity assessments of the JAFNPP site demonstrate there is a potential for 

19 historic and archaeological resources on undisturbed portions of the site. The potential exists 

20 for prehistoric sites to be found in and around the kettle ponds and associated wetland areas. 

21 Early maps of the JAFNPP site indicate that a number of structures, most from the nineteenth 

22 century, existed on the JAFNPP site prior to construction. Most of these structures today 

23 consist of foundations and have probable associated historic artifact scatters. Prehistoric 

24 cultural resources could also be present in the relatively undisturbed southern and eastern 

25 portions of the JAFNPP site next to kettle ponds. A walk-over of selected undeveloped portions 

26 of the JAFNPP site by NRC staff confirmed the existence of historic resources on the plant site. 

27 Camp Oswego (also known as Camp Drum Anti-Aircraft Artillery Firing Range) was established 

28 during World War II immediately west of JAFNPP on property that is now occupied by Nine Mile 

29 Point Nuclear Station (USGS 1955). The camp operated well into the 1950s as a summer 

30 training base and closed sometime after 1956. The Niagara-Mohawk Electric Company later 

31 purchased the land for construction of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. 

32 Continued operations at JAFNPP during the renewal term would likely protect any 

33 archaeological sites present within the JAFNPP site boundary by protecting the site from 

34 development and providing secured access. However, because there is the potential for 

35 cultural resources to be present at the site, the applicant should take care during normal 

36 operations and maintenance activities related to operations not to inadvertently affect cultural 

37 resources. To avoid such adverse impacts, environmental review procedures have been put in 

38 place at JAFNPP regarding undertakings that involve land-disturbing construction or operational 

39 activities in undisturbed areas. Entergy has no plans to alter current operations during the 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 license renewal period. Additionally, Entergy states that any maintenance activities necessary 

2 to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas onsite. There is no 

3 planned expansion of the existing facilities and there are no planned refurbishment activities to 

4 support license renewal (Entergy 2006a). 

5 Based on the NRC staff’s review of NYSHPO files, archaeological reviews, surveys, 

6 assessments, and other information, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts on 

7 historic and archaeological resources during the license renewal term would be SMALL. This 

8 conclusion is based on the following: (1) no new ground disturbance or refurbishment activities 

9 would occur during the renewal period, (2) the applicant understands that archaeological and 

10 historic resources could be present at the JAFNPP site, and (3) the applicant has administrative 

11 controls in place to ensure that if cultural resources are found at JAFNPP, they will be protected. 

12 The NRC staff has determined that the impact of license renewal on historic and archaeological 

13 resources would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted. 

14 4.4.6 Environmental Justice 

15 Under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for identifying 

16 and addressing potential disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

17 impacts on minority and low-income populations. Although the Executive Order is not 

18 mandatory for independent agencies such as the NRC, the NRC has voluntarily committed to 

19 undertake environmental justice reviews. In 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement 

20 on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions

21 (NRC 2004). 

22 The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 

23 Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997): 

24 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are 

25 measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal 

26 or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include bodily 

27 impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 

28 effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or 

29 low-income population is significant (as defined by NEPA [National Environmental Policy 

30 Act]) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

31 another appropriate comparison group (CEQ 1997). 

32 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high 

33 environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of 

34 an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that 

35 appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may 

36 include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse 

37 environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and significant (as 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-40 June 2007 

1 defined by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that 

2 uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or 

3 American Indian tribes are considered (CEQ 1997). 

4 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

5 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

6 could result from the operation of JAFNPP during the renewal term. In assessing the impacts, 

7 the following CEQ (1997) definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 

8 population were used: 

9 • Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following 

10 population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or 

11 African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races meaning 

12 individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more 

13 races, for example, Hispanic and Asian. 

14 • Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of 

15 an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the 

16 affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

17 population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

18 • Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the 

19 annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Reports, 

20 Series PB60, on Income and Poverty. 

21 4.4.6.1 Minority Population in 2000 

22 According to 2000 census data, 11.5 percent of the population (approximately 109,350 

23 individuals) residing with a 50-mi radius of JAFNPP were minority individuals. The largest 

24 minority group was Black or African American (57,308 or 6 percent), followed by Hispanic or 

25 Latino (10,034 or about 1 percent). About 3.5 percent of Oswego County were minorities, with 

26 Hispanics the largest minority group (1.3 percent). Hispanics resided throughout the 50-mi 

27 radius, but most were in Jefferson County (USCB 2006). 

28 Census block groups with minority populations exceeding 20 percent were considered minority 

29 block groups. Based on 2000 census data, Figure 4-1 shows minority block groups within a 

30 50-mi radius of JAFNPP in which more than 20 percent of the block group population is minority 

31 (USCB 2006). 

32 4.4.6.2 Low-Income Population in 2000 

33 According to 2000 census data, approximately 45,007 individuals (approximately 4.7 percent) 

34 residing within a 50-mi radius of JAFNPP were identified as living below the Federal poverty 

35 threshold. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four. The median 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Minority Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mi Radius of JAFNPP (USCB 2006). 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-42 June 2007 

1 household income for New York in 1999 was $43,393, while 14.6 percent of the state population 

2 was determined to be living below the 1999 Federal poverty threshold. 

3 Oswego County had one of the lowest median incomes ($36,598) and the highest percentage 

4 (14 percent) of individuals living below the poverty level when compared to the other counties in 

5 the area. Conversely, Onondaga County had one of the highest median incomes ($40,847) and 

6 the lowest percentage (7.3 percent) of individuals living below the poverty level when compared 

7 to other counties in the area. 

8 Census block groups were considered low-income block groups if the percentage of the 

9 population living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded 14 percent. Based on 2000 

10 Census data, Figure 4-2 shows low-income block groups within a 50-mi radius of JAFNPP 

11 (USCB 2006). 

12 4.4.6.3 Analysis of Impacts 

13 Consistent with the impact analysis for the public and occupational health and safety, the 

14 affected populations are defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a 

15 50-mi radius of JAFNPP. Based on the analysis of impacts for other resource areas, NRC 

16 expects no high and adverse impacts from the operation of JAFNPP during the renewal term. 

17 However, if impacts occur, NRC expects the impacts to affect all populations in the area equally. 

18 NRC also analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of 

19 special pathway receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface 

20 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 

21 skin; and inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis is important to 

22 the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

23 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area. 

24 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

25 Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 (1994) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

26 appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who 

27 rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

28 consumption patterns to the public. In Section 2.2.8.5 of this draft SEIS, NRC considered 

29 whether there were any means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately 

30 affected by examining impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle 

31 special pathway receptors. Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants 

32 in native vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or 

33 near the JAFNPP site were considered. 

34 Entergy has a comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) at 

35 JAFNPP to assess the impact of site operations on the environment. Samples are collected 

36 from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to the site. The aquatic pathways include 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 

2 Figure 4-2. Low-Income Block Groups within a 50-mi Radius of JAFNPP (USCB 2006). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-44 June 2007 

1 Lake Ontario fish, surface waters and lakeshore sediment. The terrestrial pathways include 

2 airborne particulates and radioiodine, milk, food products and direct radiation. During 2005, 

3 2318 analyses were performed on collected samples of environmental media as part of the 

4 required REMP and showed no significant or measurable radiological impact from JAFNPP 

5 operations. Cesium-137 was detected in one aquatic sample (shoreline sediment) at very low 

6 levels and was attributed to fallout from past weapons testing. The 2005 results for all samples 

7 are consistent with the previous five-year historical results and exhibit no adverse trends 

8 (Entergy 2005). 

9 The results of the 2005 REMP demonstrate that the routine operation at the JAFNPP site had 

10 no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. No elevated radiation 

11 levels were detected in the offsite environment as a result of the hydrogen injection program, 

12 storage of radioactive waste, or implementation of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

13 Installation. The results of the REMP continue to demonstrate that the operation of the plant did 

14 not result in a significant measurable dose to a member of the general population or adversely 

15 impact the environment as a result of radiological effluents (Entergy 2005). REMP continues to 

16 demonstrate that the dose to a member of the public from the operation of JANFPP remains 

17 significantly below the federally required dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, 

18 and 10 CFR Part 72. 

19 Based on recent monitoring results, concentrations of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, 

20 soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals in areas surrounding JAFNPP have 

21 been quite low (at or near the threshold of detection) and seldom above background levels 

22 (Entergy 2005). Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts 

23 would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of 

24 subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. 

25 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

26 No Category 1 or Category 2 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, are 

27 potentially applicable to JAFNPP groundwater use and quality during the renewal term. The 

28 NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of 

29 the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of 

30 other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no impacts 

31 related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

32 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

33 Threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, 

34 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened 

2 or Endangered Species During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 

GEIS 

Section 

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

SEIS 

Section 

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS) 

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6 

3 

4 Entergy contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on February 9, 2006, regarding 

5 threatened and endangered species at the JAFNPP site (Entergy 2006a). No information 

6 regarding the transmission lines was provided in this letter. In its response letter to Entergy, 

7 dated May 19, 2006, the FWS (Entergy 2006a) identified the Federally and State-listed Indiana 

8 bat (Myotis sodalis) and the Federally and State-listed bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) as 

9 potentially occurring within the transmission corridor. The Indiana bat is known to roost within 

10 11 mi of the site, and the bog turtle is known to occur within 12 mi of the site. The bog turtle 

11 was also identified in the JAFNPP Final Environmental Statement (FES) for operation as 

12 probably occurring within the marshes that are crossed by JAFNPP to the Edic transmission line 

13 (AEC 1973). 

14 On December 7, 2006, NRC staff met with New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) to 

15 discuss potential impacts of continued operation on State-listed species. The NYNHP found 

16 that upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) habitat has been identified near the JAFNPP-to17 Edic transmission line corridor. No other State-listed species are known to occur near the 

18 JAFNPP facility or transmission corridors. The NYNHP staff have not identified any significant 

19 foreseeable impacts on State-protected species or areas that would result from continued 

20 operation or maintenance activities during the renewal term. 

21 The NRC staff met with the New York Power Authority (NYPA) on December 4, 2006. At this 

22 meeting, the NRC staff was informed that no threatened or endangered species have been 

23 reported by maintenance personnel as occurring in or near the transmission corridor. Corridor 

24 maintenance personnel are trained in identifying endangered species and are expected to take 

25 measures to avoid damage to these species if they are identified within the transmission line 

26 corridor during the renewal period. 

27 This Category 2 issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether 

28 threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by 

29 continued operation of JAFNPP during the license renewal term. The characteristics and 

30 habitat of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the JAFNPP site are discussed in 

31 Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of this draft SEIS. The NRC initiated informal consultation with the 

32 FWS on September 19, 2006, to determine which species may be affected by continued 

33 operations and maintenance procedures at the JAFNPP site and the associated transmission 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-46 June 2007 

1 lines (NRC 2006d). NRC submitted a Biological Assessment to the FWS, thus consultation with 

2 the FWS in ongoing (NRC 2007). 

3 4.6.1 Aquatic Species 

4 No Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic species, with the exception 

5 of transient individuals, are known to exist in the vicinity of JAFNPP or the aquatic habitats 

6 crossed by the transmission lines associated with JAFNPP (FWS 2007). There are no plans to 

7 conduct refurbishment or construction activities at JAFNPP during the license renewal term 

8 (Entergy 2006a). The NRC staff’s conclusion is that there would be no impacts on threatened 

9 and endangered aquatic species from operation of JAFNPP during the renewal term, and 

10 mitigation is therefore not warranted. 

11 4.6.2 Terrestrial Species 

12 Currently, no threatened or endangered species are known as occurring at the JAFNPP site or 

13 within the Edic or Scriba transmission corridors. The State-protected upland sandpiper is 

14 known to occur near the transmission corridor, but no impacts to this species are expected as a 

15 result of continued use or maintenance of the lines. The Federally protected bog turtle and 

16 Indiana bat have the potential to occur at the JAFNPP site. 

17 The NRC staff encourages NYPA to report the existence of any Federally or State-listed 

18 endangered species within or near the transmission corridors to NYSDEC and/or FWS if any 

19 such species are identified during the renewal term. If any evidence of injury or mortality of 

20 migratory birds or threatened or endangered species is seen within the corridor during the 

21 renewal period, NYPA is encouraged to promptly report this to the appropriate wildlife 

22 management agencies. Care should also be taken to ensure that the corridor does not provide 

23 a path for invasive plant species to colonize wetland areas that would not otherwise be 

24 colonized without the corridor. In particular, common reed (Phragmites australis) may colonize 

25 and degrade undocumented bog turtle habitat (FWS 2001). Likewise, transmission corridor 

26 maintenance activities should be conducted in a manner that avoids damage to wetlands within 

27 and near the corridor. Maintenance personnel should be aware of the foraging and roosting 

28 needs of Indiana bats, and the removal of standing dead trees and trees harboring Indiana bats 

29 should be avoided during times of the year when bats may be present. 

30 The NRC staff, after discussions with the FWS, finds that the Indiana bat and the bog turtle may 

31 be present on the JAFNPP site or along the Edic and Scriba transmission corridors. The NRC 

32 staff has determined that the continued operation of the JAFNPP may affect, but is not likely to 

33 adversely affect, either species. Therefore, the NRC staff’s preliminary conclusion is that the 

34 potential impacts on Federally protected species of an additional 20 years of JAFNPP operation 

35 would be SMALL. The NRC staff has initiated informal Section 7 consultation under the 

36 Endangered Species Act of 1972 with the FWS for both the Indiana bat and the bog turtle. The 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 consultation is ongoing and may result in additional requirements to ensure protection of these 

2 two species. 

3 4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of 

4 Operations During the Renewal Term

5 The NRC staff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues listed 

6 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to plant operation during the 

7 renewal term. The NRC staff also determined that information provided during the public 

8 comment period did not identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment. The NRC 

9 staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation during the 

10 renewal term in the GEIS and has conducted its own independent review, including public 

11 scoping meetings, to identify issues with new and significant information. Processes for 

12 identification and evaluation of new information are described in Section 1.2.2. 

13 4.8 Cumulative Impacts

14 The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment resulting from the 

15 incremental impact of license renewal when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

16 foreseeable future actions. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are related to the 

17 resources when JAFNPP was licensed and constructed, present actions are related to the 

18 resources during current operations, and future actions are those that are reasonably 

19 foreseeable through the end of plant operations including the license renewal term. The 

20 geographic area over which past, present, and future actions are assessed is dependent on the 

21 affected resource. 

22 The impacts of the proposed action, license renewal, as described in this chapter of the draft 

23 SEIS, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

24 regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or entity is undertaking the actions. The 

25 combined impacts are defined as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor 

26 but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an 

27 impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when 

28 considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, 

29 if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be 

30 important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 

31 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

32 This section assesses the impacts of the proposed action that relate to the withdrawal and 

33 discharge of lake water by the JAFNPP once-through cooling system, combined with other past, 

34 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that occur within the defined geographic 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-48 June 2007 

1 area of Lake Ontario. The geographic area considered for the analysis of cumulative impacts 

2 on aquatic resources focuses on the southeastern portion of Lake Ontario within a 50-mi radius 

3 of the Nine Mile Point promontory. This area is large enough to encompass the ecological 

4 resources and potential cumulative impacts of concern but is not too large as to make the 

5 analysis impractical. 

6 Like the other Great Lakes, Lake Ontario has experienced significant changes in the structure 

7 and functioning of its aquatic ecosystem since the beginning of the Euro-American historical 

8 period, and the cumulative impacts of past actions have resulted in the existing water quality 

9 and aquatic resource conditions near JAFNPP. Lake Ontario is a dynamic aquatic ecosystem 

10 and over the years has evolved in response to ecological stressors such as overfishing, 

11 contaminant releases from industry, cultural eutrophication, land-use changes, and the 

12 introduction of non-native species. These stressors have profoundly changed the species 

13 composition and abundance of organisms from almost all trophic levels lake-wide. It is likely 

14 these changes to Lake Ontario’s aquatic resources have not stabilized, and continuing changes 

15 in this complex ecosystem can be expected in the future. Furthermore, potential impacts of 

16 climate change on Lake Ontario cannot be quantified at this time but could include changes in 

17 water temperature, summer stratification, water quality, water level, productivity, and 

18 subsequently, aquatic species composition and abundance (UCS 2003). 

19 Since the 1970s, there have been a number of bi-national management efforts between the 

20 U.S. and Canada to restore the ecological integrity of Lake Ontario, including the creation of the 

21 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) and the International Joint Commission, and the 

22 signing of three Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements (Mills et al. 2005). The most recent 

23 agreement took place in 1987 and committed Canada and the U.S. to developing lake-wide 

24 management plans for each of the Great Lakes. Part of this effort includes the creation of 

25 remedial action plans that address areas of concern and sources of 11 lake-wide critical 

26 pollutants. The plans coordinate localized efforts throughout Lake Ontario by other groups such 

27 as the GLFC and State and Province fishery management programs (EPA 1998). 

28 While Lake Ontario water quality has vastly improved since the implementation of these bi29 national efforts, the status of its fisheries is still considered to be the most damaged of the five 

30 Great Lakes (USGS 2002). Lake researchers believe there is an incongruity between the goals 

31 of the fishery stakeholders and what Lake Ontario ecosystem can actually support (Stewart et 

32 al. 1999). Furthermore, the colonization of non-native species has so fundamentally changed 

33 the lake’s ecosystem that it is unlikely to ever return to its original state. Management of 

34 invasive species at the local level, where resource uses are affected by their presence, is a 

35 major activity by Lake Ontario management groups and a foreseeable continuing focus of these 

36 groups. Contributions to cumulative impacts on Lake Ontario aquatic resources during the 

37 license renewal period can be reasonably expected to be similar to those currently impacting 

38 the lake. However, given the emphasis on lake-wide management plans and remedial action 

39 plans to collaboratively protect and restore the lake and its resources, potential cumulative 

40 effects will likely be carefully assessed and managed over time. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Future use of Lake Ontario likely includes its continued use for water supply, waste water 

2 disposal, cooling water for power plants, shipping, and recreational fishing and boating. 

3 Additionally, future continued development of the southeastern Lake Ontario watershed may 

4 impact the lake’s water quality. However, the State of New York has a comprehensive water 

5 resources management program, and with coordinated efforts between State agencies and the 

6 above-mentioned bi-national groups, such activities would be regulated to avoid adverse 

7 impacts to the lake. Port Oswego, approximately 6 mi west of JAFNPP, will likely continue to 

8 receive cargo ships. The discharge of ballast water from foreign ships, the primary vector for 

9 invasive species, has become an issue of special importance for lake managers. According to 

10 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), approximately 183 aquatic non11 indigenous species have populated the five Great Lakes (NOAA 2006). In response, when 

12 ships enter the St. Lawrence Seaway, ballast water is now carefully monitored by the U.S. 

13 Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and Transport Canada 

14 Marine Safety (GLSLSS 2007). 

15 In addition to JAFNPP, four power-generating facilities near JAFNPP withdraw water from and 

16 discharge water to Lake Ontario—Constellation Energy Group’s two-unit Nine Mile Point 

17 Nuclear Station, immediately west of and adjacent to JAFNPP; Dynegy Independence Station, a 

18 1064-MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle cogeneration plant approximately 7 mi southwest of 

19 JAFNPP; NRG Energy, Inc., Oswego Steam Station, an oil and natural gas-fired 1700-MW 

20 peaking plant approximately 7.5 mi southwest of JAFNPP; and Indeck-Oswego Energy Center, 

21 a 50-MW gas-turbine combined-cycle cogeneration facility approximately 6.5 mi southwest of 

22 JAFNPP (Dynegy 2007; NRG 2007; Indeck 2007). It can be reasonably assumed that these 

23 facilities will remain in operation throughout the JAFNPP license renewal period, and water 

24 withdrawals and discharges from these facilities will be regulated by the NYSDEC under the 

25 SPDES permitting process. 

26 Additional impacts to the Lake Ontario fishery could occur due to the number of dams on Lake 

27 Ontario tributaries. Brookfield Power operates eight hydroelectric facilities along the Oswego 

28 and Salmon rivers. It is expected that these dams will remain in operation for the duration of the 

29 JAFNPP license renewal period (Brookfield 2006). Dams generally impact fish populations: 

30 migration and other fish movements can be impeded or blocked entirely; quantity, quality, and 

31 access to essential habitat can be affected; and fish may suffer mortality or morbidity while 

32 passing through the turbines or over spillways. Additionally, changes in river discharge regime, 

33 water quality, and primary and secondary productivity caused by the dams may indirectly impact 

34 fish populations (Larinier 2000). 

35 A study of species composition and distribution of fish larvae collected in the Nine Mile Point 

36 nearshore waters published in 1975 concluded the coastline area of Lake Ontario was not a 

37 desirable fish spawning or nursery habitat because of extensive nearshore wave action and 

38 unsuitable bedrock and rubble substrate (TI 1979). However, Lake Ontario offshore waters are 

39 important forage areas for the lake’s valuable salmonid populations and their prey species, the 

40 alewife and rainbow smelt. Recent studies have suggested that prey fish populations are 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-50 June 2007 

1 moving offshore in response to changes in Lake Ontario’s food web, which have occurred 

2 mostly from the introduction of invasive species to the lake in the early 1990s. Alewife in 

3 particular may be moving to deeper waters to escape forage competition from round goby, a 

4 thriving and aggressive Lake Ontario invasive species (USGS 2002). 

5 As discussed in Section 4.1 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff found no new and significant 

6 information to indicate that the conclusions regarding any of the Category 1 issues related to the 

7 cooling system at JAFNPP are inconsistent with the GEIS (NRC 1996). Assuming no future 

8 changes in station cooling system design or operation, the NRC staff determined that potential 

9 losses of aquatic resources resulting from these Category 2 issues during the license renewal 

10 term would not alter any important attribute of Lake Ontario. Furthermore, the NYSDEC may 

11 impose further restrictions or require modifications to the JAFNPP cooling system to reduce 

12 impacts of entrainment and impingement. The temperature and volume of heated effluent 

13 discharged by JAFNPP to Lake Ontario will continue to be monitored daily by plant personnel 

14 and regulated by the NYSDEC. Additionally, the transmission line ROW maintenance activities 

15 in the vicinity of stream and river crossings employ procedures to minimize erosion and 

16 shoreline disturbance while encouraging vegetative cover. Therefore, impacts from 

17 maintenance of transmission lines associated with JAFNPP would have negligible impact on 

18 aquatic resources related to the Lake Ontario basin. 

19 Because Lake Ontario and the Nine Mile Point promontory area are influenced by many 

20 controlling factors, the impact of JAFNPP operations during the license renewal term can only 

21 be qualitatively described with some degree of certainty. The NRC staff concludes, however, 

22 that the SMALL impacts of the JAFNPP cooling system, including entrainment and impingement 

23 of fish and shellfish, heat shock, or any of the cooling system-related Category 1 issues are not 

24 contributing to an overall decline in Lake Ontario water quality or its aquatic resources. 

25 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the contribution of impacts associated with the 

26 continued operation of JAFNPP during the renewal period to the cumulative impacts likely to be 

27 experienced in the southeastern portion of Lake Ontario would be SMALL. 

28 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

29 This section analyzes past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative 

30 impacts on terrestrial resources, including wildlife population, upland habitat, wetlands, 

31 floodplains, invasive species, land use, and protected species. For the purposes of this 

32 analysis, the geographic area that encompasses the past, present, and foreseeable future 

33 actions that could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources includes 

34 Oswego and Oneida counties, which contain JAFNPP and its associated transmission corridors 

35 that are within the scope of the license renewal review. 

36 Since the initial construction of JAFNPP and the associated transmission line, there have been 

37 changes in land use and land cover with resulting changes on terrestrial ecosystems both at the 

38 JAFNPP site and along the transmission corridor. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Initial construction of JAFNPP resulted in a change in land use for part of the property from 

2 residential to industrial. Most of the property was left undeveloped and allowed to mature from 

3 secondary growth forests toward old-growth forests, with some areas continuing as wetlands 

4 and ponds (Entergy 2006b). Construction of the transmission lines to the Edic Substation and 

5 the Lighthouse Hill Hydroelectric Station converted a portion of forested land to low shrubby and 

6 herbaceous cover, with resulting changes in the wildlife and plant species present. In some 

7 locations, this caused a forested area to be fragmented. This effect increases habitat for 

8 species that live on forest edges and reduces habitat for species that live in the interior of forest 

9 parcels. Some species, particularly insects and small mammals, have difficulty crossing 

10 transmission corridors (Forman 2001). Other contributors to forest fragmentation in this region 

11 include construction of the transmission lines associated with Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 

12 clearing and continued use of land for farming, road construction and maintenance, and 

13 commercial and residential development. In some areas, abandoned farms adjacent to forests 

14 are developing into forests, reducing the impacts of fragmentation. The NRC staff has not 

15 identified any interior species populations that have significantly decreased in the region as a 

16 result of the cumulative impacts of forest fragmentation. The NRC staff has not found any 

17 information to conclude that continued operation or maintenance activities of JAFNPP or the 

18 associated transmission lines would have significant negative impacts on any non-protected 

19 plant or animal species, including interior species populations. Therefore, the NRC staff 

20 believes that the incremental impact of license renewal on terrestrial species and habitat, would 

21 be minor. 

22 NRC staff identified two invasive species in the area that may degrade terrestrial habitat. Their 

23 spread could be accelerated by present and future actions. Common reed is thought to have 

24 been introduced by accident in the late 1700s or early 1800s and has spread across North 

25 America (PCA 2006a). Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) was introduced 

26 intentionally in the U.S. in the late 1800s, probably as an ornamental plant, and has spread 

27 throughout the eastern U.S. (PCA 2006b). These two species are spreading throughout New 

28 York at various rates due to natural and human processes, resulting in habitat loss for native 

29 species (PCA 2006a, 2006b). Both species are spread by the wind; Japanese knotweed 

30 usually grows in streamside areas, while common reed colonizes wetlands (PCA 2006a, 

31 2006b). Open areas like transmission corridors have lower wind resistance than forests 

32 (Forman 2001), potentially allowing wind-borne seeds to spread farther through transmission 

33 corridors than adjacent forests. Construction and maintenance of the transmission line corridor 

34 has created a potential pathway for the spread of these species. Potential preventative and 

35 mitigative measures include surveys and programs for monitoring and removing these species 

36 within the corridor and at the JAFNPP site. Given the ability of these species to drastically alter 

37 local ecosystems, the impacts of the introduction and spread of these species could over time 

38 significantly alter the habitat. NRC staff does not believe, however, that the continued operation 

39 and maintenance of the JAFNPP transmission lines contribute significantly to this impact. 

40 The FWS has identified the Federally protected Indiana bat and the bog turtle as potentially 

41 occurring near or within the project area, which includes the Edic and Scriba transmission 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-52 June 2007 

1 corridors. The NRC staff has initiated informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

2 Species Act of 1972 with the FWS. As part of that consultation the FWS will assess the 

3 cumulative impacts to both species. The NRC staff has preliminarily determined that continued 

4 operation of the JAFNPP for an additional year may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the 

5 Indiana bat and the bog turtle. The consultation with the FWS is ongoing and may result in 

6 additional requirements to ensure protection of these two species. 

7 The NRC staff examined the cumulative effects of forest fragmentation, the spread of invasive 

8 species, and impacts to Federally protected species as they relate to terrestrial resources within 

9 the project area. The NRC staff finds that the impacts could be MODERATE, depending on the 

10 extent of alteration of habitat within the project area due to the spread of invasive Japanese 

11 knotweed and the common reed. However, the NRC staff finds that the direct impacts of 

12 continued operation of JAFNPP and the maintenance of the transmission corridors on terrestrial 

13 resources to be SMALL. 

14 4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts on Human Health 

15 4.8.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the Transmission Lines 

16 Cumulative impacts resulting from continued operation of the electrical transmission lines 

17 associated with JAFNPP were evaluated to determine whether there was the potential for 

18 adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources, wetlands, floodplains, or aquatic resources. 

19 Other than the existing power transmission lines from JAFNPP and the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

20 Station, the NRC staff is unaware of any planned activities within the area that could have 

21 additional cumulative impacts. Furthermore, the NRC staff concluded in Section 4.2.1 of this 

22 draft SEIS that the potential impacts for electric shock from existing transmission lines during 

23 the renewal period are SMALL and that no additional mitigation measures are warranted. 

24 Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation 

25 of the JAFNPP transmission lines are also SMALL and that no additional mitigation is 

26 warranted. 

27 4.8.3.2 Cumulative Radiological Impacts 

28 The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers were developed by the EPA 

29 and NRC to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and 

30 radioactive material. The dose limits are codified in 40 CFR Part 190 and 10 CFR Part 20. For 

31 the purpose of this analysis, the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the JAFNPP site was 

32 included. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by Entergy 

33 in the vicinity of the JAFNPP site measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, 

34 including JAFNPP and the adjacent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (owned by Constellation 

35 Nuclear). Results for 2001 through 2005 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts 

36 assessment. Additionally, in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.3 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded 

37 that impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers (occupational) from operation of 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 JAFNPP during the renewal term would be SMALL. Therefore, both REMP and the NRC staff’s 

2 conclusion considered cumulative impacts. The NRC and the State of New York would regulate 

3 any future actions in the vicinity of the JAFNPP site that could contribute to cumulative 

4 radiological impacts. 

5 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 

6 The continued operation of JAFNPP during the license renewal term would not add to any 

7 socioeconomic impacts beyond those already being experienced in the region. The NRC staff 

8 determined that there would be no impacts on housing, public utilities, public services, and 

9 environmental justice. There would also be no impact on offsite land use because no 

10 refurbishment actions are planned at JAFNPP and no incremental sources of plant-related tax 

11 payments are expected. There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these 

12 conclusions in regard to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

13 would be no cumulative socioeconomic impacts from continued operations at JAFNPP and 

14 mitigation would not be required. 

15 4.8.5 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts 

16 The NRC staff considered the potential impacts resulting from the operation of JAFNPP during 

17 the license renewal term and other past, present, and future actions in the vicinity of JAFNPP. 

18 The NRC staff's preliminary determination is that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from 

19 JAFNPP operation during the license renewal term would generally be SMALL. The NRC will 

20 work with the FWS to determine whether the impacts of license renewal on protected terrestrial 

21 species would significantly add to these impacts. 

22 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

23 Neither JAFNPP nor the NRC staff is aware of information that is both new and significant 

24 related to any of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with the JAFNPP operation during 

25 the renewal term. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that environmental impacts 

26 associated with these issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of 

27 these issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant28 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

29 Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 11 Category 2 issues applicable to 

30 JAFNPP operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic effects of 

31 electromagnetic fields. For these 11 issues and environmental justice, the NRC staff concluded 

32 that the potential environmental impact of renewal term operations of JAFNPP would be of 

33 SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS and that additional 

34 mitigation would not be warranted. In addition, the NRC staff determined that a consensus has 

35 not been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-54 June 2007 

1 from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the NRC staff did not conduct an evaluation of this 

2 issue. 

3 4.10 References

4 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

5 Protection Against Radiation.” 

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

8 10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing 

9 Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

10 Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.” 

11 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

12 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

13 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

14 “Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the 

15 Uranium Fuel Cycle.” 

16 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

17 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

18 Brookfield Power. 2006. New York Lake Ontario Operations Fact Sheet. Available URL: 

19 http://www.brookfieldpower.com/PowerOperations/pdf/Lake_Ontario_ March_2006.pdf 

20 (accessed February 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070470373. 

21 Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA). 33 USC 1326 et seq. (Common name of the Federal Water 

22 Pollution Control Act of 1977). 

23 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

24 National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

25 Dean, J.M. 1973. “The Response of Fish to a Modified Thermal Environment.” In Chavin, W., 

26 ed. Responses of Fish to Environmental Changes. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Illinois. 

27 Dynegy. 2007. Power Generation Facilities Northeast Segment. Available URL: 

28 http://www.dynegy.com/Generation/Facilities/Northeast.shtml (accessed February 15, 2007). 

29 Accessible at ML070470449. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 EA Science and Technology (EA). 2005. 2004 SPDES Biological Monitoring Report James A. 

2 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (Permit No. NY 0020109, Section 10, CP-04.03). Newburgh, 

3 New York. Accessible at ML062970416. 

4 Eckert, T.H. 2005. New York Lake Ontario and Upper St. Lawrence River Stocking Program

5 2005. Available URL: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ dfwmr/fish/lorpt05sec1.pdf (accessed 

6 January 10, 2007). Accessible at ML070160197. 

7 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005. 

8 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005. 

9 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59.

10 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

11 James A. JAFNPP Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s 

12 Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage James A. JAFNPP Nuclear Power 

13 Plant. Lycoming, New York. Accessible at ML062160557. 

14 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

15 Proposal For Information Collection To Address Compliance With the Clean Water Act §316(b) 

16 Phase II Regulations at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (SPDES Permit No. NY 

17 0020109) Lycoming, New York. Lycoming, New York. Accessible at ML063560153. 

18 Eshenroder, R.L., M.E. Holey, T.K. Gorenflo, and R.D. Clark, Jr. 1995. “Fish Community 

19 Objectives for Lake Michigan.” Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Pub. 95-3. Available 

20 URL: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp95_3.pdf (accessed November 29, 2006). 

21 Accessible at ML070160210. 

22 Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

23 and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32. 

24 Forman, R.T.T. 2001. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge 

25 University Press: Cambridge, U.K. 

26 Fox, D.L. 2006. “Vulpes vulpes (red fox).” Available URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich 

27 .edu/ site/accounts/information/Vulpes_vulpes.html (accessed December 28, 2006). Accessible 

28 at ML070120350. 

29 Fry, F.E. 1971. “The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Physiology of Fish.” In Hoar, W.S. 

30 and D.J. Randall, eds. 1971. Fish Physiology, Volume VI, Environmental Relations Behavior. 

31 Academic Press: New York. 

32 Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System (GLSLSS). 2007. Ballast Water. Available URL: 

33 http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigation/ballast_water.html (accessed February 16, 

34 2007). Accessible at ML070470471. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-56 June 2007 

1 Indeck Energy Services (Indeck). 2007. Indeck-Oswego Energy Center. Available URL: 

2 http://www.indeck-energy.com/plants/oswego.html (accessed February 15, 2007). Accessible 

3 at ML070510069. 

4 LaJeone, L.J. and R.G. Monzingo. 2000. “316(b) and Quad Cities Station, Commonwealth 

5 Edison Company.” Environmental Science & Policy, 3:S313-S322. Accessible at 

6 ML070160199. 

7 Larinier, M. 2000. “Dams and Fish Migration.” Available URL: http://www.dams.org/docs/ 

8 kbase/contrib/env247.pdf (accessed February 16, 2007). Accessible at ML070470392. 

9 Marcy, B.C., Jr. 2004 (1976). “Early Life History Studies of American Shad in the Lower 

10 Connecticut River and the Effect of the Connecticut Yankee Plant.” In The Connecticut River 

11 Ecological Study (1965-1973) Revisited: Ecology of the Lower Connecticut River 1973-2003, 

12 P.M. Jacobson, D.A. Dixon, W.C. Leggett, B.C. Marcy, Jr. and R.R. Massengill, eds. American 

13 Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. 

14 Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermot, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. 

15 Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, and J.C. Maka. 2003. “Lake Ontario: food web dynamics in a 

16 changing ecosystem (1970-2000).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

17 60:471-490. Available URL: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~cjfas/Millsetal2003.pdf (accessed 

18 January 10, 2007). Accessible at ML070160203. 

19 Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermot, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle et al. 

20 2005. A Synthesis of Ecological and Fish-Community Changes in Lake Ontario, 1970-2000. 

21 Available URL: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/pub.htm (accessed October 16, 2006). Accessible at 

22 ML070160214. 

23 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC®). 1981. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers: 

24 New York. 

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

26 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et seq. 

27 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. “NIEHS Report on Health 

28 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields.” Publication 

29 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

30 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. “Great Lakes Aquatic 

31 Nonindigenous Species List.” Available URL: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/invasive/ 

32 (accessed February 22, 2007). Accessible at ML070540091. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG). 2007. NRG Energy Locations. Available URL: 

2 http://www.nrgenergy.com/ (accessed February 15, 2007). Accessible at ML070510055. 

3 O’Gorman, R., R.W. Owens, and S.E. Prindle. 2005. Status of Major Prey Fish Stocks in the 

4 U.S. Waters of Lake Ontario, 2004. Accessed at: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content 

5 =products_publications_reports&title=Publications0&menu=products (accessed November 8, 

6 2006). Accessible at ML070160216. 

7 Oswego County Department of Planning and Community Development (OCDPCD). 1997. 

8 Oswego County Comprehensive Plan. Oswego, New York. Available URL: 

9 http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/pdf/compplan.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006). Accessible at 

10 ML071130370. 

11 Oswego County. 2006. Oswego County Low Cost Power, Oswego County Public Utility 

12 Service. Available URL: http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/energy/index.html (accessed 

13 September 25, 2006). 

14 Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), Alien Plant Working Group. 2006a. “Common Reed.” 

15 Available URL: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/phau1.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 

16 Accessible at ML070120384. 

17 Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), Alien Plant Working Group. 2006b. “Japanese Knotweed.” 

18 Available URL: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pocu1.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 

19 Accessible at ML070120378. 

20 Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA). 1976. James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

21 Plant 316(a) Demonstration Submission, Permit No. NY0020109. Accessible at ML063620165; 

22 ML063620167. 

23 Ross, Q.E. and D.J. Dunning. 1996. “Reducing Impingement of Alewives with High-Frequency 

24 Sound at a Power Plant Intake on Lake Ontario.” North American Journal of Fisheries 

25 Management, 16:548-559. Accessible at ML070160217. 

26 Schaner, T. and S.R. LaPan. 2005. Pelagic Planktivores. Available URL: 

27 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/lorpt05sec3.pdf (accessed January 10, 2007). 

28 Accessible at ML070160209. 

29 Schaner, T. and S.E. Prindle. 2004. Pelagic Planktivores. Available URL: 

30 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/lorpt04sec3.pdf (accessed January 10, 2007). 

31 Accessible at ML070160208. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-58 June 2007 

1 Stewart, T.J. and T. Schaner. 2002. Lake Ontario Salmonid Introductions 1970 to 1999: 

2 Stocking, Fishery and Fish Community Influences. Available URL: 

3 http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/01_ch12.pdf (accessed January 19, 2007). 

4 Accessible at ML070190123. 

5 Stewart, T.J., R.E. Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers, and M.E. Daniels. 1999. 

6 Fish-Community Objectives For Lake Ontario. Available URL: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/ 

7 SpecialPubs/Sp99_1.pdf (accessed January 16, 2006). Accessible at ML070160345. 

8 Texas Instruments Incorporated Ecological Services (TI). 1979. Niagara Mohawk Power 

9 Corporation, Power Authority of the State of New York, 1978 Nine Mile Point Aquatic Ecology 

10 Studies. Dallas, Texas. Accessible at ML063480613. 

11 Union of Concerned Scientists (USC). 2003. “Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes 

12 Region, Ecological Vulnerability to Climate Change: Aquatic Ecosystems.” Available URL: 

13 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/chapter3.pdf (accessed February 22, 

14 2007). Accessible at ML070530691. 

15 University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute (UWSGI). 2002. Why Are the Alewives Dying? 

16 Accessed at: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/alewifenews.html on November 29, 

17 2006. Accessible at ML070160349. 

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

19 Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. Docket No. 50-333, Washington, D.C. 

20 Accessible at ML062360088. 

21 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006. “2000 Census Data.” Available URL: www.census.gov 

22 (accessed December 14, 2006). Accessible at ML071130368. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance 

24 Material and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact 

25 Statements. Draft. May 1, 1997. Available URL: http://esm.versar.com/PPRP/316/1977_316a_ 

26 guidance_document.pdf (accessed March 21, 2007). 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. “Lake Ontario Lakewide Management 

28 Plan Executive Summary.” Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/index.html 

29 (accessed February 14, 2007). Accessible at ML070470508. 

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

31 System – Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at 

32 Phase II Existing Facilities: Final Rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 131, pp. 41575-41693. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

June 2007 4-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. “Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern 

2 Population Recovery Plan.” Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2001/ 

3 010515.pdf (accessed December 28, 2006). Accessible at ML070110336. 

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. “New York USFWS Threatened and Endangered 

5 Species System (TESS).” Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?status 

6 =listed&state=NY (accessed April 9, 2007). Accessible at ML071000492 

7 U.S. Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Science Center. 2002. “Preyfish Population 

8 Assessment.” Available URL: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/factsheets/2002-

9 3%20Preyfish%20Population%20Assessment.pdf (accessed February 8, 2007). Accessible at 

10 ML070390563. 

11 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1955. Fulton, NY N4315-W7615/17.5X15, 15-minute 

12 quadrangle map. 

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

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

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996b. “Environmental Review for Renewal of 

16 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 109, pp. 28467-

17 28497, Washington, D.C. 

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

19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, 

20 D.C. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

22 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Federal Register, 

23 Vol. 69, pp. 52040–52048. Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

25 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 24, Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

26 Station, Units 1 and 2—Final Report.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Letter from Rani Franovich, Branch Chief 

28 Division of License Renewal, to Don Klima, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs 

29 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Subject: James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

30 License Renewal Review. September 15, 2006. Accessible at ML062480229. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 4-60 June 2007 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Letter from Rani Franovich, Branch Chief 

2 Division of License Renewal, to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of 

3 Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. Subject: James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power 

4 Plant License Renewal Review. (Project Review OPRHP No. 06PR0982). September 15, 

5 2006. Accessible at ML062480220. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Letter from Rani Franovich, Branch Chief 

7 Division of License Renewal, to Marvin Moriarty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast 

8 Regional Office. Subject: Request for list of protected species within the area under evaluation 

9 for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant license renewal application review. 

10 September 19, 2006. Accessible at ML062630292. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Letter from Rani Franovich, Branch Chief 

12 Division of License Renewal, to Marvin Moriarty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast 

13 Regional Office. Subject: Biological Assessment for Proposed License Renewal of James A. 

14 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. May 16, 2007. Accessible at ML071310069. 

15 Wilke, C.J. 2006. “Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk).” Available URL: http://animaldiversity 

16 .ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Mephitis_mephitis.html (accessed December 28, 

17 2006). Accessible at ML070120348. 
June 2007 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

2 

3 Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents are discussed in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(1) 5 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the 

6 analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional 

7 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a 

8 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of 

9 the following criteria: 

10 

(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) Single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned 

to the impacts (except for collective off-site 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.

11 

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

13 required unless new and significant information is identified. 

14 

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

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

17 

18 This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur 

19 during the license renewal term. 

20 

21 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

22 

23 Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBAs) 

24 and severe accidents, as discussed below. 

25 

26 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

 

(1) 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 Addendum 1.
Postulated Accidents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 5-2 June 2007 

1 

2 In order to receive NRC approval to operate a nuclear power facility, an applicant for an initial 

3 operating license must submit a safety analysis report (SAR) as part of its application. The SAR 

4 presents the design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor and comprehensive 

5 data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses various hypothetical accident situations and 

6 the safety features that are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents. The NRC staff reviews 

7 the application to determine whether the plant design meets the Commission’s regulations and 

8 requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and its anticipated response to an 

9 accident. 

10 

11 DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the 

12 plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated 

13 accidents, without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these 

14 postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but are evaluated to 

15 establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The 

16 acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100. 

17 

18 The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the 

19 ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before 

20 issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license 

21 documentation such as the applicant’s final safety analysis report (FSAR), the staff’s safety 

22 evaluation report (SER), the final environmental statement (FES), and Section 5.1 of this 

23 supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). A licensee is required to maintain the 

24 acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant, including any 

25 extended-life operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for the hypothetical 

26 maximum exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will not affect these 

27 evaluations. Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the consequences 

28 and aging management programs be in effect for license renewal, the environmental impacts as 

29 calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing assessments over the life 

30 of the plant, including the license renewal period. Accordingly, the design of the plant relative to 

31 DBAs during the extended period is considered to remain acceptable and the environmental 

32 impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the GEIS. 

33 

34 The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL 

35 significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these 

36 accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, design-basis accidents are 

37 designated as a Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The 

38 early resolution of the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the 

39 current licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license 

40 and, therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license 
 Postulated Accidents 

June 2007 5-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 renewal. This issue, applicable to the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), is 

2 listed in Table 5-1. 

3 

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

5 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Design basis accidents 5.3.2; 5.5.1

6 

7 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

8 

The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis 

accidents are of small significance for all plants.

9 

10 Entergy stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Entergy 2006a) that it is not aware of any new 

11 and significant information associated with the renewal of the JAFNPP OL. The staff has not 

12 identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER 

13 (Entergy 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available 

14 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to design basis 

15 accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

16 

17 5.1.2 Severe Accidents 

18 

19 Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result 

20 in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite conse21 quences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the license 

22 renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to 

23 conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the 

24 renewal period. 

25 

26 Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, 

27 fires, and sabotage have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and 

28 were not specifically considered for JAFNPP in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the GEIS 

29 the staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by NRC and by the industry at 

30 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyond design basis 

31 earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Also, the GEIS for license renewal has 

32 already “performed a discretionary analysis of terrorist acts in connection with license renewal, 

33 and concluded that the core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse 
Postulated Accidents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 5-4 June 2007 

1 than the damage and release to be expected from internally initiated events.” The GEIS 

2 contains an analysis of terrorist acts in connection with license renewal, and concluded that the 

3 core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse than the damage and 

4 release to be expected from internally initiated events. (Amergen Energy, Co. LLC., License 

5 Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear station), CLI-07-08, 65 NRC --. (slip op.) (Feb. 26, 2007). 

6 Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the risk from sabotage and beyond design 

7 basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is small and additionally, that the risks from 

8 other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of internally initiated 

9 severe accidents. 

10 

11 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

12 

The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open 

bodies of water, releases to ground water, 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.

13 

14 Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2 issue 

15 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to JAFNPP, is 

16 listed in Table 5-2. 

17 

18 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information with regard to the 

19 consequences from severe accidents during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 

20 2006a), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, and its evaluation of other available 

21 information and public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 

22 there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However, in 

23 accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe accident mitigation 

24 alternatives (SAMAs) for JAFNPP. The results of its review are discussed in Section 5.2. 
 Postulated Accidents 

June 2007 5-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

2 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

A, Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS 

Sections

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

SEIS 

Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

L 5.2

3 

4 

5 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

6 

7 Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to 

8 mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant's 

9 plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an environmental 

10 assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, 

11 procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance 

12 are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for JAFNPP; 

13 therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives. 

14 5.2.1 Introduction 

15 This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for JAFNPP conducted by Entergy 

16 Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), and described in the 

17 ER, and the NRC's review of this evaluation. The details of the review are described in the NRC 

18 staff evaluation that was prepared with contract assistance from Pacific Northwest National 

19 Laboratory. The entire evaluation for JAFNPP is presented in Appendix G.

20 The SAMA evaluation for JAFNPP was conducted with a four-step approach. In the first step 

21 Entergy quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant22 specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) and other risk models. 

23 In the second step Entergy examined the major risk contributors and identified possible ways 

24 (SAMAs) of reducing that risk. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to components, 

25 systems, procedures, and training. Entergy initially identified 293 potential SAMAs for JAFNPP. 

26 Entergy screened out 230 SAMAs from further consideration because they are not applicable at 

27 JAFNPP due to design differences, have already been implemented at JAFNPP, or are 

28 addressed by a similar SAMA. The remaining 63 SAMAs were subjected to further evaluation. 
Postulated Accidents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 5-6 June 2007 

1 In the third step Entergy estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the 

2 remaining SAMAs. Estimates were made of how much each SAMA could reduce risk. Those 

3 estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing 

4 regulatory analyses (NRC 1997). The cost of implementing the proposed SAMAs was also 

5 estimated. 

6 Finally, in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining SAMAs were 

7 compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the 

8 SAMA were greater than the cost (a positive cost-benefit). Entergy found five SAMAs to be 

9 potentially cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006a). However, based on further consideration of 

10 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs at other plants, Entergy identified one additional potentially 

11 cost-beneficial SAMA (Entergy 2006b). 

12 The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging 

13 during the period of extended operation; therefore, they need not be implemented as part of 

14 license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Entergy's SAMA analyses and the NRC's review 

15 are discussed in more detail below. 

16 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk 

17 Entergy submitted an assessment of SAMAs for JAFNPP as part of the ER (Entergy 2006a). 

18 This assessment was based on the most recent JAFNPP PSA available at that time, a plant19 specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence 

20 Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer program, and insights from the JAFNPP Individual Plant 

21 Examination (IPE) (NPA 1991) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) 

22 (NPA 1996). 

23 The baseline core damage frequency (CDF) for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is 

approximately 2.74 x 10-6 24 per year. This CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally25 initiated events. Entergy did not include the contribution to risk from external events within the 

26 JAFNPP risk estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits 

27 associated with external events by increasing the estimated benefits for internal events by a 

28 factor of 4. The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table 5-3. 

29 As shown in Table 5-3, events initiated by station blackout (SBO) and transients are the 

30 dominant contributors to the CDF. Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) sequences are 

31 not significant contributors to the CDF. 

32 

33 Entergy estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi of the JAFNPP site to be 

34 approximately 0.0163 person-Sv (1.63 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the total 

35 population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Containment 

36 failures within the late time frame (greater than 24 hours following event initiation) and the early 
 Postulated Accidents 

June 2007 5-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 time frame (0 to 24 hours following event initiation) dominate the population dose risk at 

2 JAFNPP, contributing about equally to the population dose risk. 

3 

4 The NRC staff has reviewed Entergy's data and evaluation methods and concludes that the 

5 quality of the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential 

6 for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs 

7 and offsite doses reported by Entergy. 

8 

9 Table 5-3. JAFNPP Core Damage Frequency 

10 

Initiating Event

CDF 

(per year)

Percent 

Contribution to 

CDF

Station Blackout 1.27 x 10-6 46

Transients with loss of containment heat removal 7.78x 10-7 28

Transients with loss of all emergency core 

cooling system (ECCS) injection

2.66 x 10-7 10

ATWS 1.38x 10-7 5

Loss of a 4.16kv alternate current (AC) 

safeguard bus

1.18 x 10-7 5

Loss of both direct current (DC) divisions 9.55 x 10-8 3

Loss of coolant accident (LOCAs) 2.83 x 10-8 1

Loss of a division of DC power 2.60 x 10-8 1

Relay room flooding 2.53 x 10-8 1

Total CDF (from internal events) 2.74 x 10-6 100 

11 
Postulated Accidents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 5-8 June 2007 

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

2 

Containment Release 

Mode

Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1

 

Per Year)

Percent 

Contribution

Late Containment Failure 0.87 53

Early Containment Failure 0.76 47

Intact Containment negligible negligible

Total 1.63 100 1 3 One person-Rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

4 

5 

6 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements

7 

8 Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, Entergy searched for ways to 

9 reduce that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, Entergy considered insights 

10 from the plant-specific PSA and SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have 

11 submitted license renewal applications. Entergy identified 293 potential risk-reducing 

12 improvements (SAMAs) to plant components, systems, procedures and training. 

13 Entergy removed 230 SAMAs from further consideration because they are not applicable at 

14 JAFNPP due to design differences, have already been implemented at JAFNPP, or are 

15 addressed by a similar SAMA. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was performed for each of the 

16 63 remaining SAMAs. 

17 The staff concludes that Entergy used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying 

18 potential plant improvements for JAFNPP, and that the set of potential plant improvements 

19 identified by Entergy is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. 

20 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements

21 Entergy evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 63 SAMAs. The majority of the 

22 SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that the SAMA was assumed to 

23 completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed enhancement. 

24 Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the 63 candidate SAMAs through the application of 

25 engineering judgment, and use of other licensees’ estimates for similar improvements. The cost 

26 estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended 

27 outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they include contingency costs 

28 associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. 
 Postulated Accidents 

June 2007 5-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The staff reviewed Entergy’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant 

2 improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction 

3 are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is similar to or 

4 somewhat higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its 

5 estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on Entergy’s risk reduction estimates. 

6 The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates. For certain improvements, the 

7 staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar 

8 improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for 

9 operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff found the cost estimates to be 

10 consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses. 

11 The staff concludes that the risk reduction and the cost estimates provided by Entergy are 

12 sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation. 

13 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

14 The cost-benefit analysis performed by Entergy was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 

15 1997) and was conducted consistent with this guidance. NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been 

16 revised to reflect the agency’s revised policy on discount rates. Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 

17 states that two sets of estimates should be developed – one at three percent and one at seven 

18 percent (NRC 2004). Entergy provided both sets of estimates (Entergy 2006a and 2006b). 

19 

20 Entergy identified five potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis contained in 

21 the ER (using a seven percent discount rate, and considering the combined impact of both 

22 external events and uncertainties). The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are: 

23 

24 · SAMA 26 – provide additional DC battery capacity to ensure longer battery capability 

25 during the station blackout event, which would extend high pressure coolant injection 

26 (HPCI)/ reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) operability and allow more time for AC 

27 power recovery. 

28 

29 · SAMA 30 – modify plant equipment to provide 16-hour SBO injection to improve 

30 capability to cope with longer SBO scenarios. 

31 

32 · SAMA 36 – modify plant equipment to extend DC power availability in an SBO event, 

33 which would extend HPCI/RCIC operability and allow more time for AC power recovery. 

34 

35 · SAMA 61 – modify plant procedures to allow use of a portable power supply for battery 

36 chargers, which would improve the availability of the DC power system. 

37 
Postulated Accidents 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 5-10 June 2007 

1 · SAMA 62 – modify plant procedures to open the doors of the emergency diesel 

2 generator (EDG) buildings upon receipt of a high temperature alarm, which improves the 

3 reliability of the EDGs following high temperatures in the EDG buildings. 

4 

5 In supplemental information to the ER, Entergy provided a revised assessment based on a 

6 separate accounting of uncertainties (Entergy 2006b). The revised assessment resulted in 

7 identification of the same potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. However, based on further 

8 consideration of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs at other plants, Entergy identified one 

9 additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA (Entergy 2006b). This alternative involves use of a 

10 portable generator (to power battery chargers) to extend the coping time in loss of AC power 

11 events. 

12 

13 The NRC staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 

14 discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated 

15 benefits. 

16 5.2.6 Conclusions 

17 The NRC staff reviewed Entergy’s analysis and concluded that the methods used and the 

18 implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs 

19 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable 

20 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external 

21 events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external event PSA, the likelihood of 

22 there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by improvements that 

23 have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process and increasing the estimated SAMA 

24 benefits for internal events by a multiplier to account for potential benefits in external events. 

25 Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, the staff concurs with Entergy’s identification of 

26 areas in which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the 

27 implementation of all or a subset of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for 

28 cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff considers that further evaluation of these SAMAs by 

29 Entergy is warranted. However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to 

30 adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, 

31 they need not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

32 

33 5.3 References

34 

35 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

36 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant --- License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

37 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

38 Accessible at ML062160557. 

39 

40 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. Letter from P. Dietrich, Entergy, to NRC 

41 Document Control Desk. Subject: “Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., James A. FitzPatrick 
 Postulated Accidents 

June 2007 5-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59, License Renewal Application, 

2 Amendment 1,” JAFP-06-0167, Lycoming, New York, dated December 6, 2006. Accessible at 

3 ML063480624. 

4 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

6 Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 

9 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1991. “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket 

10 No. 50-333, Individual Plant Examination,”(JPN-91-048), September 1991. 

11 

12 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1996. “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Individual 

13 Plant Examination for External Events,” (JAF-RPT-MISC-02211), June 1996, Revision 0.

14 

June 2007 6-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

2 AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 

3 Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are 

4 discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(1) 5 The GEIS includes a 

6 determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants 

7 and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a 

8 Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those 

9 that meet all of the following criteria: 

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

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

12 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

14 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 

15 high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

20 required unless new and significant information is identified. 

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

22 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. There are no Category 2 

23 issues related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management. 

24 This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 

25 management during the license renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

26 Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

27 (JAFNPP). The generic potential impacts of the radiological and non-radiological environmental 

28 impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in 

29 detail in the GEIS based, in part, on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51(b), 

30 Table S-3, “Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), 

31 Table S-4, “Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-

 

(1) 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. 
Fuel Cycle 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 6-2 June 2007 

1 Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.” The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 

2 also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99 in the GEIS. 

3 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

4 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to 

5 JAFNPP from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1. 

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

7 Solid Waste Management During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE– 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section 

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste) 

 6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 

6.2.4; 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 

disposal) 

 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 

8 

9 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), which 

10 operate JAFNPP, stated in its Environmental Report (ER) for JAFNPP (Entergy 2006) that it is 

11 not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the JAFNPP 

12 operating license. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during 
Fuel Cycle 

June 2007 6-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 its independent review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping 

2 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

3 that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For 

4 these issues, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL except for the 

5 collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, 

6 as discussed below, and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

7 sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

8 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, 

9 10 CFR Part 51, for each of these issues follows: 

10 • Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and 

11 high level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

12 Offsite impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the 

13 Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51(b)]. Based on information in 

14 the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases 

15 including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small. 

16 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

17 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

18 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

19 no offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond 

20 those discussed in the GEIS. 

21 • Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

22 Commission found that 

23 The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the 

24 fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be 

25 about 14,800 person rem [Roentgen Equivalent Man], or 12 cancer fatalities, for 

26 each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially 

27 the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny 

28 doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can 

29 theoretically be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of 

30 years as well as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would 

31 be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that 

32 even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be 

33 mitigated (for example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that 

34 these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these 

35 assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the 

36 possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For 
Fuel Cycle 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 6-4 June 2007 

1 perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits and even 

2 smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations. 

3 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory 

4 NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] implications of these matters 

5 should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every 

6 case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that 

7 these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large 

8 to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended 

9 operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the 

10 Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective 

11 effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1. 

12 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

13 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

14 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

15 no offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle during the 

16 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

17 • Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal). Based on information 

18 in the GEIS, the NRC found that 

19 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, 

20 there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the 

21 current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are 

22 developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

23 report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” and that in accordance 

24 with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository 

25 can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, 

26 peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1 mSv] per year or less. 

27 However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these 

28 assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits 

29 are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or 

30 reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible 

31 pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem 

32 [1 mSv] per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual 

33 doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and 

34 international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem [1 mSv] 

35 per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem [1 mSv] annual dose limit 

is about 3 x 10-3 36 . 

37 Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more 

38 problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously 
Fuel Cycle 

June 2007 6-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the 

2 Department of Energy in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

3 Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,” October 1980 

4 [DOE 1980]. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose 

5 commitment to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting 

6 from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, 

7 after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. 

8 Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable 

9 effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste 

10 repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More 

11 meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as 

12 more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain 

13 repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with 

14 respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard 

15 proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of 

16 potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative 

17 population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the 

18 view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a 

19 repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA’s [Environmental Protection 

20 Agency’s] generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191 generally provide an 

21 indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could 

22 result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate 

23 standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The 

24 standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing “containment 

25 requirements” that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released 

26 over 10,000 years. Reporting performance standards that will be required by 

27 EPA are expected to result in releases and associated health consequences in 

28 the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of 

29 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne [of heavy 

30 metal] (MTHM) repository. 

31 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory 

32 NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to 

33 repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into 

34 account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that 

35 these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for 

36 any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be 

37 eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of 

38 significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue 

39 is considered Category 1. 

40 On February 15, 2002, based on a recommendation by the Secretary of the Department of 

41 Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a 
Fuel Cycle 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 6-6 June 2007 

1 repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The 

2 U.S. Congress approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002, in House Joint Resolution 

3 87, which designated Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. On 

4 July 23, 2002, the President signed House Joint Resolution 87 into law; Public Law 107-200, 

5 116 Stat. 735 (2002) designates Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. 

6 This development does not represent new and significant information with respect to the 

7 offsite radiological impacts from license renewal related to disposal of spent nuclear fuel and 

8 high-level nuclear waste. 

9 EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently 

10 adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court 

11 of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s radiation protection 

12 standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits 

13 over a 10,000-year period. The Court’s decision also vacated the compliance period in 

14 NRC’s licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63. In response to the 

15 Court’s decision, EPA issued its proposed revised standards on August 22, 2005 

16 (70 Federal Register [FR] 49014). In order to be consistent with EPA’s revised standards, 

17 NRC proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 63 on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313). 

18 Therefore, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, 

19 there is some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive 

20 nuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the 

21 affected provisions of the Commission’s regulations, we assumed that limits would be 

22 developed along the lines of the 1995 NAS report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain 

23 Standards (NAS 1995), and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence 

24 Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository that would comply with such limits could and likely 

25 would be developed at some site. 

26 Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the 

27 regulatory NEPA implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level 

28 waste disposal should be made. The NRC staff concludes that these impacts are 

29 acceptable in that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion 

30 that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.

31 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

32 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

33 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

34 no offsite radiological impacts related to spent fuel and HLW disposal during the renewal 

35 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
Fuel Cycle 

June 2007 6-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 • Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

2 Commission found that 

3 The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal 

4 of an operating license for any plant are found to be small. 

5 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

6 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

7 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

8 no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those 

9 discussed in the GEIS. 

10 • Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

11 found that 

12 The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses 

13 being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the 

14 environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The 

15 maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste storage 

16 during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be small. 

17 Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and 

18 nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste 

19 from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission 

20 concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste 

21 disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be 

22 decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 

23 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

24 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

25 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

26 no impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with the renewal term 

27 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

28 • Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

29 found that 

30 The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are 

31 in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and 

32 exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

33 License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and 

34 the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and 

35 nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from 
Fuel Cycle 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 6-8 June 2007 

1 any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission 

2 concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste 

3 disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be 

4 decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 

5 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

6 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

7 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

8 no impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond 

9 those discussed in the GEIS. 

10 • Onsite spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

11 The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of 

12 operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects 

13 through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored 

14 retrievable storage is not available. 

15 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

16 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

17 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

18 no impacts of onsite spent fuel associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in 

19 the GEIS. 

20 • Nonradiological waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

21 No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities 

22 and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at 

23 all plants. 

24 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

25 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

26 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

27 no nonradiological waste impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

28 GEIS. 

29 • Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

30 The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with 

31 average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to 

32 62,000 MWd/MTU [megawatt days per metric ton of uranium] and the cumulative 

33 impacts of transporting high-level waste to a single repository, such as Yucca 

34 Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the impact values contained in 

35 10 CFR 51.52)(c), Summary Table S-4—Environmental Impact of Transportation 
Fuel Cycle 

June 2007 6-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. 

2 If fuel enrichment or burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an 

3 assessment of the implications for the environmental impact values reported in 

4 §51.52. 

5 JAFNPP meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the 

6 GEIS (NRC 1999). The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information 

7 during its independent review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the 

8 scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff 

9 concludes that there are no impacts of transportation associated with license renewal 

10 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

11 6.2 References

12 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

13 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

14 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

15 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

16 10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High17 Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

18 40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191, 

19 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear 

20 Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.” 

21 70 FR 53313. 70 Federal Register 53313. 2005, September 8. “Implementation of a Dose 

22 Standard After 10,000 Years; Proposed Rule.” 

23 70 FR 49014. 70 Federal Register 49014. 2005, August 22. “Public Health and Environmental 

24 Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule.” 

25 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006. 

26 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

27 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

28 Accessible at ML062160557. 

29 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

30 National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

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

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 6-10 June 2007 

1 Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735. 2002. “Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for 

2 the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 

3 nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.” 

4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management 

5 of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F, Washington, D.C. 

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

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear 

8 Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

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

10 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Office of 

11 Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 
June 2007 7-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING 

2 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

3 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental 

4 Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the 

5 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The 

6 NRC staff’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in NUREG7 0586, Supplement 1, identifies a range of impacts for each environmental issue. 

8 The incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities resulting 

9 from continued plant operation during the renewal term are discussed in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(1) 11 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the 

12 analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional 

13 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a 

14 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of 

15 the following criteria: 

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

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

18 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

20 the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 

21 from high level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

26 required unless new and significant information is identified. 

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

28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. There are no Category 2 

29 issues related to decommissioning. 

 

(1) 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 7-2 June 2007 

1 7.1 Decommissioning

2 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to 

3 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) decommissioning following the renewal 

4 term are listed in Table 7-1. Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operation, 

5 Inc. (Entergy) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Entergy 2006) that it is aware of no new 

6 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of JAFNPP license renewal. 

7 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

8 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

9 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 

10 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues, 

11 the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific 

12 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

13 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of JAFNPP 

14 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 

15 

16 A brief description of the NRC staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, 

17 for each of the issues follows: 

18 • Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

19 Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless 

20 of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase 

21 no more than 1 man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the 

22 license renewal term. 

23 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

24 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

25 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 
 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

June 2007 7-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 no radiation dose impacts associated with decommissioning following the license renewal 

2 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

3 • Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

4 Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate 

5 no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in 

6 the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected. 

7 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

8 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

9 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

10 no impacts from solid waste associated with decommissioning following the license renewal 

11 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

12 • Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

13 Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the 

14 end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term. 

15 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

16 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

17 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

18 no impacts on air quality associated with decommissioning following the license renewal 

19 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

20 • Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

21 The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no 

22 greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period 

23 or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available 

24 to avoid such impacts. 

25 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

26 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

27 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

28 no impacts on water quality associated with decommissioning following the license renewal 

29 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

30 • Ecological resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

31 Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year 

32 license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 7-4 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

2 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

3 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

4 no impacts on ecological resources associated with decommissioning following the license 

5 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

6 • Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

7 Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The 

8 impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 

9 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and 

10 economic growth. 

11 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

12 review of the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or its 

13 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are 

14 no socioeconomic impacts associated with decommissioning following the license renewal 

15 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

16 7.2 References

17 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

18 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

19 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006. 

20 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: – 

21 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

22 Accessible at ML062160557. 

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

24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Office of Nuclear 

25 Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

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

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. 

28 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

30 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

31 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 
June 2007 8-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 

2 TO LICENSE RENEWAL 

3 This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal 

4 of an operating license (OL) (i.e., the no-action alternative) and the potential environmental 

5 impacts from electric power generating sources other than the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

6 Power Plant (JAFNPP); the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to 

7 replace power generated by JAFNPP and the associated environmental impacts; the potential 

8 environmental impacts from a combination of generation and conservation measures; and other 

9 generation alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for complete replacement of power 

10 generated by JAFNPP. The environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear 

11 Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) three-level standard of significance—SMALL, MODERATE, 

12 or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in 

13 the footnotes to Table B-1 of Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

14 Part 51), Subpart A, Appendix B: 

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

16 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

17 MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 

18 important attributes of the resource. 

19 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

20 important attributes of the resource. 

21 The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999)(1) 23 with the additional impact category of environmental 

24 justice. 

25 8.1 No-Action Alternative

26 The NRC’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

27 specify that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC environmental impact statement 

28 (EIS); see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A(4). For license renewal, the no-action 

29 alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would not renew the JAFNPP OL and JAFNPP 

 

(1) 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-2 June 2007 

1 would then cease facility operations by the end of the current license and initiate the 

2 decommissioning of the power plant. 

3 JAFNPP will eventually be required to shut down and to comply with NRC decommissioning 

4 requirements in 10 CFR 50.82 whether or not the OL is renewed. If the JAFNPP OL is 

5 renewed, shutdown of the unit and decommissioning activities will not be avoided but will be 

6 postponed for up to an additional 20 years. 

7 The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning following a license renewal period 

8 of up to 20 years or following the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of 

9 impacts in Chapter 7 of the GEIS; Chapter 7 of this draft supplemental environmental impact 

10 statement (draft SEIS); and the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on 

11 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The impacts 

12 of decommissioning after 60 years of operation are not expected to be significantly different 

13 from those occurring after 40 years of operation. 

14 Impacts from the decision to permanently cease operations are not considered in NUREG-0586, 

Supplement 1 (NRC 2002).(2) 15 Therefore, immediate impacts that occur between power plant 

16 shutdown and the beginning of decommissioning are considered here. These impacts will occur 

17 when the unit shuts down regardless of whether the license is renewed or not. These impacts 

18 are discussed below, with the results presented in Table 8-1. Power plant shutdown will result 

19 in a net reduction in power production capacity. The power not generated by JAFNPP during 

20 the license renewal term would likely be replaced by (1) power purchased from other electricity 

21 providers, (2) generating alternatives other than JAFNPP, (3) demand-side management and 

22 energy conservation, or (4) some combination of these options. The environmental impacts of 

23 these options are discussed in Section 8.2. 

24 • Land Use

25 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no impacts of 

26 continued power plant operation on land use. Onsite land use would not be affected 

27 immediately by the cessation of operations. Power plant structures and other facilities are 

28 likely to remain in place until decommissioning. The transmission lines associated with the 

29 project are expected to remain in service after the power plant stop operating. As a result, 

30 maintenance of the rights-of-way (ROWs) would continue as before. Therefore, there would 

31 be no impacts on land use from power plant shutdown. 

 

(2) NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 discusses the socioeconomic impacts of plant closure, but the results of 

the analysis in Appendix J are not incorporated in the analysis presented in the main body of the 

NUREG. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Land Use NO IMPACT No impacts because power plant shutdown is not expected 

to result in changes to onsite or offsite land use. 

Ecology SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because there would 

be a reduction in cooling water flow and the thermal plume 

from the power plant, and terrestrial impacts are not 

expected because there would not be any land-use 

changes. 

Water Use and Quality – 

Surface Water 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because surface water 

intake and discharges would decrease. 

Water Use and Quality - 

Groundwater 

NO IMPACT There is no groundwater use at the site. 

Air Quality SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because discharges 

related to power plant operation and worker transportation 

would decrease. 

Waste SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because generation of 

high-level waste would stop, and generation of low-level 

and mixed waste would decrease. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because radiological 

doses to workers and members of the public, which are 

within regulatory limits, would be reduced. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impacts are expected to be MODERATE to LARGE 

because of a decrease in employment and tax revenues to 

local jurisdictions. 

Transportation SMALL Transportation impacts would be SMALL because the 

decrease in employment would reduce traffic. 

Aesthetics NO IMPACT No impacts are expected because power plant structures 

would remain in place. 

Historic and 

Archaeological Resources 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because shutdown of 

the power plant would not change land use. 

Environmental Justice SMALL to 

LARGE 

Economic impacts are expected to be SMALL to LARGE 

because loss of employment opportunities is expected. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-4 June 2007 

1 • Ecology

2 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the ecological impacts of power 

3 plant operation were SMALL. Cessation of operations would be accompanied by a 

4 reduction in cooling water flow and the thermal plume from the power plant. 

5 The impact of power plant closure on the terrestrial ecosystem would be negligible because 

6 the transmission lines to the power plant would remain energized. Therefore, the NRC staff 

7 concludes that ecological impacts from shutdown of the power plant would be SMALL. 

8 • Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

9 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that impacts of power plant 

10 operation on surface water use and quality were SMALL. When the power plant stops 

11 operating, there would be an immediate reduction in the consumptive use of water because 

12 of reduction in cooling water flow and in the amount of heat transferred to Lake Ontario. 

13 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface water use and quality from 

14 power plant shutdown would be SMALL. 

15 • Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

16 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no impacts on 

17 groundwater use, availability, and quality. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 

18 would be no impact on groundwater use and quality from shutdown of the power plant. 

19 • Air Quality

20 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff found the impacts of power plant operation on 

21 air quality were SMALL. When the power plant stops operating, there would be a reduction 

22 in emissions from activities related to power plant operation such as use of diesel 

23 generators and worker transportation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact 

24 on air quality from shutdown of the power plant would be SMALL. 

25 • Waste

26 The impacts of waste generated by power plant operation are discussed in Chapter 6 of this 

27 draft SEIS. The impacts of low-level and mixed waste from power plant operation would be 

28 SMALL. When the power plant stops operating, the power plant would stop generating 

29 high-level waste, and the generation of low-level and mixed waste associated with power 

30 plant operation and maintenance would be reduced. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

31 that the impact of waste generated after shutdown of the power plant would be SMALL.
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 • Human Health

2 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of power plant 

3 operation on human health were SMALL. After the cessation of operations, the amount of 

4 radioactive material released to the environment in gaseous and liquid forms would be 

5 reduced. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of shutdown of the power plant 

6 on human health would be SMALL. In addition, the variety of potential accidents at the 

7 power plant would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events and spent 

8 fuel handling. In Chapter 5 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of 

9 accidents during operation were SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

10 impacts of potential accidents following shutdown of the power plant would be SMALL. 

11 • Socioeconomics

12 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no 

13 socioeconomic impacts of continued power plant operation. Conversely, there would be 

14 immediate socioeconomic impacts associated with the shutdown of the power plant because 

15 of the reduction in power plant staff. There would also be an immediate reduction in 

16 property tax revenues for Oswego County. The NRC staff concludes that the 

17 socioeconomic impacts of power plant shutdown would range from MODERATE to LARGE. 

18 Some of these impacts would be offset if new power-generating facilities were built at or 

19 near the current site. See Appendix J of NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), for 

20 additional discussion of the potential impacts of power plant shutdown. 

21 • Transportation

22 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued power 

23 plant operation on transportation would be SMALL. Cessation of operations would be 

24 accompanied by a reduction in traffic in the vicinity of the power plant. Most of the reduction 

25 would be associated with a reduction in the power plant workforce but there would also be a 

26 reduction in shipment of material to and from the power plant. Therefore, the NRC staff 

27 concludes that the impacts of power plant closure on transportation would be SMALL. 

28 • Aesthetics

29 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no aesthetic 

30 impacts of continued power plant operation. Power plant structures and other facilities 

31 would remain in place until decommissioning. Therefore, there would be no aesthetic 

32 impacts from power plant closure. 

33 • Historic and Archaeological Resources

34 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued power 

35 plant operation on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL. Onsite land use 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-6 June 2007 

1 would not be affected immediately by the cessation of operations. Power plant structures 

2 and other facilities are likely to remain in place until decommissioning. The transmission 

3 lines associated with the project are expected to remain in service after the power plant 

4 stops operating. As a result, maintenance of transmission line ROWs would continue as 

5 before. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on historic and archaeological 

6 resources from power plant shutdown would be SMALL. 

7 • Environmental Justice

8 In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no 

9 disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations from 

10 the continued operation of the power plant. Shutdown of the power plant would have 

11 disproportionately high and adverse economic impacts on minority and low-income 

12 populations because of the loss of employment opportunities at the site. The NRC staff 

13 concludes that the impacts of power plant shutdown on minority and low-income populations 

14 could range from SMALL to LARGE. Some of these impacts would be offset if new power15 generating facilities are built at or near the current site. See Appendix J of NUREG-0586, 

16 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), for additional discussion of these impacts. 

17 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

18 This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric 

19 power to replace the power generated by JAFNPP, assuming that the OL is not renewed. The 

20 order of presentation of alternative energy sources in this section does not imply which 

21 alternative would be most likely to occur or would have the least environmental impact. 

22 The following power generation alternatives are considered in detail: 

23 • Coal-fired generation at an alternate site (Section 8.2.1) 

24 • Natural gas-fired generation at the JAFNPP site and an alternate site (Section 8.2.2) 

25 • New nuclear generation at the JAFNPP site and an alternate site (Section 8.2.3) 

26 The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated at JAFNPP 

27 is discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power-generation alternatives and conservation 

28 alternatives considered by the NRC staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for 

29 JAFNPP baseload power is discussed in Section 8.2.5. Section 8.2.6 discusses the 

30 environmental impacts of a combination of generation and conservation alternatives. 

31 Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of 

32 Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. The Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with 

33 Projections to 2030 was issued in February 2007 (DOE/EIA 2007). EIA projects that natural 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 gas-fired and coal-fired electricity generation will constitute approximately 90 percent of 

2 electrical capacity additions between 2006 and 2030. Natural gas-fired generation is typically 

based on combined-cycle(3) 3 or combustion turbine technology, which can supply peak and 

intermediate capacity and can also be used to meet baseload(4) 4 requirements. Coal-fired power 

5 plants are generally used to meet baseload requirements. Renewable energy sources, 

6 including conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, municipal solid waste, 

7 landfill gas, other biomass, solar and wind power are projected by EIA to account for 6 percent 

8 of capacity additions (DOE/EIA 2007). 

9 EIA projects that oil-fired generation will continue to decrease in the U.S. through 2030 because 

10 high world oil prices encourage switching from oil-fired generation to natural gas and nuclear 

11 power and reinforce coal’s important role in world electric power generation. Similarly, the 

12 relatively high fossil fuel prices of recent years are raising renewed interest in nuclear power 

13 and making renewable energy sources more competitive economically. EIA’s projections are 

14 based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will seek to minimize cost 

15 while meeting applicable environmental requirements. The cost of new oil-fired generation is 

16 not expected to be competitive with that of coal, natural gas, or renewable energy sources 

17 (DOE/EIA 2007). 

18 EIA also projects a small increase in nuclear power generation through 2030, accounting for 

19 0.6 percent of the generation growth (DOE/EIA 2007). The projected growth in nuclear power 

20 generation is not higher because natural gas and coal-fired power plants are projected to be 

21 more economical. In spite of this projection, since 1997, the NRC has certified four new 

22 standard designs for nuclear power plants under procedures in 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. 

23 Therefore, a new nuclear power plant alternative for replacing power generated by JAFNPP is 

24 considered in Section 8.2.3. The submission to the NRC of these three applications for 

25 certification indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. 

26 The NRC has established a new organization to prepare for and manage future reactor and site 

27 licensing applications. 

28 JAFNPP has a gross rating of 881 megawatts-electric (MWe). For the coal alternative, the NRC 

29 staff assumed construction of an 816-MWe power plant. For the natural gas alternative, the 

30 NRC staff assumed construction of an 816-MWe power plant, which is consistent with the 

31 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

32 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage (JAFNPP ER) (Entergy 

 

(3) In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gas in a combustion turbine rotates the turbine to generate 

electricity. The hot exhaust from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to 

make steam to generate additional electricity. 

(4) A baseload 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 baseload generation, i.e., these units generally run near full load. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-8 June 2007 

1 2006). For the new nuclear alternative, the NRC staff assumed construction of a 1000-MWe 

2 power plant. This assumption will overstate the environmental impacts of replacing the 881 

3 MWe from JAFNPP by roughly 13.5 percent. 

4 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation

5 The NRC staff believes that the JAFNPP site would not be a viable location for a representative 

6 coal-fired power plant. The primary consideration pertinent to this determination is the size of 

7 the JAFNPP site. Use of the site would necessitate offsite disposal of combustion waste. 

8 Therefore, the NRC staff assumes that the representative coal-fired power plant would be 

9 located at an alternate site. 

10 Consistent with the JAFNPP ER, the NRC staff assumes construction of two 408-MWe units for 

11 a combined capacity of 816 MWe as a potential replacement for JAFNPP. The assumption of 

12 816 MWe is slightly less generating capacity than JAFNPP’s capacity of 881 MWe, but the NRC 

13 staff concludes that the differences are not significant and would not change the standard of 

14 significance (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of any impacts. 

15 Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are 

16 from the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006). The NRC staff reviewed this information and compared it 

17 to environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only 

18 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered as a 

19 reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired power plant. 

20 The coal-fired power plant would consume approximately 2.36 million tons per year (tons/yr) of 

21 pulverized bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately 7.11 percent (Entergy 2006). 

JAFNPP assumes a heat rate(5) of 10,200 BTU/kWh and a capacity factor(6) 22 of 0.85 in its ER 

23 (Entergy 2006). After combustion, 99.9 percent of the ash would be collected and disposed at 

24 either an onsite or offsite landfill. In addition, approximately 136,995 tons of scrubber sludge 

25 would be disposed of at the power plant site based on annual limestone usage of approximately 

26 46,241 tons. Limestone is used in the scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

27 emissions. 

 

(5) Heat rate is measure of generating station thermal efficiency. In English units, it is generally 

expressed in British thermal units (BTUs) per net kilowatt-hour (kWh). It is computed by dividing the 

total BTU content of the fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting kWh generation. The 

corresponding metric unit for energy is the Joule (J). 

(6) The capacity factor is the ratio of electricity generated, for the period of time considered, to the energy 

that would have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System 

2 For purposes of this section, the NRC staff assumed that a coal-fired power plant located at an 

3 alternate site would use a once-through cooling system. The overall impacts of the coal-fired 

4 generating system using once-through cooling are discussed in this section and summarized in 

5 Table 8-2. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on the location of the site. 

6 In Section 8.2.1.2, the NRC staff evaluates the impacts of using a closed-cycle cooling system 

7 at an alternate site. 

8 • Land Use

9 Development of the coal-fired power plant would require approximately 1387 acres (ac) of 

10 land for the power plant site. Additional land would be necessary to allow for an onsite and 

11 peripheral buffer. The NRC estimates that 1700 ac would be required for a 1000-MWe 

12 power plant. Depending on the location of the power plant, additional land would be 

13 required for offsite infrastructure, particularly transmission lines to connect the power plant to 

14 the grid and facilities for coal and limestone delivery, most likely including a rail spur and 

15 possibly some upgrades to existing or recently abandoned rail lines. Construction of a 

16 barge terminal would also be a reasonable option for a power plant located on Lake Ontario. 

17 Land-use changes would also occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply 

18 coal for the power plant. In the GEIS, the NRC staff estimated that approximately 22 ac of 

19 land per MWe would be affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a 

20 coal-fired power plant during its operational life. Therefore, the 816-MWe power plant 

21 proposed in this analysis would require approximately 17,592 ac of land to support the entire 

22 fuel cycle. 

23 The location and design of coal-fired power plant facilities at an alternate site would be 

24 subject to substantial regulatory scrutiny and that a reasonable potential exists for the 

25 eventual restoration of disposal areas and the development of compatible uses that would 

26 not affect landfill integrity (e.g., recreation). Under these assumptions, the NRC staff 

27 expects that land-use impacts would be noticeable but would not affect land-use 

28 characteristics at an existing industrial site. Depending particularly on transmission line and 

29 rail line routing, this alternative would result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts. 

30 • Ecology

31 Impacts on ecological resources from construction and from operation of the representative 

32 coal-fired power plant would be highly site-specific. However, as much as 1387 ac of 

33 terrestrial habitat would be displaced by the power plant and onsite landfill, and additional 

34 terrestrial habitat would be adversely affected from development of offsite infrastructure 

35 (e.g., transmission line connection, rail spur construction). Impacts would depend on 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-10 June 2007 

1 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation 

2 at an Alternate Site Using Once-Through Cooling 

Impact Category Impact Comments 

Land Use MODERATE 

 to LARGE 

Would use approximately 1387 ac for the power plant roads, 

parking areas, office buildings, and transmission line. There 

would be additional land impacts for coal and limestone mining. 

The total impact would depend on whether the alternate site had 

been previously disturbed or had existing infrastructure. 

Ecology MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impacts would depend on whether the site had been previously 

developed. Factors to consider include location and ecology of 

the site, transmission line route, and rail spur route. In total, 

impacts would include habitat degradation, fragmentation, or 

loss as a result of construction activities and conversion of land 

to industrial use. Ecological communities might experience 

reduced productivity and biological diversity from disturbing 

previously intact land. 

Water Use And Quality 

—Surface Water 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on the volume of water withdrawn and 

discharged and the characteristics of the surface water body. 

Water Use and Quality 

—Groundwater 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on the volume of water withdrawn and 

discharged and the characteristics of the aquifer. 

Air Quality MODERATE • Sulfur oxides: 2514 tons/yr 

• Nitrogen oxides: 591 tons/yr 

• Particulates: 19 tons/yr of PM10

• Carbon monoxide: 591 tons/yr 

• Small amounts of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants 

and naturally occurring radioactive materials— mainly 

uranium and thorium. 

• Total suspended particulates: 84 tons/yr 

Waste MODERATE Total waste volume would be approximately 136,995 tons/yr of 

ash and scrubber sludge requiring approximately 161 ac for 

disposal during the 40-year life of the power plant. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain but considered SMALL in the absence of 

more quantitative data. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 

Table 8-2 (cont.) 

Impact Category Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts are expected to be SMALL to LARGE because of a 

decrease in employment and tax revenues to local jurisdictions. 

Transportation SMALL 

to LARGE 

Transportation impacts associated with construction could be 

MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts associated 

with power plant operations would also be site-dependent and 

would be SMALL to MODERATE. For rail transportation of coal 

and lime, the impact would be MODERATE to LARGE. For 

barge transportation, the impact would be SMALL. 

Aesthetics SMALL 

to LARGE 

Impacts would include visual impairment, construction of new 

transmission lines, and infrastructure for the delivery of coal and 

limestone. The impact severity would be dependent on location. 

Historic and 

Archaeological 

Resources 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Building a coal-fired power plant and other support facilities 

would require cultural resource studies. Impacts would vary 

depending on location and presence of historic and 

archaeological resources. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL 

to LARGE 

Impacts to minority and low-income populations would vary 

depending on the site location of the power plant and other 

support facilities. 

2 

3 whether the site had been previously developed. Factors to consider include location and 

4 ecology of the site, transmission line route, and rail spur route. In total, impacts would 

5 include habitat degradation, fragmentation, or loss as a result of construction activities and 

6 conversion of land to industrial use. Ecological communities might experience reduced 

7 productivity and biological diversity from disturbing previously intact land. 

8 Impact to aquatic communities as a result of construction would include some permanent 

9 alteration of habitat, particularly if a barge terminal were developed for delivery of coal and 

10 limestone. Fish and benthic communities would be initially disrupted but would be expected 

11 to reestablish with accompanying localized changes in species composition and distribution 

12 in response to changes in bottom substrate availability, water depth, and other factors. 

13 Potential for some adverse impact on aquatic communities would persist through the 

14 operational period as a result of large boat traffic, periodic maintenance dredging, and 

15 potential for spills of coal, petroleum products, or other materials. However, construction 

16 and maintenance dredging would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 

17 applicable permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the New York State 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-12 June 2007 

1 Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Similarly, spill prevention measures 

2 would be effective during the operational period. Once-through cooling water withdrawal 

3 and discharge would have adverse aquatic resource impacts. 

4 Given this information, the NRC staff concludes that development of the representative coal5 fired power plant at an alternate site in upstate New York would have a MODERATE to 

6 LARGE impact on ecological communities. 

7 • Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

8 Construction phase impacts on water quality of greatest potential concern at an alternate 

9 site would include (1) erosion and sedimentation associated with land-clearing operations, 

10 and (2) suspension of bottom sediments during construction of cooling water intake and 

11 discharge structures and, if the option were chosen, from construction of barge delivery 

12 facilities. However, land-clearing activities are subject to storm-water protections in 

13 accordance with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. Work 

14 in waterways would be regulated by the USACE under the Clean Water Act of 1977, 

15 Section 404, and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 10, by the 

16 NYSDEC via permits and by the New York Department of State (NYSDOS) under the 

17 State’s Coastal Zone Management program (if located within the coastal zone). In addition, 

18 these adverse effects would be localized and temporary. The NRC staff concludes that 

19 impacts on surface water quality associated with construction of the representative power 

20 plant would be SMALL. 

21 Potential impacts on water quality and use associated with operation of the representative 

22 power plant would be to some extent site-specific. Cooling water and other wastewater 

23 discharges would be regulated by a SPDES permit regardless of location. The impact on 

24 surface water would depend on the volume of water withdrawn and discharged and the 

25 characteristics of the surface water body. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 

26 surface water use and quality from the operation of a representative power plant located at 

27 an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

28 • Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

29 Use of groundwater for a coal-fired power plant at an alternate site is possible. 

30 Groundwater withdrawal would require a permit. Overall, the impact to groundwater at an 

31 alternate site is considered SMALL to MODERATE and would depend on the volume of 

32 water that is withdrawn and discharged and the characteristics of the aquifers. 

33 • Air Quality

34 The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear 

35 generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates, 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 carbon monoxide, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring 

2 radioactive materials. 

3 Oswego County is designated as unclassifiable or in attainment with all criteria pollutants. 

4 The nearest area of non-attainment is Jefferson County, which is classified as marginal for 

5 ozone. Onondaga County, where Syracuse is located, is a maintenance area for carbon 

6 monoxide and classified as moderate, i.e., less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm). 

7 A new coal-fired generating power plant in upstate New York would likely need a prevention 

8 of significant deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act of 

9 1970. The power plant would need to comply with the new source performance standards 

10 for such power plants set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart D(a). The standards establish limits 

11 for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 60.42[a]), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43[a]), and NOx

12 (40 CFR 60.44[a]). The facility would be designed to meet best available control technology 

13 (BACT) or lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) standards, as applicable, for control of 

14 criteria air emissions. 

15 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for 

16 visibility protection in 40 CFR 51, Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of 

17 any new major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassified under 

18 the Clean Air Act. 

19 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing 

20 future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 

21 when impairment results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze 

22 rule in 1999 (64 FR 35714; July 1,1999 [EPA 1999]). The rule specifies that for each 

23 mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the State must establish goals that 

24 provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The 

25 reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most26 impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 

27 visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. If a coal28 fired power plant were located close to a mandatory Class I Federal area, additional air 

29 pollution control requirements would be imposed. It is assumed that an alternate site would 

30 not be chosen near a mandatory Class I Federal area. 

31 In 1998, the EPA issued a rule requiring 22 Eastern states, including New York, to revise their 

32 state implementation plans to reduce NOx emissions, which contribute to violations of the 

33 national ambient air quality standard for ozone (EPA 1998). The total amount of NOx that can 

34 be emitted by each of the 22 Eastern states in the year 2007 ozone season (May 1 to 

35 September 30) is set out at 40 CFR 51.121(e). For New York, the amount is 190,360 tons. 

36 Impacts for particular pollutants are as follows: 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-14 June 2007 

1 Sulfur oxides emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the 

2 requirements in Title IV of the Clean Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of 

3 SO2 and NOx, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these 

4 pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 emissions 

5 and imposes controls on SO2 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. EPA 

6 issues one allowance for each ton of SO2 a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive 

7 allowances but are required to have allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners of 

8 new units must therefore acquire allowances from owners of other power plants by 

9 purchasing them or reducing SO2 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances 

10 can be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to 

11 net regional SO2 emissions, although it might do so locally. Regardless, SO2 emissions 

12 would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative because a nuclear 

13 power plant releases negligible amounts of SO2 during normal operations. 

14 Entergy estimates that by using the BACT to minimize SOx emissions, the total annual stack 

15 emissions would be approximately 2514 tons of SOx (Entergy 2006). 

16 Nitrogen oxides emissions. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology17 based emission limitations for NOx emissions. The market-based allowance system used 

18 for SO2 emissions is not used for NOx emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be 

19 subject to the new source performance standards for such power plants in 40 CFR 

20 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 (63 FR 49453 [EPA 1998]), 

21 limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as NO2) in excess 

22 of 200 nanograms per Joule (ng/J) of gross energy output (1.6 pounds per megawatt hour 

23 [lb/MWh]), based on a 30-day rolling average. 

24 Entergy estimates that by using NOx burners with overfire air and selective catalytic 

25 reduction (SCR), the total annual NOx emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be 

26 approximately 591 tons. Regardless of the control technology, this level of NOx emissions 

27 would be greater than the OL renewal alternative because a nuclear power plant releases 

28 negligible amounts of NOx during normal operations. 

29 Particulate emissions. Entergy estimated that for coal-fired generation, the total annual 

30 stack emissions would include 84 tons of total suspended particulates and 19 tons of 

31 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10). 

32 Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators would be used for control. In addition, coal33 handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions. Particulate emissions 

34 would be greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative because nuclear 

35 power plants release few particles during normal operation. 

36 During the construction of a coal-fired power plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In 

37 addition, exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used 

38 during the construction process. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Carbon monoxide emissions. Entergy estimated that for a coal-fired power plant, the total 

2 carbon monoxide emissions would be approximately 591 tons/yr. This level of emissions is 

3 greater than the OL renewal alternative. 

4 Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, the EPA issued 

5 regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam6 generating units (EPA 2000b). The EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility 

7 steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power 

8 plants were found by the EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, 

9 hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). The 

10 EPA concluded that mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. The EPA 

11 found that (1) there is a link between coal consumption and mercury emissions, (2) electric 

12 utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury emissions, and 

13 (3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus, subsistence fish14 eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to 

15 mercury exposures resulting from consumption of contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). 

16 Accordingly, the EPA added coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units to the 

17 list of source categories under Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act for which emission 

18 standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued (EPA 2000b). 

19 Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are 

20 generally in the range of 1 to 10 ppm. Thorium concentrations are generally about 2.5 times 

21 greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that a typical coal22 fired power plant released roughly 5.2 tons of uranium and 12.8 tons of thorium in 1982 

23 (Gabbard 1993). The population dose equivalent from the uranium and thorium releases 

24 and daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes has been calculated to be 

25 significantly higher than that from nuclear power plants (Gabbard 1993). 

26 Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired power plant would have unregulated carbon dioxide 

27 emissions that would contribute to global warming. The level of emissions from a coal-fired 

28 power plant would be greater than the OL renewal alternative. 

29 Summary. The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but 

30 implies that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentions global warming from 

31 unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx emissions as 

32 potential impacts. Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema have 

33 been associated with the products of coal combustion. 

34 The NRC staff concludes that the overall impact on air quality from a coal-fired power plant, 

35 located at an alternate site in upstate New York, would be MODERATE. The impacts would 

36 be clearly noticeable but would not destabilize air quality. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-16 June 2007 

1 • Waste

2 Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air 

3 pollution generates additional ash and scrubber sludge. The representative coal-fired power 

4 plant would generate approximately 136,995 tons of this waste annually for 40 years. The 

5 waste would be disposed of onsite, accounting for approximately 161 ac of land area over 

6 the 40-year power plant life. Waste impacts to groundwater and surface water would extend 

7 beyond the operating life of the power plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage 

8 area occurred. Disposal of the waste would noticeably affect land use and groundwater 

9 quality, but with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any 

10 resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land would be available for 

11 other uses. Debris would be generated during construction activities. 

12 In 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the 

13 Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (EPA 2000b). The EPA concluded that some form of national 

14 regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because (1) the 

15 composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment 

16 under certain conditions, (2) the EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven 

17 damages to human health and the environment by improper management of these wastes 

18 in landfills and surface impoundments, (3) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, 

19 these wastes were being managed in 40 to 70 percent of landfills and surface 

20 impoundments without reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater 

21 monitoring, and (4) the EPA identified gaps in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. 

22 Accordingly, the EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal 

23 combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

24 1976. 

25 For all of the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste 

26 generated from burning coal is MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable but 

27 would not destabilize any important resource. 

28 • Human Health

29 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from fuel and limestone mining, fuel and 

30 lime/limestone transportation, and disposal of coal combustion waste. In addition, there are 

31 public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts can be widespread, and 

32 health risks can be difficult to quantify. The coal alternative also introduces the risk of coal33 pile fires and attendant inhalation risks. 

34 In the GEIS, the NRC staff stated that there would be human health impacts (cancer and 

35 emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates, but the NRC staff did not identify the 

36 significance of these impacts. In addition, uranium and thorium discharges from coal-fired 

37 power plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess of those arising from 

38 nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and state agencies, set air emission standards and 

2 requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific 

3 emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has 

4 recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus, 

5 subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health 

6 effects due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, 

7 in the absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and 

8 inhaling toxins and particulates generated by burning coal are characterized as SMALL. 

9 • Socioeconomics

10 It is estimated that the 816-MWe coal-fired power plant would take approximately four years 

11 to construct with a workforce ranging from 979 to 2040 workers (Entergy 2006). The extent 

12 of socioeconomic impacts from the construction of the coal-fired power plant would depend 

13 on its location. As the NRC notes in the GEIS, socioeconomic impacts are expected to be 

14 larger at a rural site than at an urban site because more of the peak construction workforce 

15 would need to move to the area to work. Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be 

16 LARGE, while impacts at a site in the vicinity of a more populated metropolitan area (e.g., 

17 Syracuse) would be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts during construction would consist of 

18 short-term increased demand for rental housing and public services that could temporarily 

19 offset the loss of jobs and tax revenue from the closure of JAFNPP. Communities in 

20 Oswego County in particular would experience MODERATE to LARGE impacts due to 

21 losses in employment and tax revenues from the closure of JAFNPP, especially if the coal22 fired power plant is constructed outside the area. 

23 Overall, the socioeconomic impacts of a coal-fired power plant at an alternate site would be 

24 SMALL to LARGE depending on the location of the plant. 

25 • Transportation

26 Transportation-related impacts associated with construction at an alternate site are site27 dependent but would be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts related to power 

28 plant operations would also be site-dependent and would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

29 Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered to the site by rail or barge. 

30 Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be MODERATE to 

31 LARGE. For example, there would be highway traffic delays as trains pass road crossings. 

32 Barge delivery of coal and lime/limestone would likely have SMALL socioeconomic impacts. 

33 • Aesthetics

34 Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of the coal-fired power plant at an 

35 alternate site would include visual impairment from a large industrial facility. There would 

36 also be an aesthetic impact associated with construction of a new transmission line. Noise 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-18 June 2007 

1 and light from the power plant would be detectable offsite. Aesthetic impacts at the power 

2 plant site would be mitigated if the coal-fired power plant were located in an industrial area 

3 or adjacent to other power plants. Noise impacts from a rail spur, if required, would be most 

4 significant for residents living in the immediate vicinity of the power plant and along the rail 

5 route. 

6 These impacts are highly site-specific. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that depending 

7 on location aesthetic and noise impacts associated with the development and operation of a 

8 coal-fired power plant at an alternate site would range from SMALL to LARGE. 

9 • Historic and Archaeological Resources

10 Before construction at an alternate site, historic and archaeological studies would be needed 

11 to identify, evaluate, and address the potential impacts of new power plant construction on 

12 cultural resources. These studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at 

13 the proposed power plant site and other support facilities, and along associated corridors 

14 where new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, other 

15 ROWs). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed 

16 and as such are considered SMALL to MODERATE depending on location and presence of 

17 cultural resources. 

18 • Environmental Justice

19 Impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement coal-fired power 

20 plant built at an alternate site in New York State would depend on the location of the site and 

21 population distribution. Impacts on housing availability and prices during power plant 

22 construction could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Closure of 

23 JAFNPP would result in the loss of approximately 716 jobs causing economic conditions that 

24 could affect employment prospects for minority or low-income populations. Depending on plant 

25 location, overall impacts would vary between SMALL and LARGE. 

26 8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 

27 The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation system at an alternate site 

28 using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers would be essentially the same as for a coal-fired 

29 power plant using a once-through cooling system. However, there are some environmental 

30 differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3 

31 summarizes the incremental differences. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation 

2 at an Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling 

Impact Category Change in Impacts from Once-Through Cooling System 

Land Use 25 to 30 additional ac would be required for cooling towers and associated support 

infrastructure. 

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site. Reduced impact to aquatic ecology. 

Water Use and 

Quality— 

Surface Water 

Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing dissolved solids. Discharge would be 

regulated by the State. Decreased water withdrawal and less thermal load on the receiving 

body of water. Consumptive use of water due to evaporation from cooling towers. 

Water Use and 

Quality— 

Groundwater 

No change 

Air Quality No change 

Waste No change 

Human Health No change 

Socioeconomics No change 

Transportation No change 

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated plume. Natural draft towers would be up to 

520 ft tall. Mechanical draft towers would be up to 100 ft tall and would have an associated 

noise impact. 

Historic and 

Archaeological 

Resources 

No change 

Environmental Justice No change 

3 

4 8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation

5 The environmental impacts of a natural gas-fired alternative are examined in this section. The 

6 NRC staff reviewed Entergy’s ER and compared it to environmental impact information in the 

7 GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only 20 years, the impact of operating the natural gas8 fired alternative for 40 years is considered as a reasonable projection of the operating life of a 

9 natural gas-fired power plant. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-20 June 2007 

1 Entergy assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired power plant would use combined-cycle 

2 technology. In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate the 

3 turbine to generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the combustion turbine is routed 

4 through a heat-recovery boiler to make steam to generate additional electricity. 

5 For operation of a gas-fired facility at the existing JAFNPP site, an additional 25 miles (mi) of 

6 pipeline for gas supply would need to be constructed. Offsite infrastructure needed to locate the 

7 power plant at an alternate site is conjectural but would reasonably include a natural gas supply 

8 pipeline, transmission line, and makeup water and discharge pipelines. The extent to which 

9 such infrastructure would be required is location-specific, but such needs would be considered 

10 in siting the facility and would be subject to regulatory scrutiny under New York’s Public Service 

11 Law, Articles VII and X, or comparable process (Entergy 2006). 

12 The natural gas-fired alternative is analyzed for both the existing JAFNPP site and for an 

13 unnamed alternate site. Siting a new natural gas-fired power plant at the site of an existing 

14 nuclear power plant would reduce environmental impacts by allowing the new facility to take 

15 advantage of existing infrastructure, including transmission facilities, roads, parking areas, office 

16 buildings, and the existing cooling system (to the extent needed). Approximately 90 ac would 

17 be required to locate the gas-fired power plant at an alternative site. 

18 The NRC staff assumed that construction of the gas-fired units would be scheduled to coincide 

19 with the expiration date of the JAFNPP OL. Consistent with the JAFNPP ER (Entergy 2006), 

20 the NRC staff assumed a combined-cycle natural gas facility based on two 408-MWe combined21 cycle units for a total facility size of 816 MWe. This assumption slightly understates the 

22 environmental impacts of replacing the 881 MWe from JAFNPP. As a rough estimate, if a 

23 natural gas-fired power plant of exactly 881 MWe were built, any numerical impacts in this 

24 section, e.g., quantities of air pollutants, might simply be adjusted upward accordingly. 

25 However, given these adjustments, the NRC staff has determined that the differences in 

26 impacts between 816 MWe and 881 MWe of natural gas-fired generation would not be 

27 significant and would not change the standard of significance (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) 

28 of any impacts. 

29 The NRC staff assumed that the power plant would use a once-through cooling system. The 

30 impacts of using a closed-cycle cooling system are evaluated in Section 8.2.2.2. 

31 8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System 

32 The overall impacts of the natural gas-generating system using a once-through cooling system 

33 are discussed in this section and summarized in Table 8-4. The extent of impacts at an 

34 alternate site would depend on the location of the site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

2 JAFNPP Site and an Alternate Site Using Once-Through Cooling 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The natural gas-fired power 

plant would be constructed on 

undeveloped portions of the 

JAFNPP site. It would require 

upwards of 90 ac for power 

block, roads, parking areas, 

and a gas pipeline ROW. It 

would use existing 

infrastructure, minimizing new 

land requirements. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Land-use requirements 

would be larger at the 

alternate site than at the 

JAFNPP site because of the 

need for additional 

infrastructure such as 

transmission facilities, roads, 

parking areas, office 

buildings, and cooling 

system. The total impact 

would depend on whether 

the alternate site had been 

previously disturbed. 

Ecology MODERATE The natural gas-fired 

alternative at the JAFNPP site 

would be constructed partly 

on previously disturbed areas 

and would disturb relatively 

little acreage at the site. 

However, a 25-mi gas supply 

line would need to be 

constructed, which, assuming 

a construction ROW of 75 ft, 

would disrupt up to 230 ac of 

terrestrial habitat. Ecological 

impacts would include 

impacts on threatened or 

endangered species, wildlife 

habitat loss and reduced 

productivity, habitat 

fragmentation, and a local 

reduction in biological 

diversity. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on 

whether the alternate site is 

previously developed. 

Factors to consider include 

location and ecology of site 

and transmission line route. 

Ecological impacts would 

include impacts on 

threatened or endangered 

species, wildlife habitat loss 

and reduced productivity, 

habitat fragmentation, and a 

local reduction in biological 

diversity. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-22 June 2007 

1 

Table 8-4 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

Water 

SMALL Combined-cycle units have 

lower water requirements 

than nuclear and coal-fired 

power plants. The natural 

gas-fired alternative would 

use the existing once through 

cooling system. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Combined-cycle units have 

lower water requirements 

than nuclear and coal-fired 

power plants. Total impacts 

would depend on the volume 

and other characteristics of 

the receiving body of water. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

NO IMPACT JAFNPP does not have onsite 

pumpable groundwater wells. 

Potable water is supplied by 

the Town of Scriba. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impact to groundwater 

would depend on the site 

characteristics, including the 

amount of groundwater 

available. 

Air Quality MODERATE • SOx: 85 tons/yr 

• NOx: 272 tons/yr 

• Carbon monoxide: 

57 tons/yr 

• PM10 particulates: 

47 tons/yr 

• Other: (1) hazardous air 

pollutants, including 

arsenic, formaldehyde, 

and nickel and (2) carbon 

dioxide emissions, which 

contribute to global 

warming 

MODERATE The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the 

same as those for the 

JAFNPP site. 

Waste SMALL Minimal waste product from 

fuel combination 

SMALL The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the 

same as those for the 

JAFNPP site. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts would be minor. SMALL The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the 

same as those for the 

JAFNPP site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Table 8-4 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts are expected to be 

SMALL to LARGE because of 

a decrease in employment 

and tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

The impacts at an alternate 

site would be the same as 

those for the JAFNPP site. 

Transportation MODERATE Transportation impacts 

associated with construction 

would be MODERATE. 

MODERATE Transportation impacts 

associated with construction 

would be MODERATE. 

Aesthetics SMALL Construction and operation of 

a natural gas-fired power 

plant at JAFNPP would not 

alter the overall aesthetic 

characteristics of the site. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Construction and operation 

of a natural gas-fired power 

plant at an alternate site 

would change the aesthetic 

characteristics of the site. 

Historic and 

Archaeological 

Resources 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Constructing a natural gasfired power plant would 

require cultural resource 

studies. Impacts would vary 

depending on the location of 

the plant on the undeveloped 

portions of the JAFNPP site 

and the presence of historic 

and archaeological resources. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impacts at an alternate 

site would be the same as 

those for the JAFNPP site. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts to minority and lowincome populations would 

vary depending on the 

location of the power plant 

site and other support 

facilities 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impacts at an alternate 

site would be the same as 

those for the JAFNPP site. 

1 

2 • Land Use

3 For siting at JAFNPP, existing facilities and infrastructure would be used to the extent 

4 possible, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the 

5 NRC staff assumed that the natural gas-fired replacement power plant alternative would 

6 require approximately 90 ac of land and would make use of existing transmission facilities, 

7 roads, and parking areas. Operation of a new combined-cycle facility at the JAFNPP site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-24 June 2007 

1 would require the construction of approximately 25 mi of natural gas pipeline. It is estimated 

2 that the pipeline would require approximately 230 ac for an easement. The onsite facilities 

3 would represent expansion of an existing industrial land use. 

4 For construction at an alternate site, the full land-area requirement for a natural gas-fired 

5 facility would be necessary because no existing infrastructure would be available. Additional 

6 land would be impacted by construction of a transmission line and natural gas pipelines to 

7 serve the power plant. The gas line requirements at an alternate site would depend on the 

8 characteristics and location of the alternate site. 

9 Regardless of where the gas-fired power plant was built, additional land would be required 

10 for natural gas wells and collection stations. Partially offsetting these offsite land 

11 requirements would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for 

12 JAFNPP. In the GEIS, the NRC staff estimated that approximately 1000 ac would be 

13 affected for mining the uranium and processing it during the operating life of a nuclear power 

14 plant. 

15 Overall, the land-use impacts of constructing the natural gas-fired power plant at the 

16 JAFNPP site would be SMALL to MODERATE. Overall, the land-use impacts of siting the 

17 natural gas-fired power plant at an alternate site would depend on the chosen site and are 

18 characterized as SMALL to MODERATE. 

19 • Ecology

20 Entergy expects that development of the gas-fired alternative power plant at the JAFNPP 

21 site would be constructed partly on previously disturbed areas and would disturb relatively 

22 little acreage at the site. However, to accommodate a gas-fired power plant at the JAFNPP 

23 site, a 25-mi gas supply line would need to be constructed, which, assuming a construction 

24 ROW of 75 ft, would disrupt up to 230 ac of terrestrial habitat. Ecological impacts to the 

25 power plant site and utility easements would include impacts on threatened or endangered 

26 species, wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local 

27 reduction in biological diversity. 

28 The GEIS noted that land-dependent ecological impacts from construction would be SMALL 

29 unless site-specific factors indicated a particular sensitivity and that operational impact 

30 would be smaller than for other fossil fuel technologies of equal capacity. The connection to 

31 a gas pipeline approximately 25 mi from the JAFNPP site is a site-specific factor that would 

32 make the gas-fired alternative’s ecological impacts larger than those of license renewal. 

33 Therefore, in this case, ecological impacts of siting a natural gas-fired power plant at the 

34 JAFNPP site would be MODERATE. 

35 Impact on ecological resources from construction and operation of the representative natural 

36 gas-fired power plant and associated offsite infrastructure at an alternate site is conjectural. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 However, ecological resources throughout much of the area would be similar to those for the 

2 JAFNPP site alternative. The NRC staff concludes that the associated impact on ecological 

3 resources would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

4 • Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

5 Overall, water requirements for combined-cycle generation are much less than for 

6 conventional generators such as nuclear generators and coal-fired generators. A natural 

7 gas-fired power plant sited at JAFNPP is assumed to use the existing once-through cooling 

8 system. Surface water impacts would be expected to remain SMALL. 

9 A natural gas-fired power plant at an alternate site is assumed to use a once-through 

10 cooling system. The impact on surface water would depend on the volume and other 

11 characteristics of the receiving body of water. The impacts would be SMALL to 

12 MODERATE. 

13 The NRC staff noted in the GEIS that at either the JAFNPP site or an alternate site, some 

14 erosion and sedimentation probably would occur during construction. Water-quality impacts 

15 from sedimentation during construction are characterized in the GEIS as SMALL. The NRC 

16 staff also noted in the GEIS that operational water quality impacts would be similar to, or 

17 less than, those from other generating technologies. 

18 • Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

19 JAFNPP does not have onsite pumpable groundwater wells. Potable water is supplied by 

20 the Town of Scriba and cooling water is taken from Lake Ontario. Therefore, there would be 

21 no groundwater impacts at the JAFNPP site. 

22 For a natural gas-fired power plant at an alternate site, any groundwater withdrawal would 

23 require a permit from the local permitting authority. The impact to groundwater would 

24 depend on the site characteristics, including the amount of groundwater available. The 

25 impacts would range between SMALL and MODERATE. 

26 • Air Quality

27 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar 

28 types of emissions but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative. Hence, the gas29 fired alternative would be subject to the same type of air-quality regulations as a coal-fired 

30 power plant, discussed in Section 8.2.1. The greatest concerns from combined-cycle 

31 facilities are the emissions of ozone precursors, NOx, and volatile organic compounds 

32 (VOCs). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-26 June 2007 

1 JAFNPP projects the following emissions for the natural gas-fired alterative (Entergy 2006): 

2 o Sulfur oxides: 85 tons/yr 

3 o Nitrogen oxides: 272 tons/yr 

4 o Carbon monoxide: 57 tons/yr 

5 o PM10 particulates: 47 tons/yr 

6 A natural gas-fired power plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that 

7 would contribute to global warming. While these emissions have not traditionally been an 

8 important environmental concern, they are becoming increasingly relevant at both the 

9 national and international levels. 

10 In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air 

11 pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units. Natural gas-fired power plants were 

12 found by the EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000b). Unlike coal and 

13 oil-fired power plants, the EPA did not determine that emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

14 from natural gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air 

15 Act. 

16 Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would 

17 also come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process and 

18 by employee and delivery vehicles during operations. 

19 The preceding emissions would likely be the same at JAFNPP or at an alternate site. 

20 Impacts from the above emissions would be clearly noticeable but would not be sufficient to 

21 destabilize air resources as a whole. The overall air-quality impact for a new natural gas22 fired power plant sited at JAFNPP or at an alternate site is considered MODERATE. 

23 • Waste

24 There would be spent catalyst from NOx emissions control and small amounts of solid-waste 

25 products (i.e., ash) from burning natural gas fuel. In the GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that 

26 waste generation from gas-fired technology would be minimal. Gas firing results in very few 

27 combustion by-products because of the clean nature of the fuel. Waste-generation impacts 

28 would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important resource attribute. 

29 Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities. 

30 In the winter, it might become necessary for a replacement baseload natural gas-fired power 

31 plant to operate on fuel oil due to lack of gas supply. Oil combustion generates waste in the 

32 form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution generates additional ash and 

33 scrubber sludge. The amount of ash and sludge generated would depend on the type and 

34 quantity of fuel oil combusted. Number 2 fuel oil does not produce any appreciable ash. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Overall, the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired power plant sited at 

2 JAFNPP or at an alternate site. 

3 • Human Health

4 In Table 8-2 of the GEIS, the NRC staff identifies cancer and emphysema as potential 

5 health risks from gas-fired power plants. The risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that 

6 contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risks. Emissions of NOx

7 from any gas-fired power plant would be regulated. For a power plant sited in New York, 

8 NOx emissions would be regulated by the NYSDEC. Human health effects would not be 

9 detectable or would be sufficiently minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably 

10 alter any important attribute of the resource. Overall, the impacts on human health of the 

11 natural gas-fired alternative sited at JAFNPP or at an alternate site would be SMALL. 

12 • Socioeconomics

13 Construction of a natural gas-fired power plant would take approximately two years. In the 

14 GEIS, peak employment is determined to be approximately 1200 workers. The NRC staff 

15 assumed that construction would take place while JAFNPP continued operation and would 

16 be completed by the time it permanently ceased operations. During construction, the 

17 communities surrounding the JAFNPP site would experience demands on housing and 

18 public services that would have SMALL impacts. These impacts would be tempered by 

19 construction workers commuting from other parts of Oswego and Onondaga counties. After 

20 construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of jobs. The current JAFNPP 

21 workforce (716 workers) would decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal 

22 maintenance size. The gas-fired power plant would introduce a replacement tax base at 

23 JAFNPP or an alternate site and approximately 50 new permanent jobs. Impacts in Oswego 

24 and Onondaga counties resulting from decommissioning of JAFNPP might be offset to some 

25 degree by potential job opportunities in the Syracuse area. 

26 In the GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a 

27 natural gas-fired power plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational 

28 workforce would have the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology. 

29 Compared to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the construction 

30 workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operations 

31 workforce would minimize socioeconomic impacts. For these reasons, socioeconomic 

32 impacts associated with the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant 

33 would be MODERATE for siting at JAFNPP. 

34 The extent of socioeconomic impacts from constructing and operating a natural gas-fired 

35 power plant at an alternate site in upstate New York would depend on its location. Impacts 

36 near large population centers (i.e., Syracuse) would likely be small, with moderate impacts 

37 possible in more rural areas. Communities in Oswego County in particular would 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-28 June 2007 

1 experience MODERATE to LARGE impacts due to losses in employment and tax revenues 

2 from the closure of JAFNPP, especially if the natural gas-fired power plant is constructed 

3 outside the area. Overall, the socioeconomic impacts of a natural gas-fired power plant at an 

4 alternate site would be SMALL to LARGE depending on the location of the plant. 

5 • Transportation

6 Transportation-related impacts associated with construction and operations would depend 

7 on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. The 

8 impacts can be classified as MODERATE for siting at the JAFNPP site or an alternate site. 

9 • Aesthetics

10 The turbine buildings (106-ft tall) and exhaust stacks (approximately 225-ft tall) would be 

11 visible during daylight hours from offsite. The gas pipeline compressors would also be 

12 visible. However, development of the natural gas-fired power plant at the JAFNPP site 

13 would represent an incremental addition to an existing power plant with similar 

14 characteristics. A forest buffer provides a visual screen to residential developments 

15 bordering the site. Overall, the NRC staff concludes that aesthetic impacts from 

16 development of a natural gas-fired power plant at the JAFNPP site would be SMALL. 

17 At an alternate site, the buildings and associated transmission line and gas pipeline 

18 compressors would be visible offsite. The visual impact of a new transmission line would be 

19 especially significant. Aesthetic impacts would be mitigated if the power plant were located 

20 in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants. Overall, the aesthetic impacts 

21 associated with an alternate site are categorized as MODERATE to LARGE. The greatest 

22 contributor to this categorization is the aesthetic impact of the new transmission line. 

23 Natural gas generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible 

24 offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by power plant operation are classified 

25 as continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment 

26 associated with normal power plant operations. Intermittent sources include the use of an 

27 outside loudspeaker and the commuting of power plant employees. However, it is expected 

28 that the power plant would comply with all applicable noise ordinances and standards. 

29 Therefore, the noise impacts of a natural gas-fired power plant at the JAFNPP site would be 

30 SMALL. At an alternate site, these noise impacts would be SMALL to LARGE depending on 

31 the location of the site. 

32 • Historic and Archaeological Resources

33 At both JAFNPP and an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would be needed for 

34 any undeveloped portions of the site that had not been previously surveyed. Other 

35 properties, if any, which would be acquired to support the power plant, would also need to 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 be surveyed for cultural resources prior to ground-disturbing activities at the power plant 

2 site. 

3 Before construction at JAFNPP or an alternate site, historic and archaeological studies 

4 would be needed to identify, evaluate, and address the potential impacts of new power plant 

5 construction on cultural resources. These studies would likely be needed for all areas of 

6 potential disturbance at the proposed power plant site, other support facilities, and along 

7 associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission and 

8 pipeline corridors, other ROWs). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can 

9 generally be effectively managed and as such are considered SMALL to MODERATE 

10 depending on the location and presence of cultural resources. 

11 • Environmental Justice

12 Impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement natural gas13 fired power plant built at JAFNPP or an alternate site in New York State would depend on 

14 the location of the site and population distribution. Impacts on housing availability and prices 

15 during power plant construction could disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

16 populations. Closure of JAFNPP would result in the loss of approximately 716 jobs causing 

17 economic conditions that could affect employment prospects for minority or low-income 

18 populations. Depending on plant location, overall impacts could vary between SMALL and 

19 MODERATE. 

20 8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 

21 This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing a natural gas-fired generation 

22 system at either the JAFNPP site or an alternate site using closed-cycle cooling. The impacts 

23 (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of this option are the same as for a natural gas-fired power 

24 plant using the once-through cooling system. However, there are minor environmental 

25 differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-5 

26 summarizes the incremental differences. 

27 8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation 

28 Since 1997, the NRC has certified four new standard designs for nuclear power plants under 

29 10 CFR 52, Subpart B. These designs are the 1300 MWe U.S. Advanced Boiling Water 

30 Reactor (10 CFR 52, Appendix A), the 1300 MWe System 80+ Design (10 CFR 52, 

31 Appendix B), the 600 MWe AP600 Design (10 CFR 52, Appendix C), and AP 1000 (10 CFR 52, 

32 Appendix D). All of these power plants are light-water reactors. Although no applications for a 

33 construction permit or a combined license based on these certified designs have been 

34 submitted to NRC, the submission of the design certification applications indicates continuing 

35 interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. Consequently, construction of a 

36 new nuclear power plant at both the JAFNPP site and an alternate site is considered in this 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-30 June 2007 

1 section. The NRC staff assumed that the new nuclear power plant would have a 40-year 

2 lifetime. 

3 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at Either 

4 the JAFNPP Site or an Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling 

Impact Category Change in Impacts from Once-Through Cooling System 

Land Use 25 to 30 additional ac required for cooling towers and associated support 

infrastructure. 

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site. Additional impact to 

terrestrial biota from cooling tower drift. Reduced impact to aquatic 

ecology. 

Water Use and Quality— 

Surface Water 

Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing dissolved solids. 

Discharge would be regulated. Decrease water withdrawal and less 

thermal load on receiving body of water. Increase in consumptive use of 

water due to evaporation. 

Water Use and Quality— 

Groundwater 

No change 

Air Quality No change 

Waste No change 

Human Health No change 

Socioeconomics No change 

Transportation No change 

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated plume with noise impacts 

from operation of cooling towers. 

Historic and Archaeological 

Resources 

No change 

Environmental Justice No change 

5 

6 NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in Table S-3 of 

7 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts listed in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts that would be 

8 associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified designs and sited 

9 at JAFNPP or an alternate site. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a 1000-MWe reactor. 

10 The environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and from a light-water 

11 cooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The summary of 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 NRC’s findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of 

2 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly applicable, for 

3 consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a replacement nuclear 

4 power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a replacement nuclear power plant 

5 using once-through cooling is presented in Section 8.2.3.1 and closed-cycle cooling in 

6 Section 8.2.3.2. 

7 8.2.3.1 Once-Through Cooling System 

8 The overall impacts of a nuclear generating system using a once-through cooling system are 

9 discussed in this section. The impacts are summarized in Table 8-6. The extent of impacts at 

10 an alternate site would depend on the location of the site. 

11 • Land Use

12 The existing facilities and infrastructure at the JAFNPP site would likely be used, limiting the 

13 amount of new construction that would be required. Existing transmission facilities, roads, 

14 parking areas, and cooling system would be used. According to the GEIS, light-water 

15 reactors require approximately 500 to 1000 ac excluding transmission lines (these estimates 

16 are not scaled to any particular facility size). Much of the land that would be used has been 

17 previously disturbed. The JAFNPP site consists of approximately 700 ac and would be 

18 adequate to support a new nuclear facility. There would be no net change in land needed 

19 for uranium mining because land needed to supply the new nuclear power plant would 

20 replace the land no longer needed to supply uranium for fueling the existing reactors at 

21 JAFNPP. Overall, the land use impact of a replacement nuclear power plant at the existing 

22 JAFNPP site would be SMALL. However, the impact would be greater than the OL renewal 

23 alternative. 

24 Land-use requirements at an alternate site would be similar to siting at JAFNPP except for 

25 the possible need for additional land for a new transmission line. In addition, it might be 

26 necessary to construct a rail spur to bring in equipment during construction. Depending on 

27 transmission line routing, siting a new nuclear power plant at an alternate site would result in 

28 MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts. 

29 • Ecology

30 Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the JAFNPP site would alter ecological 

31 resources because of construction and the need to convert currently unused land to 

32 industrial use. In total, impacts would include habitat degradation, fragmentation, or loss as 

33 a result of construction activities and conversion of land to industrial use. Ecological 

34 communities would experience reduced productivity and biological diversity from disturbing 

35 previously intact land. Overall, the ecological impacts of the nuclear alternative at the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-32 June 2007 

1 JAFNPP site would be SMALL. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal 

2 alternative. 

3 Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at the 

4 JAFNPP Site and an Alternate Site Using Once-Through Cooling 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use SMALL Would require approximately 

500 to 1000 ac for the power 

plant. The new nuclear power 

plant would require the use of 

previously disturbed 

undeveloped portions of the 

JAFNPP site. Would use the 

existing infrastructure to the 

extent possible. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Land use requirements would 

be larger at the alternate site 

than at the JAFNPP site 

because of the potential need 

for land for a transmission line. 

Overall, impacts would depend 

on whether the alternate site 

had been previously disturbed.

Ecology SMALL Would use undeveloped 

areas at current Nine Mile 

Point site. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impact depends on location 

and ecology of the site, surface 

water body used for intake and 

discharge, and transmission 

line route; potential habitat loss 

and fragmentation; and 

reduced productivity and 

biological diversity. 

Water Use 

and Quality— 

Surface Water 

SMALL The nuclear alternative would 

use the existing once-through 

cooling system. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on the 

volume of water withdrawn 

and the characteristics of the 

surface body of water. 

Water Use 

 and Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL Groundwater is not used at 

the JAFNPP site. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on the 

volume of water withdrawn 

and the characteristics of the 

groundwater source. 

Air Quality SMALL Fugitive emissions and 

emissions from vehicles and 

equipment during 

construction. Small amount 

of emissions from diesel 

generators and possibly other 

sources during operation. 

SMALL Same impacts as JAFNPP 

site. 
June 2007 8-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

Table 8-6 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an 

operating a nuclear power 

plant are set out in 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B, 

Table B-1. Debris would be 

generated and removed 

during construction. 

SMALL Same impacts as JAFNPP 

site. 

Human Health SMALL Human health impacts for an 

operating nuclear power plant 

are set out in 10 CFR 51, 

Appendix B, Table B-1. 

SMALL Same impacts as JAFNPP 

site. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During construction, impacts 

would be MODERATE. Up to 

2500 workers during peak 

period of the five-year 

construction period. During 

operation, employment levels 

would be similar to those for 

JAFNPP. Overall, 

socioeconomic impacts from 

operation would be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

The characteristics of the 

construction period and 

operation at an alternate site 

would be similar to those at 

JAFNPP. Socioeconomic 

impacts to the local community 

would depend on the location 

of the alternate site and would 

vary from SMALL to LARGE. 

Transportation SMALL to 

LARGE 

Transportation impacts 

associated with construction 

would be MODERATE to 

LARGE. Transportation 

impacts associated with 

operations would be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Transportation impacts 

associated with construction 

would be MODERATE to 

LARGE. Transportation 

impacts associated with 

operations would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

Aesthetics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

There would be visual 

aesthetic impacts associated 

with power plant buildings and 

structures. There would be 

both intermittent and 

continuous noise impacts 

from the power plant during 

construction and operations. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

The significance of the impacts 

would depend on the location 

of the alternate site. An 

alternate site could require 

transmission lines, with 

aesthetic impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-34 June 2007 

Table 8-6 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Historic and 

Archaeological 

Resources 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Construction of a new nuclear 

power plant would require 

cultural resource studies. 

Impacts could vary depending 

on the location of the plant on 

undeveloped portions of the 

JAFNPP site and presence of 

historic and archaeological 

resources. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impacts at an alternate 

site would be the same as 

those for the JAFNPP site. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts to minority and lowincome populations would 

vary depending on the 

location of the power plant 

site and other support 

facilities. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impacts at an alternate 

site would be the same as 

those for the JAFNPP site. 

1 

2 At an alternate site, there would be construction impacts and new incremental operational 

3 impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts might alter the 

4 ecology. Impacts would include habitat degradation, fragmentation or loss, reduced 

5 ecosystem productivity (i.e., including wildlife species), and a reduction in biological 

6 diversity. Construction and maintenance of transmission lines, a rail spur, or a barge 

7 offloading facility would result in the same types of ecological impacts. Overall, the impacts 

8 of the nuclear alternative at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE. 

9 • Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

10 It is assumed that the replacement nuclear power plant alternative at the JAFNPP site would 

11 use the existing once-through cooling system, which would minimize incremental water-use 

12 and quality impacts. Surface-water impacts would be expected to remain SMALL. The 

13 impacts would be sufficiently minor that they would not noticeably alter any important 

14 attribute of the resource. 

15 For an alternate site, the cooling water would likely be drawn from a surface body of water. 

16 The impact on the surface water would depend on the volume of water needed and the 

17 characteristics of the body of water. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 • Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

2 No groundwater is currently used for operation of JAFNPP, and it is unlikely that 

3 groundwater would be used for an alternative nuclear power plant sited at JAFNPP. Use of 

4 groundwater for a nuclear power plant sited at an alternate site would be a possibility. Any 

5 groundwater withdrawal would require a permit from the local permitting authority. 

6 Overall, the impacts of the nuclear alternative at the JAFNPP site would be SMALL. The 

7 impacts of the nuclear alternative at an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

8 • Air Quality

9 Construction of a new nuclear power plant sited at JAFNPP or an alternate site would result 

10 in fugitive emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would also come 

11 from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. An operating 

12 nuclear power plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel generators and 

13 other minor intermittent sources. These emissions would be regulated by NYSDEC. 

14 Overall, emissions and associated impacts to air quality of a nuclear power plant at either 

15 the JAFNPP site or an alternate site would be SMALL. 

16 • Waste

17 The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant are set out in 

18 Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Construction-related debris would be 

19 generated during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. 

20 Overall, waste impacts of a new nuclear power plant at either the JAFNPP site or an 

21 alternate site would be SMALL. 

22 • Human Health

23 Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant are set out in 10 CFR 51 

24 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Overall, human health impacts of a new nuclear power 

25 plant at either the JAFNPP site or an alternate site would be SMALL. 

26 • Socioeconomics

27 Construction of the new nuclear power plant would be conducted over a period of five years 

28 with a peak workforce of 2500. Construction would take place while the existing nuclear unit 

29 would continue operation and would be completed by the time JAFNPP permanently ceased 

30 operation. 

31 If the new nuclear power plant were constructed at the JAFNPP site, the construction 

32 workers would be in addition to the employees who currently work at the site. Surrounding 

33 communities would experience significant demands on rental housing and public services. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-36 June 2007 

1 After construction, the local communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction 

2 jobs. In addition, the large construction workforce and delivery of construction materials 

3 would put significant pressure on existing highways near the JAFNPP site. The construction 

4 workforce would also add to the local tax base. In total, the socioeconomic impacts during 

5 the construction period for the nuclear alternative at the JAFNPP site would be MODERATE. 

6 At an alternate site, the construction impacts would be similar to those at the JAFNPP site. 

7 Impacts would be SMALL to LARGE, depending on the location of the alternate site to a 

8 large population center. 

9 It is assumed that the replacement nuclear unit would have an operating workforce 

10 comparable to the 716 workers currently working at JAFNPP. The replacement nuclear unit 

11 would provide a new tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated with 

12 decommissioning JAFNPP. For all of these reasons, the socioeconomic impacts for 

13 operating a new nuclear power plant at JAFNPP would be SMALL. 

14 The impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant at an alternate site would be generally 

15 larger than those at the JAFNPP site, depending on the proximity of the alternate site to a 

16 large population center. Impacts would be SMALL to LARGE, depending on the location of 

17 the alternate site. 

18 • Transportation

19 During the five-year construction period, up to 2500 construction workers would be working 

20 at the JAFNPP site in addition to the 716 workers who operate JAFNPP. The addition of the 

21 construction workers and the delivery of construction materials and equipment would place 

22 significant pressure on existing highways. Impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE. 

23 Transportation impacts associated with the operation of JAFNPP would be SMALL. 

24 Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers and the 

25 delivery of construction materials and equipment at an alternate site would be site26 dependent and would be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts associated with 

27 operations would also be site-dependent and would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

28 • Aesthetics

29 The nuclear alternative would result in both visual and noise aesthetic impacts. Visual 

30 impacts would result from several structures, including, most prominently, the containment 

31 building. The replacement nuclear units would also likely be visible at night because of 

32 outside lighting. Visual impacts at night would be mitigated by reduced lighting and 

33 appropriate shielding. Overall, the visual aesthetic impacts of the nuclear alternative at the 

34 JAFNPP site would be MODERATE. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 At an alternate site, the aesthetic impacts would be larger. There would also be aesthetic 

2 impacts associated with the need for new transmission lines. Light from the new nuclear 

3 power plant would be detectable offsite. The impact of light could be mitigated if the power 

4 plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants. Overall, the 

5 aesthetic impacts associated with an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE 

6 including the aesthetic impact of a new transmission line. 

7 Nuclear generation would introduce continuous and intermittent sources of noise from power 

8 plant operations. Continuous sources of noise include the mechanical equipment 

9 associated with normal power plant operations. Intermittent sources include the use of 

10 outside loudspeakers and those associated with the workforce. At the JAFNPP site, power 

11 plant-operation noises would be similar to existing noise levels from current power plant 

12 operations. Noise impacts of the nuclear alternative at JAFNPP would be SMALL. At an 

13 alternate site, noise impacts would be SMALL to LARGE, depending on the location of the 

14 site. 

15 • Historic and Archaeological Resources

16 At both JAFNPP and an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would be needed for 

17 any undeveloped portions of the site that had not been previously surveyed. Other 

18 properties, if any, that were acquired to support the power plant would also need to be 

19 surveyed for cultural resources, prior to ground-disturbing activities at the power plant site. 

20 Before construction at JAFNPP or an alternate site, studies would be needed to identify, 

21 evaluate, and address the potential impacts of new power plant construction on cultural 

22 resources. These studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the 

23 proposed power plant site, other support facilities, and along associated corridors where 

24 new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, other ROWs). 

25 Historic and archaeological resource impacts would generally be effectively managed and 

26 as such would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on location and presence of cultural 

27 resources. 

28 • Environmental Justice

29 Impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement nuclear 

30 power plant at JAFNPP or an alternate site in New York State would depend on the location 

31 of the site and population distribution. Impacts on housing availability and prices during 

32 power plant construction could disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

33 populations. Closure of JAFNPP and construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at 

34 an alternate site would result in the loss of approximately 716 jobs causing economic 

35 conditions that could affect employment prospects for minority or low-income populations in 

36 the vicinity of JAFNPP. Depending on the plant location, overall impacts could vary 

37 between SMALL and MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-38 June 2007 

1 8.2.3.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 

2 This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing at an alternate site a nuclear 

3 power plant that uses a closed-cycle cooling system with a cooling tower. The impacts (SMALL, 

4 MODERATE, or LARGE) of this option would be similar to the impacts for a nuclear power plant 

5 using a once-through cooling system. However, there would be minor environmental 

6 differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-7 

7 summarizes the incremental differences. 

8 Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Sited at an 

9 Alternate Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling 

Impact Category Change in Impacts from Once-Through Cooling System 

Land Use 20 to 30 ac of land would be required on previously disturbed undeveloped 

land for cooling towers and associated infrastructure. 

Ecology Impacts would depend on ecology at the site. Additional impact to terrestrial 

ecology from cooling tower drift. Reduced impact to aquatic ecology. 

Water Use and Quality— 

Surface Water 

Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing dissolved solids. Discharge 

would be regulated by the State of New York. Decreased water withdrawal 

and less thermal load on receiving body of water. Consumptive use of water 

due to evaporation from cooling towers. 

Water Use and Quality— 

Groundwater 

No change 

Air Quality No change 

Waste No change 

Human Health No change 

Socioeconomics No change 

Transportation No change 

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated plume. Natural draft towers 

would be up to 520 ft tall. Mechanical draft towers would be up to 100 ft tall 

and would have an associated noise impact. 

Historic and Archaeological 

Resources 

No change 

Environmental Justice No change 

10 8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power 

11 If available, purchased power from other sources would potentially obviate the need to renew 

12 the JAFNPP OL. The New York State energy plan (NYSERDA 2002) is designed to promote 

13 competition in energy supply markets by facilitating participation by non-utility suppliers. A 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 regulatory structure is in place to appropriately anticipate and meet electricity demands. The 

2 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) anticipates that adequate supplies of 

3 electricity will be available to meet anticipated future demands through at least 2021. In theory, 

4 purchased power is a feasible alternative to JAFNPP license renewal. There is no assurance, 

5 however, that sufficient capacity or energy would be available during the entire time frame of 

6 2014 to 2034 to replace the approximately 881 MWe of baseload generation from JAFNPP. For 

7 example, EIA projects that total gross U.S. imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will 

8 gradually increase from 38.4 billion kWh in year 2001 to 48.9 billion kWh in year 2005 and then 

9 gradually decrease to 24.4 billion kWh in year 2020 (DOE/EIA 2004). On balance, it appears 

10 unlikely that electricity imported from Canada or Mexico would be able to replace JAFNPP’s 

11 generating capacity. 

12 If power to replace JAFNPP capacity were purchased from sources in the U.S. or from a foreign 

13 country, the generating technology would likely be one of those described in this draft SEIS and 

14 in the GEIS (i.e., coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The description of the environmental impacts of 

15 other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS is representative of the purchased electrical power 

16 alternative to renewal of the JAFNPP OL. Thus, the environmental impacts of imported power 

17 would still occur but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or in another country. 

18 For these reasons, the NRC staff does not believe that purchasing power to make up for the 

19 generation at JAFNPP is a meaningful alternative that requires independent analysis. 

20 8.2.5 Other Alternatives 

21 Other generation technologies considered by NRC are discussed in Sections 8.2.5.1 through 

22 8.2.5.11. 

23 8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation 

24 EIA projects that oil-fired power plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity 

25 in the U.S. through the year 2030 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/EIA 

26 2007). Oil-fired operation is more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired operation. Future 

27 increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive 

28 than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline in its use for 

29 electricity generation. Increasing domestic concerns over oil security will only exacerbate the 

30 move away from oil-fired electricity generation. Therefore, the NRC staff does not consider oil31 fired generation by itself a feasible alternative to the baseload generation of JAFNPP. 

32 8.2.5.2 Wind Power 

33 Wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large baseload capacity. As discussed in Section 8.3.1 

34 of the GEIS, wind has a high degree of intermittency, and average annual capacity factors for 

35 wind power plants are relatively low (less than 30 percent). Wind power, in conjunction with 

36 energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a means of providing baseload power. However, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-40 June 2007 

1 current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to serve as a large 

2 baseload generator. 

3 Most of western New York is in wind-power Class 2 or 3, in which the average wind speed is 4.4 

4 to 5.6 meters per second (m/s) (Elliott et al. 1986). There is a narrow band of Class 3 and 4 

5 areas along Lake Ontario. Wind turbines are economical in Class 3 through 7 areas, in which 

6 the average wind speeds are 7.0 to >8.8 m/s (DOE 2005). Wind turbines typically operate at 25 

7 to 35 percent capacity factor compared to 80 to 95 percent for a baseload power plant (NWPPC 

8 2000). Because the largest commercially available wind turbines produce in the range of 1 MW 

9 to 3 MW, 294 to 881 units would be required to replace the JAFNPP generating capacity. 

10 As of September 2006, there were approximately 280 MW of grid-connected wind-power 

11 facilities in New York State, with an additional 255 MW of additional capacity in various stages 

12 of planning (AWEA 2006). The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

13 (NYSERDA) estimates there is a statewide potential for approximately 17,000 MW of installed 

14 capacity, of which approximately 3200 MW would be available for the peak summer load 

15 (NYSERDA 2002). Access to many of the best wind-power sites would require extensive road 

16 building, clearing (for towers and blades), and leveling (for the tower bases and associated 

17 facilities) in steep terrain. Also, many of the best quality wind sites are on ridges and hilltops 

18 that would have greater archeological sensitivity than surrounding areas. For these reasons, 

19 development of large-scale, land-based wind-power facilities are likely to be costly and would 

20 have MODERATE to LARGE impacts on aesthetics, archaeological resources, land use, and 

21 terrestrial ecology. 

22 The offshore wind speeds on Lake Ontario are higher than those onshore and would thus 

23 support greater energy production than onshore facilities. Development of an offshore wind24 power facility would impact shipping lanes, may disrupt the aquatic ecology, and would be 

25 visible for many miles, resulting in considerable aesthetic impacts. These impacts would be 

26 MODERATE to LARGE. 

27 For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes that wind power alone is not a feasible substitute at 

28 this time for the baseload generation from JAFNPP. However, the NRC staff recognizes that 

29 wind power projects are being developed in areas with significant wind potential. Therefore, it is 

30 reasonable to include wind power in a combination of alternatives that would replace the 

31 generation from JAFNPP. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.6. 

32 8.2.5.3 Solar Power 

33 Solar technologies use the sun’s energy and light to provide heat, cooling, light, hot water, and 

34 electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. Solar-power technologies, both photovoltaic 

35 and thermal, cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-fuel technologies in grid36 connected applications due to higher capital costs per kilowatt of capacity. The average 

37 capacity factor for photovoltaic cells is approximately 25 percent and for solar thermal systems, 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 25 to 40 percent. These capacity factors are low because solar power is an intermittent 

2 resource, providing power when the sun is strong, whereas JAFNPP provides constant 

3 baseload power. Solar technologies simply cannot make up for the capacity from JAFNPP 

4 when the sun is not shining. 

5 There can be substantial impacts to natural resources (e.g., wildlife habitat, land use, 

6 aesthetics) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land 

7 requirements are high. Based on the land requirement of 14 ac for every 1 MWe generated, 

8 over 12,000 ac would be required to replace the approximately 881 MWe produced by JAFNPP. 

9 There is not enough land for either type of solar electric system at the existing JAFNPP site, and 

10 both would have large environmental impacts at an alternate site. 

11 The construction impacts would be similar to those associated with a large wind farm, as 

12 discussed in Section 8.2.5.2. The operating facility would also have considerable aesthetic 

13 impact. 

14 Because of the natural resource impacts (land, ecological, and aesthetic), and high technology 

15 costs, solar power is not deemed a feasible baseload alternative to license renewal of JAFNPP. 

16 However, the NRC staff recognizes that distributed solar power does provide generation and 

17 that during the license renewal period, generation from solar power could continue to grow. 

18 Therefore, it is reasonable to include solar power in combinations of alternatives to replace the 

19 generation from JAFNPP. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.6. 

20 8.2.5.4 Hydropower 

21 New York State has a technical potential for 2527 MW of additional installed hydroelectric 

22 capacity by the year 2022, only 909 MW of which represents summer peak capacity. If all this 

23 capacity were developed, it would be enough to replace the 881-MW generating capacity of 

24 JAFNPP. However, as stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, hydropower’s percentage of U.S. 

25 generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult 

26 to site as a result of public concern about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration 

27 of natural river courses. DOE/EIA states that potential sites for hydroelectric dams have already 

28 been largely established in the U.S., and environmental concerns are expected to prevent the 

29 development of any new sites (DOE/EIA 2002). 

30 The NRC staff estimates in the GEIS that land requirements for hydroelectric power are 

31 approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MWe. Replacement of JAFNPP generating capacity would 

32 require flooding slightly less than this amount of land. Due to the large land-use and related 

33 environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities 

34 large enough to replace JAFNPP, the NRC staff concludes that local hydropower is not a 

35 feasible alternative to JAFNPP OL renewal on its own. Any attempts to site hydroelectric 

36 facilities large enough to replace JAFNPP would result in LARGE environmental impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-42 June 2007 

1 8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy 

2 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

3 power where available. However, the NRC staff states in the GEIS that geothermal technology 

4 is not widely used as baseload generation because of the limited geographical availability of the 

5 resource and immature status of the technology. As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, 

6 geothermal power plants are most likely to be sited in the western continental U.S., Alaska, and 

7 Hawaii where geothermal reservoirs are prevalent. A study commissioned by NYSERDA and 

8 the DOE, completed in 1996, found that there is some potential for geothermal electric power 

9 production in western upstate New York but that high cost inhibits its development (NRC 2006). 

10 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that geothermal energy is not a feasible alternative to 

11 renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 

12 8.2.5.6 Wood Waste 

13 The use of wood waste to generate electricity is limited largely to states with significant wood 

14 resources, such as California, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. 

15 Electric power is generated in these states by the pulp, paper, and paperboard industries, which 

16 consume wood and wood waste for energy, benefiting from the use of waste materials that 

17 would otherwise represent a disposal problem. 

18 The NRC staff states in the GEIS that a wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and 

19 operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 

20 25 percent efficiency. The required fuels are variable and site-specific. A significant barrier to 

21 using wood waste to generate electricity is the high delivered-fuel cost and high construction 

22 cost per MW of generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants generate only 40 to 

23 50 MWe. The overall construction impact per MW of installed capacity is estimated in the GEIS 

24 to be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant, although facilities using wood 

25 waste for fuel would be built on smaller scales. Like coal-fired power plants, wood-waste power 

26 plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of 

27 combustion equipment. 

28 Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a 

29 baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion, 

30 loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the NRC staff has determined that wood waste is 

31 not a feasible alternative to renewing the JAFNPP OL. 

32 8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

33 Municipal waste combustors incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam, hot 

34 water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to 

35 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2006). Municipal waste 

36 combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel 

37 (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the U.S. This group 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 of technologies process raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little or no sizing, shredding, or 

2 separation before combustion. 

3 Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after 

4 rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the Tax 

5 Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste combustion 

6 facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative such as 

7 landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New 

8 York, 511 U.S. 383, which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be 

9 delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills that may have 

10 had lower fees; and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the 

11 capital cost necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities 

12 (DOE/EIA 2001). 

13 The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an 

14 alternative to landfills rather than by energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste 

15 disposal option is likely to increase in the near term, but it is unlikely that many landfills will 

16 begin converting waste to energy because of unfavorable economics, particularly with electricity 

17 prices declining in real terms. 

18 Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash 

19 residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash is the portion of unburned waste 

20 that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash is the small particles that rise from the 

21 furnace during combustion. Fly ash is generally removed from flue-gases using fabric filters 

22 and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001). 

23 Currently there are approximately 89 waste-to-energy power plants operating in the U.S. These 

24 power plants generate approximately 2800 MWe or an average of 31.5 MWe per power plant 

25 (IWSA 2006), which is much smaller than needed to replace the 881 MWe of JAFNPP. 

26 The NRC staff states in the GEIS that the initial capital costs for municipal solid-waste power 

27 plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities, due to 

28 the need for specialized waste-separation and -handling equipment for municipal solid waste. 

29 Furthermore, the overall construction impact from a waste-fired power plant is estimated in the 

30 GEIS to be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, waste31 fired power plants have the same or greater operational impacts (including impacts on the 

32 aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). Some of these impacts would be MODERATE 

33 but still larger than the environmental effects of license renewal of JAFNPP. Therefore, 

34 municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the JAFNPP OL, 

35 particularly at the scale required. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-44 June 2007 

1 8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 

2 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling 

3 electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, 

4 and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS, the NRC staff points out that none of 

5 these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being 

6 reliable enough to replace a baseload power plant such as JAFNPP. For these reasons, such 

7 fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 

8 8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells 

9 Fuel cells work without combustion and therefore do not have the environmental impacts of 

10 combustion. Power is produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an 

11 anode and air over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products 

12 are heat, water, and carbon dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon 

13 resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the 

14 source of hydrogen. 

15 Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These fuel cells 

16 are commercially available at approximately $4500 per kW of installed capacity (DOE 2006). 

17 Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal 

18 efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the second19 generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle 

20 operations. 

21 DOE has launched a major initiative, the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance, to bring about 

22 dramatic reductions in fuel cell costs. The goal is to cut the cost to as low as $400 per kW by 

23 2010, which would make fuel cells competitive for virtually every type of power application (DOE 

24 2006). For comparison, the installed capacity cost for a natural gas-fired, combined-cycle 

25 power plant is about $400 per kW (DOE 2006). At present, fuel cells are not economically or 

26 technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation and are 

27 consequently not a feasible alternative to renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 

28 8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement 

29 As noted in the GEIS, extending the lives of existing non-nuclear generating power plants 

30 beyond the time they were originally scheduled to be retired represents another potential 

31 alternative to license renewal. Even without retiring any generating units, Entergy expects to 

32 require additional capacity in the near future. Thus, even if substantial capacity were scheduled 

33 for retirement and would be delayed, some of the delayed retirement would be needed just to 

34 meet load growth. 

35 Older power plants that may be candidates for retirement tend to use less efficient generation 

36 and pollution control technologies than modern power plants. Therefore, substantial upgrades 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 are typically required to achieve efficiencies necessary to cost effectively extend operations and 

2 meet applicable environmental standards. 

3 The GEIS states that NYISO load and capacity projections assume that nuclear generating units 

4 in the State will cease operation upon expiration of their current OLs but do not acknowledge 

5 retirement of any non-nuclear generating units in the State from 2005 through 2021. Therefore, 

6 any such retirements that do occur in this period would merely act to further increase projected 

7 demand. 

8 Based on this information, the NRC staff concluded that delayed retirement of other Entergy 

9 generating units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 

10 8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation 

11 The utility-sponsored conservation alternative refers to a situation in which JAFNPP ceases to 

12 operate, no new generation is brought online to meet the lost generation, and the lost 

13 generation is replaced by more efficient use of electricity. More efficient use would arise from 

14 utility-sponsored conservation programs, potentially including energy audits, incentives to install 

15 energy-efficient equipment, and informational programs to inform electricity consumers of the 

16 benefits of, and possibilities for, electricity conservation. 

17 Demand-side management resource strategies aimed at increasing energy efficiency on the 

18 customer side of the electric meter generally fall under the following categories: 

19 • Energy efficiency-selecting equipment that performs the same work with less energy input 

20 • Load response-customers who agree to respond to utility requests to reduce use during 

21 times of utility peak demand 

22 • Load management, which encourages customers to reduce their usage during peak times 

23 of day and peak season through the use of time-of-use rates, seasonal rates, and 

24 interruptible contracts 

25 • Direct load control, in which a utility interrupts power supply to customer equipment 

26 Typically, demand-side management induced load reductions are acknowledged in load 

27 forecasts and cannot therefore be used as credits to offset the power generated by JAFNPP. 

28 As a practical matter, it would be impossible to increase the energy savings by an additional 

29 881 MWe to replace the JAFNPP generating capability, particularly in upstate New York, which 

30 represents a relatively small fraction of electrical load in the State. 

31 Therefore, the NRC staff does not consider energy efficiency, by itself, a feasible alternative to 

32 license renewal. However, the NRC staff recognizes that energy conservation is promoted and 

33 that increases in energy efficiency occur as a normal result of replacing older equipment with 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-46 June 2007 

1 modern equipment. It is reasonable to include conservation in a combination of generation 

2 sources that would replace JAFNPP. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.6. 

3 8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives 

4 Even though individual alternatives to JAFNPP might not be sufficient on their own to replace 

5 JAFNPP capacity due to the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities, it 

6 is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost-effective. 

7 There are many possible combinations of alternatives. As discussed previously, these 

8 combinations would include baseload gas-fired or coal-fired power plants, purchased power, 

9 alternative and renewable technologies, and conservation. For the purpose of this discussion, 

10 one combination of alternatives has been assumed: 600 MWe of generation from a combined11 cycle facility at the JAFNPP site, 81 MWe of energy conservation, and 200 MWe purchased 

12 from other generators. The impacts of other combinations, such as those from combinations 

13 that include wind or solar power, would be different and possibly less than the assumed 

14 combination. In some areas, such as the aesthetic impact of solar panel or wind turbines, the 

15 impacts would be at least as large as the impact of the assumed combination of alternatives. In 

16 other areas, such as waste, impacts would be smaller for these alternative technologies. 

17 Table 8-8 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of an assumed combination. The 

18 impacts associated with the combined-cycle natural gas-fired units are based on the gas-fired 

19 generation impact assumptions discussed in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the reduced generation 

20 capacity. While the demand-side management measures would have few environmental 

21 impacts, operation of the new natural gas-fired power plant would result in increased emissions 

22 and environmental impacts. The environmental impacts associated with power purchased from 

23 other generators would still occur but would be located elsewhere within the region or nation, as 

24 discussed in Section 8.2.4. The impacts of purchased power are not shown in Table 8-8. The 

25 NRC staff concludes that it is very unlikely that the environmental impacts of any reasonable 

26 combination of generating and conservation options would be reduced to the level of impacts 

27 associated with renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 

28 8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

29 As indicated in Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the environmental impacts of the proposed action, 

30 license renewal of JAFNPP, are SMALL for all impact categories (except collective offsite 

31 radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, for 

32 which a single significance level was not assigned). The alternative actions, i.e., no-action 

33 alternative (discussed in Section 8.1), new generation alternatives (from coal, natural gas, and 

34 nuclear discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3, respectively), purchased electrical power 

35 (discussed in Section 8.2.4), alternative technologies (discussed in Section 8.2.5), and the 

36 combination of alternatives (discussed in Section 8.2.6) were considered. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts of an Assumed Combination of Generation— 

2 Does Not Include Impacts from Purchased Generation Once-Through Cooling Alternative 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The natural gas-fired power 

plant would be constructed 

on undeveloped portions of 

the JAFNPP site. It would 

require upwards of 110 ac for 

power block, offices, roads, 

parking areas, and a gas 

pipeline ROW. It would use 

existing infrastructure, 

minimizing new land 

requirements. There would 

be additional land impacts for 

construction of an 

underground gas pipeline. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Land-use requirements would 

be larger at an alternate site 

than at the JAFNPP site 

because of the need for 

additional infrastructure such as 

transmission facilities, roads, 

parking areas, office buildings, 

and cooling system. The total 

impact would depend on 

whether the alternate site had 

been previously disturbed. 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The natural gas-fired 

alternative would use 

undeveloped areas at the 

JAFNPP site. There would 

be potential for significant 

habitat loss and 

fragmentation and reduced 

productivity and biological 

diversity. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts would depend on 

whether the alternate site had 

been previously developed. 

Factors to consider include 

location and ecology of the site 

and transmission line route. In 

total, impacts would include 

habitat degradation, 

fragmentation or loss as a result 

of construction activities and 

conversion of land to industrial 

use. Ecological communities 

might experience reduced 

productivity and biological 

diversity from disturbing 

previously intact land. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-48 June 2007 

1 

Table 8-8 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Water Use and 

Quality— 

Surface Water 

SMALL Combined-cycle units have 

lower water requirements 

than nuclear and coal-fired 

power plants. The natural 

gas-fired alternative would 

use existing once-through 

cooling system to the degree 

necessary. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Combined-cycle units have 

lower water requirements than 

nuclear and coal-fired power 

plants. The natural gas-fired 

alternative would use closedcycle cooling to the degree 

necessary. Total impacts 

would depend on the volume 

of water withdrawal, the 

constituents of the discharge 

water, the characteristics of 

the surface water or 

groundwater source, and the 

required new intake 

structures. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL Use of groundwater is very 

unlikely. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of 

water withdrawal and 

discharge. 

Air Quality MODERATE • Sulfur oxides: 34 tons/yr 

• Nitrogen oxides: 

109 tons/yr 

• Carbon monoxide: 

7 tons/yr 

• PM10 particulates: 126 tons/yr 

• Other: (1) hazardous air 

pollutants, including arsenic, 

formaldehyde, and nickel and 

(2) carbon dioxide emissions, 

which contribute to global 

warming. 

MODERATE The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the 

same as those for the 

JAFNPP site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 

Table 8-8 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Waste SMALL Minimal waste product from 

fuel combination. 

SMALL The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the same 

as those for the JAFNPP site. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts would be minor. SMALL The impacts at an unnamed 

alternate site would be the same 

as those for the JAFNPP site. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During power plant 

construction, impacts would 

be MODERATE. 

Construction activities would 

place noticeable burdens on 

existing infrastructure, 

including housing and 

transportation. 

During plant operations, 

employment would decrease 

from 716 permanent workers 

to approximately 50. Impacts 

on housing and vitality of the 

local economy would be 

negative. Overall, 

socioeconomic impacts from 

operation would be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Construction and operation 

impacts at an alternate site 

would be similar to those at the 

JAFNPP site. Socioeconomic 

impacts to the local community 

would depend on the location of 

the alternate site and would vary 

from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Transportation MODERATE Construction-related 

transportation impacts would 

be MODERATE. 

MODERATE Transportation impacts of the 

natural gas-fired alternative at 

an alternate site would be 

similar to those at the JAFNPP 

site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-50 June 2007 

1 

Table 8-8 (cont.) 

JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Aesthetics SMALL There would be visual 

aesthetic impacts associated 

with power plant buildings 

and structures. There would 

be both continuous and 

intermittent noise impacts 

from power plant operation. 

MODERATE to 

LARGE 

Visual aesthetic impacts would be 

similar to the JAFNPP site, but the 

significance of the impacts would 

depend on the location of the 

alternate site. The natural gasfired power plant at an alternate 

site could require transmission 

lines, with attendant aesthetic 

impacts. 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Cultural resource studies 

would be needed to identify, 

evaluate, and address the 

mitigation of potential cultural 

resource impacts from the 

construction of a new power 

plant. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The historic and archaeological 

resource impacts of the natural 

gas-fired power plant at an 

alternate site would be similar to 

those at the JAFNPP site. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts to minority and lowincome populations would 

vary depending on the 

location of the power plant site 

and other support facilities. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The impacts at an alternate site 

would be the same as those for 

the JAFNPP site. 

2 

3 The no-action alternative would require the replacement of electrical generating capacity by 

4 (1) demand-side management and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other 

5 electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than JAFNPP, or (4) some combination of 

6 these options. For each of the new generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), the 

7 environmental impacts would not be less than the impacts of license renewal. For example, the 

8 land-disturbance impacts resulting from construction of any new facility would be greater than 

9 the impacts of continued operation of JAFNPP. The impacts of purchased electrical power 

10 (imported power) would still occur but would occur elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not 

11 considered feasible at this time for complete power replacement, and it is very unlikely that the 

12 environmental impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and conservation options 

13 would be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the JAFNPP OL. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 The NRC staff concludes that the alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may 

2 have environmental effects in at least some of the impact categories that would reach 

3 MODERATE or LARGE significance. 

4 8.4 References

5 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

6 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

7 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

8 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions.” 

9 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; 

10 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

11 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

12 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

13 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

14 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

15 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2006. New York State Wind Energy 

16 Development. Available URL: http://www.awea.org/projects/newyork.html. (Accessed 

17 December 28, 2006.) 

18 C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York. 511 U.S. 383. 1994. U.S. Supreme 

19 Court Reports.

20 Clean Air Act of 1970. 42 USC 7401, et seq. 

21 Clean Water Act of 1977. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

22 Elliott, D.L., C.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet, H.P. Foote, and W.F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind Energy 

23 Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy, 

24 Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas (accessed December 28, 

25 2006). 

26 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006. 

27 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

28 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

29 Accessible at ML062160557. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 8-52 June 2007 

1 Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger.” Oak Ridge National 

2 Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available URL: 

3 http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html (accessed October 18, 2004.) 

4 Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2006. “America’s Own Energy Source.” 

5 Available URL: http://www.wte.org/aoes.shtml (accessed December 28, 2006.) Accessible at 

6 ML071130360. 

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

8 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2002. 2002 State 

9 Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available URL: http://www.nyserda 

10 .org/sep.html (accessed October 18, 2004.) 

11 Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. “Northwest Power Supply 

12 Adequacy/Reliability Study Phase I Report.” Available URL: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/ 

13 2000/2000-4.pdf (accessed December 28, 2006.) 

14 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

15 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 USC 403, et seq. 

16 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. “U.S. Wind Energy Resource Potential Map.” 

17 Available URL: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html (accessed 

18 December 28, 2006.) Accessible at ML071130366. 

19 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. “Future Fuel Cells R&D.” Available URL: 

20 http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells (accessed December 28, 2006.) 

21 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable 

22 Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628 (2000). Washington, D.C. Available URL: 

23 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/renewables/06282000.pdf (accessed December 28, 2006.) 

24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2002. International 

25 Energy Outlook 2002. DOE/EIA-0484 (2002). Washington, D.C. Available URL: 

26 http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/pdf/international/0484(2002).pdf (accessed December 28, 2006.) 

27 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. Annual 

28 Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025. Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. Annual 

30 Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. Washington, D.C., February, 2007. Available 

31 URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html (accessed April 12, 2007). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

June 2007 8-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. “Revision of Standards of Performance for 

2 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to 

3 Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam 

4 Generating Units, Final Rule.” Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 179, pp. 49442-49455. 

5 Washington, D.C. (September 16, 1998.) 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. “Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule.” 

7 Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 126, pp. 35714-3577. Washington, D.C. (July 1, 1999.) 

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on 

9 Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 99, pp. 32214-

10 32237. Washington, D.C. 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. “Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 

12 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” Federal Register. 

13 Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831. Washington, D.C. (December 20, 2000.) 

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. “Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.” 

15 Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm (accessed 

16 December 28, 2006). 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Final Generic Impact Statement on 

18 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586. Washington, D.C. 

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

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

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

22 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, 

23 Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

25 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

26 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 

June 2007 9-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

 

1 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

2 By letter dated July 31, 2006, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

3 Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

4 (NRC) to renew the operating license (OL) for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

5 (JAFNPP) for an additional 20-year period (Entergy 2006a). If the OL is renewed, State 

6 regulatory agencies and Entergy will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate 

7 based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State’s jurisdiction or 

8 the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must be shut down on or 

9 before the expiration of the current OL, which expires on October 17, 2014. 

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

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

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

13 in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). Part 51 identifies 

14 licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission 

15 requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 

16 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the 

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

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999). 18 (1)

19 Upon acceptance of the Entergy application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

20 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing on September 20, 2006, a Notice of Intent to prepare 

21 an EIS and conduct scoping (NRC 2006a). The NRC staff held public scoping meetings on 

22 October 12, 2006, in Oswego, New York (NRC 2006b), and conducted a site audit in 

23 December 2006 (NRC 2007b). The NRC staff reviewed Entergy’s environmental report (ER) for 

24 JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and 

25 conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG26 1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

27 Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The NRC staff also 

28 considered the public comments received during the scoping process for preparation of this 

29 draft supplemental environmental impact statement (draft SEIS) for JAFNPP (NRC 2007a). The 

30 public comments received during the scoping process that were considered to be within the 

31 scope of the environmental review are provided in Appendix A of this draft SEIS. 

32 The NRC staff will hold two public meetings in Oswego, New York, in August 2007, to describe 

33 the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide 

34 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments on this draft 

 

(1) The GEIS was issued in 1996, and Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all 

references to GEIS include Addendum 1. 
Summary and Conclusions 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 9-2 June 2007 

1 SEIS. When the comment period ends, the NRC staff will consider and address all of the 

2 comments received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A of the final SEIS. 

3 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff’s preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 

4 environmental effects of the proposed action, including cumulative impacts, the environmental 

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

6 avoiding adverse effects. This draft SEIS also includes the NRC staff’s preliminary 

7 recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

8 The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from the 

9 GEIS: 

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

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

12 nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such 

13 needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) 

14 decision makers. 

15 The evaluation criterion for the NRC staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 

16 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is to determine 

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

18 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be 

19 unreasonable. 

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

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

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

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

24 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage: 

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

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

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

28 and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in 

29 the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental 

30 environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss 

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

32 alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the 

33 generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with § 51.23(b). 

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

35 OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 
Summary and Conclusions 

June 2007 9-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

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

3 The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to 

4 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B: 

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

6 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

7 MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

8 important attributes of the resource. 

9 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

10 important attributes of the resource. 

11 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the NRC staff analysis in the GEIS shows the 

12 following: 

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

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

15 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

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

17 the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 

18 from high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal). 

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

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

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

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

23 significant information, the NRC staff relied on conclusions in the GEIS for issues designated 

24 Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The NRC staff also 

25 determined that information provided during the public comment period did not identify any new 

26 issue that requires site-specific assessment. 

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

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

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

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

31 in the draft SEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not 

32 conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared. 

33 This draft SEIS documents the NRC staff’s consideration of all 92 environmental issues 

34 identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with 
Summary and Conclusions 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 9-4 June 2007 

1 alternatives to license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and 

2 the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action 

3 alternative (not renewing the OL for JAFNPP) and alternative methods of power generation. 

4 These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is 

5 located at either the JAFNPP site or some other unspecified location. 

6 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action-License Renewal

7 Entergy and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and 

8 evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license 

9 renewal. Neither Entergy nor the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and 

10 significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the 

11 GEIS. Similarly, neither the scoping process, Entergy, nor the NRC staff has identified any new 

12 issue applicable to JAFNPP that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the NRC 

13 staff relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to 

14 JAFNPP. 

15 Entergy’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are 

16 applicable to JAFNPP, plus environmental justice (Entergy 2006b). The NRC staff has 

17 reviewed the Entergy analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each 

18 issue plus environmental justice. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are 

19 related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at JAFNPP. Four Category 2 

20 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS because they are specifically related to 

21 refurbishment. Entergy has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required 

22 by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as 

23 necessary to support the continued operation of JAFNPP, for the license renewal period 

24 (Entergy 2006b). In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities 

25 are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected 

26 to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final 

27 Environmental Statement Related to Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

28 (AEC 1973). 

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

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

31 discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice 

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

33 this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 11 Category 2 issues 

34 and environmental justice, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are 

35 of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. For severe accident 

36 mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the NRC staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive 

37 effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for 
Summary and Conclusions 

June 2007 9-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 JAFNPP, and the plant improvements already made, the NRC staff concludes that none of the 

2 candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial. 

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

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

5 mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

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

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

8 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where JAFNPP license renewal impacts are 

9 deemed to be SMALL, the NRC staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant 

10 cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources. 

11 The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable 

12 commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the 

13 environment and long-term productivity. 

14 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

15 An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review 

16 conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license 

17 renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts associated 

18 with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have already occurred. 

19 The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those associated with 

20 refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term. 

21 The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL 

22 significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The adverse 

23 impacts of likely alternatives if JAFNPP ceases operation at or before the expiration of the 

24 current OL will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit, and 

25 they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations. 

26 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments 

27 The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of the JAFNPP during the 

28 current license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be 

29 considered in this draft SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an 

30 additional 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant 

31 maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent 

32 offsite storage space for the spent fuel assemblies. 

33 The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are the 

34 fuel and the permanent storage space. JAFNPP replaces approximately one third of its fuel 

35 assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 24 months (Entergy 2006b). 
Summary and Conclusions 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 9-6 June 2007 

1 The likely power-generation alternatives if JAFNPP ceases operation on or before the expiration 

2 of the current OL will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement 

3 plants as well as for fuel to run the plants. 

4 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity 

5 An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the 

6 JAFNPP site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is 

7 now well established. Renewal of the OL for JAFNPP and continued operation of the plant will 

8 not alter the existing balance but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial 

9 of the application to renew the OL will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in 

10 a manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental 

11 consequences of turning the JAFNPP site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different. 

12 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal 

13 and Alternatives

14 The proposed action is renewal of the OL for JAFNPP. Chapter 2 describes the site, power 

15 plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no 

16 refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at JAFNPP. Chapters 4 through 7 

17 discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OL. Environmental issues 

18 associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and use 

19 reduction are discussed in Chapter 8. 

20 The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the 

21 application for renewal of the OL), the no-action alternative (denial of the application), 

22 alternatives involving nuclear or gas- or coal-fired generation of power at the JAFNPP site and 

23 an unspecified “alternate site,” and a combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. 

24 Continued use of a closed-cycle cooling system for JAFNPP is assumed for Table 9-1. 

25 Substitution of once-through cooling for the recirculating cooling system in the evaluation of the 

26 nuclear and gas- and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in somewhat greater 

27 environmental impacts in some impact categories. 

28 Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action is 

29 SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel 

30 cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not 

31 assigned [see Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may 

32 have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or 

33 LARGE significance.
Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, 1 

the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Power Generation 2 

Proposed 

Action 

No-Action 

Alternative 

Coal-Fired 

Generation Natural-Gas-Fired Generation New Nuclear Generation Combination of Alternatives 

Impact Category 

License 

Renewal 

Denial of 

Renewal Alternate Site JAFNPP site Alternate Site JAFNPP Site Alternate Site JAFNPP Site Alternate Site 

Land Use SMALL NO IMPACT MODERATE to 

LARGE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL MODERATE to 

LARGE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to LARGE

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE to 

LARGE 

MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL MODERATE to 

LARGE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Water Use and Quality—Surface Water 

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water Use and Quality—Groundwater 

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

NO IMPACT SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE 

Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Human Health SMALL(a) SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL MODERATE 

to LARGE 

SMALL to LARGESMALL to LARGESMALL to LARGE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to LARGE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to LARGE

Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

MODERATE MODERATE 

Aesthetics SMALL NO IMPACT SMALL to LARGE SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to LARGE SMALL MODERATE to 

LARGE 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Environmental Justice 

SMALL SMALL to LARGESMALL to LARGE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(a) Except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not assigned. 

See Chapter 6 for details. 

3 

 Summary and Conclusions June 2007 9-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Summary and Conclusions 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 9-8 June 2007 

1 9.3 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

2 Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by Entergy (Entergy 

3 2006b), (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staff’s own 

4 independent review, and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received, the 

5 preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the 

6 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for JAFNPP are not so great that preserving 

7 the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. 

8 9.4 References

9 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

10 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

11 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

12 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

13 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

14 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application. Lycoming, New York. 

15 Accessible at ML062160494. 

16 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

17 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

18 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

19 Accessible at ML062160557. 

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

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

22 Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Power Authority of the State of New 

23 York. Docket No. 50-333. Washington, D.C. Accessible at ML062360088. 

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

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

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

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

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

29 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, 

30 D.C. 
Summary and Conclusions 

June 2007 9-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

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

2 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555, 

3 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. “Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 

5 the Application, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and Notice of Intent to prepare an 

6 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process of Facility Operating License 

7 No. DPR-59 for an Additional 20-Year Period, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., James A. 

8 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.” Federal Register: Vol. 71, No. 182, pp. 55032-55035. 

9 Washington, D.C. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. NRC press release announcing Public 

11 License Renewal Process and Environmental Scoping Meeting Associated with the Application 

12 to Renew the Operating License for JAFNPP. Accessible at ML062760465 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Letter to M. Kansler, Entergy. Subject: 

14 Environmental Scoping Summary Report. March 2, 2007. Accessible at ML070440393. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Environmental Scoping Summary Report 

16 Associated with the Staff’s Review of the Application by Entergy for Renewal of the Operating 

17 License for JAFNPP. Washington, D.C. Accessible at ML070440393. 

18 

Appendix A 

Comments Received on the Environmental Review 

June 2007 A-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Appendix A: 

2 Comments Received on the Environmental Review 

3 On September 20, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of 

4 Intent in the Federal Register (71 FR 55032) to notify the public of the NRC staff’s intent to 

5 prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999),(1) 6 

7 related to the renewal application for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) 

8 operating license and to conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been 

9 prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on 

10 Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

11 51 (10 CFR Part 51). As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the 

12 issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and 

13 local government agencies; Native American tribal organizations; local organizations; and 

14 individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled 

15 public meetings and/or submitting comments by November 14, 2006. 

16 The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Town of 

17 Scriba Municipal Building in Oswego, New York, on October 12, 2006. The NRC issued press 

18 releases and distributed flyers locally. Approximately 14 members of the public attended the 

19 meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the 

20 license renewal process. Following the NRC’s prepared statements, the meetings were open 

21 for public comments. Three attendees provided either oral comments or written statements that 

22 were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter, and written comments were 

23 appended to the transcript. The transcripts of the meetings are an attachment to the meeting 

24 summary, which was issued on October 30, 2006 (meeting transcripts, ML063030195 and 

25 ML063030209; meeting summary, ML062980148). The documents are publicly available and 

26 can be found at the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at 

27 http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.html or through the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 

28 link at http://www.nrc.gov. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 

29 problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC’s Public 

30 Document Room staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov. 

31 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff reviewed the transcripts and all written 

32 material received and identified individual comments. Each set of comments from a given 

33 commenter was given a unique alpha identifier (Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of 

34 comments from a commenter to be traced back to the transcript, letter, or email in which the 

35 comments were submitted. Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each 

36 comment set. All of the comments received and the NRC staff responses are included in the 

37 JAFNPP Scoping Summary Report dated March 2, 2007 (ML070440393). 
Appendix A 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 A-2 June 2007 

1 Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed 

2 supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS. 

3 Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential 

4 issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according 

5 to subject area, the NRC staff determined the appropriate action for the comment. 

6 Table A-1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental 

7 review and the Commenter ID associated with each person's set(s) of comments. The 

8 individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting, and in the 

9 alphabetical order for the comments received by letter. To maintain consistency with the 

10 Scoping Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is 

11 retained in this appendix. The Commenter ID is preceded by FNP, which stands for James A. 

12 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant scoping. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written 

13 comments in ADAMS. 

14 Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific 

15 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters. 

16 The comments fall into one of the following general groups: 

17 • Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC 

18 environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address 

19 Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They 

20 also address alternatives and related Federal actions. 

21 • General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or 

22 (2) on the renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory process. These 

23 comments may or may not be specifically related to the JAFNPP license renewal 

24 application. 

25 • Questions that do not provide new information. 

26 • Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded 

27 from the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These 

28 comments typically address issues such as the need for power, emergency 

29 preparedness, security, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to 

30 operation during the renewal period. 

31 Comments applicable to this environmental review and the NRC staff’s responses are 

32 summarized in this appendix. The parenthetical alpha-numeric identifier after each comment 

33 refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number. This information, which 

34 was extracted from the JAFNPP Scoping Summary Report, is provided for the convenience of 

35 those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental review. The 

36 comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for JAFNPP are 
Appendix A 

June 2007 A-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 not included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicable comments 

2 can be found in the summary report. The ADAMS accession number for the Scoping Summary 

3 Report is ML070440393. This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document 

4 through the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

5 Comments in this section are grouped into the following categories: 

6 A.1.1 Aquatic Ecology 

7 A.1.2 Socioeconomics 

8 A.1.3 Postulated Accidents 

9 A.1.4 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

10 

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

Commenters’ ID Commenter Affiliation (If stated) 

Comment Source, 

ADAMS Accession Number(a)

FNP-A Ed Putnam Candidate, New York State Assembly Afternoon Scoping Meeting 

FNP-B Tim Judson Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) Evening Scoping Meeting 

FNP-C Tom Dellwo CAN Evening Scoping Meeting 

FNP-D Joseph J. Heath General Counsel, Onondaga Nation Letter (ML063240283) 

FNP-E Christopher M. 

Hogan 

Project Manager, New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

Letter (ML063240331) 

(a) The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found under accession numbers ML063030195 and ML063030209, respectively.

12 Comments Received During Scoping 

13 A.1.1 Aquatic Ecology Issues 

14 Comment: [Environmental Report] Appendix E; Section 4.2: Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish 

15 in Early Life Stages, and Section 4.3: Impingement of Fish and Shellfish Statements regarding 

16 previous Departmental Best Technology Available (BTA) decisions for FitzPatrick are 

17 overstated. While in 1996 and 2001 the Department determined that the high frequency/high 

18 amplitude acoustic fish deterrent system (FDS) was BTA for reducing impingement, the 

19 Department did not state that the FDS was BTA for reducing entrainment. In fact, the letter 

20 Entergy used as a reference specifically states, “Moreover, the fish deterrent system has not 

21 been evaluated as an entrainment mitigative device...” In addition, while the State Pollution 

22 Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Fact Sheet that accompanied the 1996 and 
Appendix A 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 A-4 June 2007 

1 2001 SPDES permits discussed the potential benefit of the FDS for reducing alewife 

2 entrainment, it referenced the need for studies to determine the effectiveness of the FDS 

3 system on larval life stages of alewives. Requirements for these studies were made part of the 

4 SPDES permit, but Department records indicate that the study was never conducted. 

5 Even if the study had been completed and the Department had made a BTA determination 

6 regarding entrainment, documented changes in the fish community in Lake Ontario (as 

7 described in Appendix E, Section 2.2.4 of the license renewal application) compel a review of 

8 previous determinations to determine if changes are warranted. To that end, Entergy is 

9 currently conducting biological sampling at FitzPatrick to determine the extent of current 

10 impacts. Data from this sampling will be included in a Comprehensive Demonstration Study 

11 that Entergy must submit to the Department in early 2008. A new BTA decision will be based, in 

12 part, on the Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Thus, conclusory statements that 

13 entrainment impacts do not warrant mitigation are premature. Decisions regarding the need for 

14 mitigation will be addressed via the SPDES permit process. (FNP-E-1) 

15 Comment: [Environmental Report] Section 6.2 Mitigation. Entergy’s contention that “the current 

16 permits, practices, and programs that mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operations are 

17 adequate (page 6-1)” are not necessarily accurate. For example, the decision regarding 

18 adequacy of mitigative measures for addressing impacts from impingement and entrainment will 

19 be addressed via the SPDES permit process. That permit process will address the adequacy of 

20 current practices and, if necessary, will result in requirements for additional measures to reduce 

21 impacts. In addition and as explained above, statements in Table 6-1 regarding past BTA 

22 determinations are overstated. (FNP-E-2) 

23 Comment: Counter to statements contained in Section 4.2.6, Section 4.3.6, and Table 6-

24 1,federal regulations do not require limiting the focus of mitigation requirements to impacts on 

25 fish populations (see 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 51.45(c)). In fact, the federal regulations 

26 dealing with impingement and entrainment at power plants focus on the reduction in the 

27 numbers of individual organisms (see 40 CFR 125-Subparts I and J). (FNP-E-3) 

28 Response: These comments are related to information regarding entrainment and impingement 

29 of fish and shellfish, as provided in the applicant’s Environmental Report. Aquatic ecology will 

30 be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

31 A.1.2 Socioeconomic Issues 

32 Comment: One of the economic factors which affects the retention of current industry in central 

33 New York and which also affects the attraction of new industry to this region is the provision of 

34 inexpensive, trustworthy, and accessible power. We need this company to be a player in this 

35 attempt to bolster the economy of central New York. The Oswego County Public Utility Service 

36 offers "low cost electrical energy" to new and expanding business in Oswego County, in the 

37 hope that it will inspire new jobs and retain existing jobs through the low-cost electricity provided 
Appendix A 

June 2007 A-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 by Entergy at the FitzPatrick plant. This is a positive initiative, which has begun to be shared 

2 with the local economic community. 

3 A similar form of utility incentive for domestic usage would be a welcome message to the 

4 residents of this region. It seems inconsistent that this community, which houses nuclear power 

5 plants, does not experience significant benefit from the presence. The economic downturn in 

6 this region is desperately in need of signs of recovery, and thus nuclear power industry has the 

7 capability of leading the way. (FNP-A-10) 

8 Response: The comments are related to the socioeconomic impacts specific to JAFNPP. 

9 Socioeconomic impacts such as taxes are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapters 

10 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

11 A.1.3 Postulated Accidents 

12 Comment: The operation of nuclear power plants is not without the potential for accidents, with 

13 serious consequences for both short and long term health in surrounding communities. 

14 (FNP-D-3) 

15 Response: The GEIS evaluated severe accidents and design basis accidents, and concluded 

16 the impact was small. During the environmental review of JAFNPP, the NRC will determine 

17 whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analyses in the 

18 GEIS. Section 5.1.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for JAFNPP will address this issue. In addition, 

19 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered on a plant-specific basis for all 

20 plants that have not previously considered such alternatives. The applicant provided a severe 

21 accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis as part of the license renewal application for 

22 JAFNPP. The NRC staff’s review of the SAMA analysis will discussed in Section 5.2 and 

23 Appendix G of the SEIS for JAFNPP.

24 A.1.4 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues 

25 Comment: From start to finish, the production of nuclear energy is fraught with hazards. The 

26 mining and enrichment of uranium produces radioactive isotopes that contaminate and degrade 

27 the surrounding environment. (FNP-D-2) 

28 Comment: Finally, creation of nuclear energy leads to the accumulation of extremely 

29 hazardous, radioactive material that persists in the environment for tens of thousands of years. 

30 Additionally, this process creates byproducts, which, in a worst-case scenario, could be 

31 obtained and used to create dangerous weapons. (FNP-D-4) 

32 Response: Environmental impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle were addressed in 

33 the GEIS. The GEIS concluded those impacts including the off-site radiological impact of 
Appendix A 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 A-6 June 2007 

1 storage, transportation, and disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive waste are Category 1 

2 issues. The impact of these Category 1 issues was judged to be small in the GEIS. During the 

3 environmental review of JAFNPP, the NRC determine whether there is any new and significant 

4 information bearing on the previous analysis.
Appendix B 

Contributors to the Supplement 

June 2007 B-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Appendix B: 

2 Contributors to the Supplement 

3 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of 

4 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The supplement 

5 was prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from 

6 other NRC organizations, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest 

7 National Laboratory. 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Rani L. Franovich Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief 

Jessie M. Muir Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager, Nonradiological Waste 

Samuel Hernandez Nuclear Reactor Regulation Backup Project Manager, Alternatives 

Jeffrey Rikhoff Nuclear Reactor Regulation Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources, Environmental 

Justice 

Richard Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection 

Stephen Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection 

Jennifer A. Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources 

Scott Werts Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology, Air, Alternatives 

Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

Sarah Lopas Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic Ecology 

Evan Keto Nuclear Reactor Regulation Terrestrial Ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Bruce McDowell Team Leader 

Lily Baldwin Deputy Team Leader, Hydrology, Water Use and Quality 

Hank Khan Health Physics 

Crystal Quinly Land Use 

Diana Burke Lead Editor 

Lisa Crawford Socioeconomics, Alternatives 

Frank Gouveia Meteorology, Air Quality 
Appendix B 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 B-2 June 2007 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY (b)

Steve Short Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Bruce Schmitt Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Fred Leverenz Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of 

California. 

(b) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle. 

1 
Appendix C 

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

Related to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc., Application for License Renewal 

of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

June 2007 C-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Appendix C: 

2 Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

3 Related to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

4 Operations, Inc., Application for License Renewal of 

5 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

6 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 

7 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear 

8 Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and other correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental 

9 review, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), of the 

10 Entergy application for renewal of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) 

11 operating license. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, 

12 are publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

13 North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the NRC’s Agencywide 

14 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic 

15 Reading Room is accessible at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. The ADAMS 

16 accession numbers for each document are included below. Persons who do not have access to 

17 ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 

18 contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by 

19 e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. 

20 July 27, 2006 Summary of meeting held on June 26, 2006, between NRC and 

21 Entergy to discuss submittal of JAFNPP license renewal application. 

22 (Accession No. ML062090176) 

23 July 31, 2006 Letter from P. Dietrich, Entergy, submitting the application for renewal of 

24 the operating license for the JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML062160491) 

25 July 31, 2006 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — License Renewal 

26 Application, Appendix E: Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating 

27 License Renewal Stage. (Accession No. ML062160557) 

28 August 4, 2006 NRC press release announcing the availability of the license renewal 

29 application for JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML062160240) 

30 August 7, 2006 Letter to P. Dietrich, Entergy, Receipt and Availability of the License 

31 Renewal Application for JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML062190106) 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 C-2 June 2007 

1 August 11, 2006 Federal Register Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for 

2 Renewal of JAFNPP (Operating License No. DPR-59) for an Additional 

3 20-Year Period (71 FR 55032). (Accession No. ML071000081) 

4 September 7, 2006 Letter to M. Bennett, Penfield Library, regarding the maintenance of 

5 reference material at the SUNY Oswego—Penfield Library, related to 

6 the JAFNPP license renewal application. (Accession No. 

7 ML062500286) 

8 September 7, 2006 Letter to C. Ferlito, Oswego Public Library, regarding the maintenance 

9 of reference material at the Oswego Public Library, related to the 

10 JAFNPP license renewal application. (Accession No. ML062500247) 

11 September 14, 2006 Determination of Acceptability and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed 

12 Review Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding the 

13 Application from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for the renewal of 

14 the operating license for JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML062570127) 

15 September 15, 2006 Letter to D. L. Kilma, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

16 (ACHP), the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

17 (Accession No. ML062480229) 

18 September 15, 2006 Letter to B. Castro, New York State Historic Preservation Office, 

19 Request for Comments Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal 

20 Application Review. (Accession No. ML062480220) 

21 September 15, 2006 Letter to L. Henry, Tuscarora Nation, Request for Comments 

22 Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

23 (Accession No. ML062480205) 

24 September 15, 2006 Letter to W. Jacobs, Cayuga Nation, Request for Comments 

25 Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

26 (Accession No. ML062480069) 

27 September 15, 2006 Letter to R. Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation, Request for Comments 

28 Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

29 (Accession No. ML062480063) 

30 
Appendix C 

June 2007 C-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 September 15, 2006 Letter to I. Powless, Jr., Onondaga Indian Nation, Request for 

2 Comments Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application 

3 Review. (Accession No. ML062480057) 

4 September 15, 2006 Letter to B. Snyder, Seneca Nation of Indians, Request for Comments 

5 Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

6 (Accession No. ML062480035) 

7 September 15, 2006 Letter to J. Ransom, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Request for Comments 

8 Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application Review. 

9 (Accession No. ML062480053) 

10 September 15, 2006 Letter to R. Hill, Tonawanda Band of Senecans, Request for 

11 Comments Concerning the JAFNPP License Renewal Application 

12 Review. (Accession No. ML062480044) 

13 September 19, 2006 Letter to M. Moriarty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast 

14 Regional Office, Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area 

15 Under Evaluation for the JAFNPP License Renewal Application 

16 Review. (Accession No. ML062630292) 

17 September 20, 2006 Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application, Notice of 

18 Opportunity for Hearing and Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

19 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for 

20 Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for an Additional 20-Year 

21 Period, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

22 Power Plant (71 FR 55032). (Accession No. ML071000085) 

23 September 20, 2006 NRC press release announcing the opportunity to request a hearing on 

24 application to renew operating license for JAFNPP. (Accession No. 

25 ML062630056) 

26 September 25, 2006 Meeting Notice, Forthcoming Meeting to Discuss the License Renewal 

27 Process and Environmental Scoping for JAFNPP License Renewal 

28 Application Review. (Accession No. ML062680355) 

29 September 26, 2006 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 

30 Conduct Scoping Process for License Renewal for JAFNPP. 

31 (Accession No. ML062480235) 

32 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 C-4 June 2007 

1 October 3, 2006 NRC press release announcing Public License Renewal Process and 

2 Environmental Scoping Meeting Associated with the Application to 

3 Renew the Operating License for JAFNPP. (Accession No. 

4 ML062760465) 

5 October 3, 2006 Transcripts of the Proceedings of the JAFNPP Public Scoping 

6 Meetings. (Accession Nos. ML063030195 [afternoon], ML063030209 

7 [evening]) 

8 October 30, 2006 Summary of Public Environmental Scoping Meetings Related to the 

9 Review of the JAFNPP License Renewal Application. (Accession No. 

10 ML062980148) 

11 November 7, 2006 Letter to K. Lynch, New York State Department of Environmental 

12 Conservation (NYSDEC) Region 7, Request for List of State Protected 

13 Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the JAFNPP License 

14 Renewal Application Review. (Accession No. ML062960276) 

15 November 7, 2006 Letter to P. Dietrich, Entergy, Request for Additional Information 

16 Regarding the Review of the License Renewal Application for 

17 JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML062850382) 

18 November 13, 2006 Letter from J. Heath, General Council for the Onondaga Nation, 

19 concerning the JAFNPP license renewal application. (Accession No. 

20 ML063240283) 

21 November 14, 2006 Letter from C. Hogan, NYSDEC, in response to request for comments 

22 on the JANFPP License Renewal Environmental Report. (Accession 

23 No. ML 063240331) 

24 November 27, 2006 Letter to M. Kansler, Entergy, Environmental Site Audit Regarding the 

25 JAFNPP License Renewal Application. (Accession No. ML063250406) 

26 November 29, 2006 Letter to M. Kansler, Entergy, Request for Additional Information 

27 Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for JAFNPP. 

28 (Accession No. ML063060257) 

29 
Appendix C 

June 2007 C-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 November 30, 2006 Letter from T. Seoane, NYDEC Natural Heritage Program, Report on 

2 Rare or State-Listed Animals, Significant Natural Communities, and 

3 Other Habitats in Regards to the JAFNPP License Renewal 

4 Application Review. (Not publicly available) 

5 December 6, 2006 Letter from P. Dietrich, Entergy, JAFNPP License Renewal 

6 Application, Amendment 1. (Accession No. ML063480585) 

7 December 6, 2006 JAFNPP License Renewal Application Amendment 1 Attachments. 

8 (Accession No. ML063480596) 

9 December 7, 2006 Letter from A. Wonderley, Oneida Indian Nation, in response to 

10 JAFNPP Environmental Review of License Renewal Application. 

11 (Accession No. ML063480314) 

12 January 8, 2007 Letter to M. Kansler, Entergy, Environmental Project Manager and 

13 Schedule Change for the License Renewal Environmental Review of 

14 JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML063550121) 

15 January 26, 2007 Summary of Site Audit Related to the Review of the License Renewal 

16 Application for JAFNPP. (Accession No. ML070220055) 

17 January 29, 2007 Letter from P. Dietrich, Entergy, License Renewal Application 

18 Amendment 4 Concerning SAMA Request of Additional Information. 

19 (Accession No. ML070370170) 

20 March 2, 2007 Letter to M. Kansler, Entergy, Environmental Scoping Summary Report 

21 (Accession No. ML070440393) 

22 March 7, 2007 Letter to E Alkiewicz, NYPA, Information Regarding Transmission Line 

23 Corridor Inspection for the JAFNPP License Renewal Application 

24 Review. (Accession No. ML070400200) 

25 May 21, 2007 Letter to M. Moriarty, USFWS, regarding the Biological Assessment for

26 Proposed License Renewal of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

27 Plant. (Accession No. ML071310069) 

Appendix D 

Organizations Contacted 

June 2007 D-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Appendix D: 

2 Organizations Contacted 

3 During the course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s independent review of 

4 environmental impacts from operations during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, 

5 regional, local, and Native American Tribal agencies were contacted: 

6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC 

7 Cayuga Nation, Akron, New York 

8 City of Oswego, Oswego, New York 

9 County of Oswego, Oswego, New York 

10 New York Department of State, Albany, New York 

11 New York Power Authority, White Plains, New York 

12 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York 

13 New York State Department of Health, Albany New York 

14 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, New York 

15 New York State Historic Preservation Office, Waterford, New York 

16 Onondaga Indian Nation, Nedrow, New York 

17 Oneida Indian Nation, Verona, New York 

18 Seneca Nation of Indians, Irving, New York 

19 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Akwesasne, New York 

20 Tonawanda Band of Senecans, Basom, New York 

21 Town of Scriba, Scriba, New York 

22 Tuscarora Indian Nation, Lewiston, New York 

23 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, Hadley, New York 

Appendix E 

Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence 

June 2007 E-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31

Appendix E: 

Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence

Consultation correspondence related to the evaluation of the application for renewal of the 

operating license for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) is identified in 

Table E-1. Copies of the consultation correspondence are included at the end of this appendix. 

The licenses, permits, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State, regional, and local 

authorities for JAFNPP, are listed in Table E-2. 

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence 

Source Recipient Date of Letter 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

New York State Historic 

Preservation Office (B. Castro) 

September 15, 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich)(a) 

Onondaga Indian Nation 

(I. Powless, Jr.) 

September 15, 2007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

(M. Moriarty) 

September 19, 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

(K. Lynch) 

November 7, 2006 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

Natural Heritage Program 

(T. Seoane)(b)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (S. Hernandez) 

November 30, 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

(M. Moriarty) 

May 21, 2007 

(a) Similar letters were sent to other Native American Tribes listed in Appendix C. 

(b) Not publicly available. 
Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, and 

Other Approvals for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) 

Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Date Authorized Activity NRC Atomic Energy Act, 

10 CFR 50 

License to operate DPR-59 October 17, 2014 Authorization to operate 

JAFNPP. 

DOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G Hazardous Materials 

Certificate of Registration 

051706600001O June 30, 2007 Authorization to ship radioactive 

and hazardous materials. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 201 Certificate to Operate an 

Air Contamination Source 

7-3556-0020/00012 Not Applicable Authorization to operate air 

emission sources (diesel generators and boilers). 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 372 Hazardous Waste 

Generator Identification 

NYD000765073 Not Applicable Authorization for hazardous 

waste generation. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 675 Water Withdrawal 

Registration 

NYGLWR-4004 November 20, 2008 Authorization to withdraw water 

from Lake Ontario. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 596 Hazardous Substance 

Bulk Storage Registration Certificate 

7-000117 August 16, 2008 Authorization for onsite bulk 

storage of hazardous substances. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 750 State Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (SPDES) Permit 

NY-0020109 August 1, 2006(a) Permit to discharge 

wastewaters to waters of the State. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 612 Petroleum Bulk Storage 

Registration Certificate 

7-140600 November 20, 2010 Authorization for onsite bulk 

storage of petroleum products. 

NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 373 Hazardous Waste 

Part 373 Permit 

7-3556-0020/0004-0 Not Applicable Authorization to the 

accumulation and temporary storage onsite of mixed waste for >90 days. 

Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-2 June 2007
Table E-2. (cont.)

Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Date Authorized Activity NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 325 Pesticide Application 

Business Registration 

79632 July 31, 2008 Authorization to apply pesticide. 

CVDEM Title 44, Code of Virginia, 

Chapter 3.3, Section 44-146.30 

Application for Registration to Transport Hazardous Radioactive Materials 

EF-S0083107 August 31, 2007 Authorization to transport 

radioactive waste into the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

SCDHEC Act No.429 of 1980, South 

Carolina Radioactive Waste Transportation and Disposal Act 

South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit 

0031-31-07 December 31, 2007 Authorization to transport 

radioactive waste into the State of South Carolina. 

TDEC Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation Regulations 

Tennessee Radioactive Waste-License-for-Delivery 

T-NY003-L07 December 31, 2007 Authorization for the shipment 

of radioactive material into Tennessee to a disposal/processing facility. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CVDEM Commonwealth of Virginia (Department of Emergency Management) DOT U.S. Department of Transportation JAFNPP James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYCRR New York State Codes Rules and Regulations NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (a) JAFNPP continues to operate under the existing permit while NYSDEC completes the SPDES permit renewal. 

 Appendix E June 2007 E-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-4 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-6 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-8 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-10 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-12 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-14 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-16 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-18 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-20 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-22 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-24 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-26 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-28 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-30 June 2007 
 Appendix E 

June 2007 E-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 
Appendix E 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 E-32 June 2007 
Appendix F 

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable 

to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 F-1 June 2007 

1 Appendix F: 

2 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable 

3 to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

4 Table F-1 lists those environmental issues identified in the Generic Environmental Impact 

5 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 

(NRC 1996; 1999),(1) 6 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), 

7 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not applicable to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

8 Power Plant (JAFNPP) because of plant or site characteristics. 

9 Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable 

10 to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category 

GEIS 

Sections Comment 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS) 

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2; 

4.4.2.2 

The JAFNPP cooling system 

does not discharge to an estuary.

Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers using makeup 

water from a small river with low flow) 

2 4.3.2.1: 

4.4.2.1 

The JAFNPP cooling system 

does not use makeup water from 

a small river with low flow. 

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 

early life stages 

1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Heat shock 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

 

(1) 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. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 F-2 June 2007 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category 

GEIS 

Sections Comment 

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and 

service water, and dewatering; plants 

that use <100 gallons per minutes 

[gpm]) 

1 4.8.1.1; 

4.8.1.2 

JAFNPP does not use 

groundwater. 

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and 

service water, and dewatering; plants 

that use >100 gpm) 

2 4.8.1.1; 

4.8.2.1 

JAFNPP does not use 

groundwater. 

Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using 

cooling towers withdrawing makeup 

water from a small river) 

2 4.8.1.3; 

4.4.2.1 

This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney 

wells) 

2 4.8.1.4 JAFNPP do not have or use 

Ranney wells. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(Ranney wells) 

1 4.8.2.2 JAFNPP do not have or use 

Ranney wells. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(saltwater intrusion) 

1 4.8.2.1 The JAFNPP cooling system 

does not discharge to an estuary.

Groundwater quality degradation 

(cooling ponds in salt marshes) 

1 4.8.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(cooling ponds at inland sites) 

2 4.8.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and 

ornamental vegetation 

1 4.3.4 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 1 4.3.5.1 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 

resources 

1 4.4.4 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are not 

installed at JAFNPP. 
Appendix F 

June 2007 F-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category 

GEIS 

Sections Comment 

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbial organisms (public health) 

(plants using lakes or canals, or cooling 

towers or cooling ponds that discharge 

to a small river). 

2 4.3.6 The JAFNPP cooling system 

does not discharge to a small 

river. 

1 F.1 References

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix G 

NRC Staff Evaluation of 

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for 

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

June 2007 G-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Appendix G: 

2 NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for 

3 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

4 

5 G.1 Introduction

6 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an 

7 assessment of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the James A. FitzPatrick 

8 Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) as part of the environmental report (ER) (Entergy 2006a). 

9 Supplemental information on the SAMA assessment was provided in Amendment 1 to the 

10 license renewal application (Entergy 2006b). This assessment was based on the most recent 

11 JAFNPP probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite 

12 consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 

13 (MACCS2) computer code, and insights from the JAFNPP individual plant examination (IPE) 

14 (NPA 1991) and individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) (NPA 1996). In 

15 identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, Entergy considered SAMA candidates that 

16 addressed the major contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose at 

17 JAFNPP, as well as SAMA candidates for other operating plants which have submitted license 

18 renewal applications. Entergy identified 293 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced 

19 to 63 unique SAMA candidates by eliminating SAMAs that: are not applicable to JAFNPP due 

20 to design differences, have already been implemented at JAFNPP, or are similar in nature and 

21 could be combined with another SAMA candidate. Entergy assessed the costs and benefits 

22 associated with each of the potential SAMAs, and concluded in the ER that several of the 

23 candidate SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost-beneficial. 

24 Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

25 issued a request for additional information (RAI) to Entergy, by letter dated November 29, 2006 

26 (NRC 2006). Key questions concerned: major plant and modeling changes incorporated within 

27 each evolution of the PSA model; source term and release time category assumptions used in 

28 the Level 2 analysis; justification for the multiplier used for external events; identification of 

29 SAMAs to reduce the fire CDF; and further information on several specific candidate SAMAs 

30 and low cost alternatives. Entergy submitted additional information by letters dated December 

31 6, 2006 (Entergy 2006b) and January 29, 2007 (Entergy 2007). In the responses, Entergy 

32 provided: a summary of the major changes made to each PSA model version and resultant 

33 changes to dominant risk contributors to CDF; a discussion of the Level 2 analysis and the 

34 process for assigning severe accident source terms and binning release categories; a revised 

35 assessment of the baseline SAMA benefits considering a multiplier to account for external 

36 events exclusive of uncertainties; a discussion of measures that have been taken to reduce risk 

37 in dominant fire zones and why the fire CDF for those zones cannot be further reduced in a cost 

38 effective manner; and additional information regarding several specific SAMAs. Entergy’s 

39 responses addressed the NRC staff’s concerns.
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-2 June 2007 

1 G.2 Estimate of Risk for JAFNPP

2 Entergy’s estimates of offsite risk at JAFNPP are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary 

3 is followed by the NRC staff’s review of Entergy’s risk estimates in Section G.2.2. 

4 G.2.1 Entergy’s Risk Estimates

5 Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA 

6 analysis: (1) the JAFNPP Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the IPE 

7 (NPA 1991), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts 

8 (essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The SAMA 

9 analysis is based on the most recent JAFNPP Level 1 and Level 2 PSA model available at the 

10 time of the ER, referred to as the JAFNPP PSA (Revision 2, October 2004 model). The scope 

11 of the JAFNPP PSA does not include external events. 

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 2.74 x 10-6 12 per year. 

13 The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally-initiated events. Entergy did not include 

14 the contribution from external events within the JAFNPP risk estimates; however, it did account 

15 for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by multiplying the 

estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of 4.(1) 16 This is discussed further in Sections 

17 G.2.2 and G.6.2. 

18 The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1 (Entergy 2006a). As shown 

19 in this table, events initiated by station blackout and transients are the dominant contributors to 

20 the CDF. Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) sequences are insignificant contributors 

21 to the CDF. 

22 The Level 2 JAFNPP PSA model that forms the basis for the SAMA evaluation represents an 

23 updated version of the original IPE Level 2 model. The current Level 2 model utilizes a single 

24 containment event tree (CET) containing both phenomenological and systemic events. The 

25 Level 1 core damage sequences are binned into one of 48 Plant Damage State (PDS) bins 

26 which provide the interface between the Level 1 and Level 2 CET analysis. CET nodes are 

27 evaluated using supporting fault trees and logic rules. 

28 The result of the Level 2 PSA is a set of 7 release categories with their respective frequency 

29 and release characteristics. The results of this analysis for JAFNPP are provided in 

30 Table E.1-10 of the ER (Entergy 2006a). The frequency of each release category was obtained 

31 by summing the frequency of the individual accident progression CET endpoints binned into the 

32 release category. Source terms were developed for each of the 7 release categories using the 

 

(1) In the ER, Entergy bounded the combined impact of external events and uncertainties by applying a 

multiplier of 16 to the estimated SAMA benefits for internal events. In supplemental information to the 

ER, Entergy revised the analysis to include a multiplier of 4 to account for potential SAMA benefits in both 

internal and external events, and provided a separate accounting of uncertainties. 
Appendix G 

June 2007 G-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 results of Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP 4.04) computer code calculations. These 

2 release categories and source terms were further collapsed into three distinct source term bins 

3 to represent no containment failure, early releases, and late releases. 

4 Table G-1. JAFNPP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events 

Initiating Event

CDF 

(per year)

 Percent 

Contribution to 

CDF

Station Blackout 1.27 x 10-6 46 

Transients with loss of containment heat removal 7.78x 10-7 28 

Transients with loss of all emergency core 

cooling system (ECCS) injection 

2.66 x 10-7 10 

ATWS 1.38x 10-7 5 

Loss of a 4.16kv alternating current (AC) 

safeguard bus 

1.18 x 10-7 5 

Loss of both direct current (DC) divisions 9.55 x 10-8 3 

Loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) 2.83 x 10-8 1 

Loss of a division of DC power 2.60 x 10-8 1 

Relay room flooding 2.53 x 10-8 1 

Total CDF (internal events) 2.74 x 10-6 100

5 

6 The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine 

7 the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Inputs for these analyses 

8 include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory, source term 

9 and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within a 

10 50-mile radius) for the year 2034, emergency response evacuation modeling, and economic 

11 data. The core radionuclide inventory is derived from a reference core inventory for a boiling 

12 water reactor (BWR) in MACCS2. Core inventory was scaled to account for the JAFNPP13 specific power level, and long-lived radionuclide inventory was increased by 25 percent to 

14 reflect the expected core exposure and fuel management practices at JAFNPP (Entergy 2007). 

15 The magnitude of the onsite impacts (in terms of clean-up and decontamination costs and 

16 occupational dose) is based on information provided in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997a). 

17 In the ER, Entergy estimated the dose to the population within 50 miles of the JAFNPP site to 

18 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-4 June 2007 

1 be approximately 1.63 person-rem per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by 

2 containment release mode is summarized in Table G-2. Containment failures within the late 

3 time frame (greater than 24 hours following event initiation) and the early time frame (0 to 24 

4 hours following event initiation) dominate the population dose risk at JAFNPP, contributing 

5 about equally to the population dose risk. 

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

Containment Release 

Mode

Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1

 

Per Year)

Percent 

Contribution

Late Containment Failure 0.87 53 

Early Containment Failure 0.76 47 

Intact Containment negligible negligible 

Total 1.63 100

 1 7 One person-Rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

8 G.2.2 Review of Entergy’s Risk Estimates 

9 Entergy’s determination of offsite risk at JAFNPP is based on the following three major elements 

10 of analysis: 

11 · The Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1991 IPE submittal (NPA 

12 1991), and the external event analyses of the 1996 IPEEE submittal (NPA 1996), 

13 · The major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the JAFNPP 

14 PSA, and 

15 · The MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release 

16 frequencies from the Level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures. 

17 Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of Entergy’s risk estimates 

18 for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

19 The NRC staff's review of the JAFNPP IPE is described in an NRC report dated May 9, 1994 

20 (NRC 1994). Based on a review of the IPE submittal and responses to RAIs, the NRC staff 

21 concluded that the IPE submittal met the intent of GL 88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the licensee’s 

22 IPE process is capable of identifying severe accident risk contributors or vulnerabilities. 

23 No vulnerabilities were identified in the IPE. However, the licensee noted that a number of 

24 actions were under evaluation as a result of the IPE process that would reduce the risk of core 

25 damage and loss of containment function. Specific improvements identified for implementation 

26 
Appendix G 

June 2007 G-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 included: increasing the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) turbine exhaust set points, 

2 repowering the RCIC enclosure exhaust fans from AC to DC, and fire protection system 

3 modifications to provide emergency diesel generator (EDG) jacket water cooling directly or 

4 through the emergency service water (ESW) system. Over 10 additional items were identified 

5 for follow-on evaluation by the licensee (NRC 1994). 

6 There have been two revisions to the IPE model since the 1991 IPE submittal, specifically, a 

7 complete revision of the model in 1998 (Revision 1) in partial response to the boiling-water 

8 reactor owner group (BWROG) peer review, and a revision in October 2004 (Revision 2) 

9 completing the response to the BWROG peer review. The Revision 2 model reflects the 

10 JAFNPP configuration and design as of December 2003 and uses component failure and 

11 unavailability data as of December 2002. A comparison of internal events CDF between the 

12 1991 IPE and the current PSA model indicates an increase of about 40 percent in the total CDF 

(from 1.9 x 10-6 per year to 2.7 x 10-6 13 per year). A listing of those changes that resulted in the 

14 greatest impact on the internal events CDF was provided by Entergy in supplemental 

15 information to the ER (Entergy 2006b) and in response to an RAI (Entergy 2007) and is 

16 summarized in Table G-3. 

The CDF value from the 1991 IPE (1.92 x 10-6 17 per year) is near the lower end of the range of 

18 the CDF values reported in the IPEs for other BWR 3/4 plants. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 

shows that the IPE-based total internal events CDF for BWR 3/4 plants ranges from 9 x 10-8 19 per 

year to 8 x 10-5 per year, with an average CDF for the group of 2 x 10-5 20 per year (NRC 1997b). 

21 It is recognized that other plants have updated the values for CDF subsequent to the IPE 

22 submittals to reflect modeling and hardware changes. The current internal events CDF results 

23 for JAFNPP are comparable to that for other plants of similar vintage and characteristics. 

24 The NRC staff considered the peer reviews performed for the JAFNPP PSA, and the potential 

25 impact of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER (Entergy 2006a) and in 

26 response to an NRC staff RAI (Entergy 2007), Entergy described the previous peer reviews, 

27 including independent consultant team reviews of draft versions of the IPE and Revision 1, as 

28 well as the BWROG Peer Review of a draft of Revision 1 conducted in December 1997. The 

29 BWROG review concluded that the JAFNPP PSA can be effectively used to support risk ranking 

30 of systems, structures, and components, and to support applications involving risk significance 

31 determinations when supported by deterministic analyses and when noted items are addressed. 

32 Entergy stated that all major issues and observations from the BWROG Peer Review have been 

33 addressed and incorporated into the current PSA (Revision 2). 

34 Given that the JAFNPP internal events PSA model has been peer-reviewed and the peer review 

35 findings were all addressed, and that Entergy has satisfactorily addressed NRC staff questions 

36 regarding the PSA, the NRC staff concludes that the internal events Level 1 PSA model is of 

37 sufficient quality to support the SAMA evaluation.
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-6 June 2007 

1 Table G-3. JAFNPP PSA Historical Summary

PSA 

Version

Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF 

(per year)

1991 IPE Submittal 1.92 x 10-6

1998 

(Revision 1) 

- Incorporated impact of design changes (supply EDG jacket 

cooling water through the ESW system cross-tie, bonnet vents on 

the low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) and core spray injection 

valves, keylock bypass switches, normal position of residual heat 

removal (RHR) minimum flow bypass valve, and RCIC enclosure 

fan power supply changed to an AC inverter feed from a DC power 

source) 

- Revised model to include catastrophic common cause failure of 

both 125V DC battery control boards, and other common cause 

equipment failures 

- Revised model to assume loss of all AC power in the same 

division in which there is a loss of DC power 

- Revised internal flooding analysis to include a relay room flooding 

scenario 

- Revised transient sequences to directly result in core damage if 

manual depressurization of the reactor vessel fails 

- Revised model to assume core damage occurs given failure to 

initiate Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) 

- Updated initiating event frequencies and component failure and 

unavailability database 

2.44 x 10-6 
June 2007 G-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Table G-3. JAFNPP PSA Historical Summary (cont.)

PSA 

Version

Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF 

(per year)

2004 

(Revision 2) 

- Reduced station battery depletion time from 8 to 4 hours, and 

updated non-recovery probabilities for loss of offsite power 

- Revised model to include additional accident initiators: loss of 

non-safeguard 4.16kV AC Buses, loss of condensate system, 

loss of instrument air system, loss of ultimate heat sink, and loss 

of reactor water level instrumentation 

- Revised model to assume loss of both high-pressure coolant 

injection (HPCI) and RCIC during accidents involving a loss of 

containment heat removal 

- Revised system fault tree models to include additional electrical 

and instrumentation and control (I&C) component common cause 

failures 

- Reevaluated dependencies between post-initiator human 

actions and recovery actions 

- Updated initiating event frequencies and component failure data 

for instrument, master and slave trip units 

2.74 x 10-6

2 

3 As indicated above, the current JAFNPP PSA does not include external events. In the absence 

4 of such an analysis, Entergy used the JAFNPP IPEEE to identify the highest risk accident 

5 sequences and the potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences, as 

6 discussed below.

7 The JAFNPP IPEEE was submitted in June 1996 (NPA 1996), in response to Supplement 4 of 

8 Generic Letter 88-20 (NRC 19961b). While no fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to 

9 severe accident risk in regard to the external events were identified, a listing of improvement 

10 opportunities was developed as discussed below. In a letter dated September 21, 2000, the 

11 NRC staff concluded that the submittal met the intent of Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20, 

12 and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents 

13 and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2000a).

14 

15 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-8 June 2007 

1 The JAFNPP IPEEE seismic analysis (NPA 1996) utilized a seismic margin assessment (SMA) 

2 approach following NRC guidance (NRC 1991) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

3 guidance (EPRI 1991). This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates of 

4 the CDF contributions from seismic initiators. The seismic analysis was completed in 

5 conjunction with the Seismic Qualification User Group (SQUG) program (SQUG 1992). The 

6 overall seismic approach employed plant walkdowns to identify vulnerabilities, development of 

7 seismic fragility values for components and structures, and quantification of high confidence low 

8 probability of failure (HCLPF) for initiating events. A relay chatter evaluation was performed 

9 using the standard approach for an Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 (NRC 2000b) program 

10 plant. The conclusions of the JAFNPP IPEEE seismic margin analysis are: 

• The overall plant HCLPF capacity at JAFNPP is 0.22g peak ground acceleration (PGA). This 11 

12 value reflects implemented improvements to strengthen block walls in the Emergency Diesel 

13 Generator Building, which increased the plant HCLPF value from 0.17g to 0.22g. Several 

14 buildings and structures have HCLPF values at the 0.22g level. Thus, further increases in 

15 seismic capacity would require multiple plant modifications. 

• A vulnerability to fire or explosion as a result of the seismic-induced failure of the hydrogen line 16 

17 in the turbine building was identified. A note was added to procedure AOP-14, “Earthquake,” 

18 stating that the piping can be isolated by closing the hydrogen supply valve 89A-H2HAS-1. 

19 Based on this procedure change, the applicant concludes that seismic-induced flooding and 

20 fires do not pose major risks. 

• No unique decay heat removal vulnerabilities to seismic events were found. 21 

• No unique seismic-induced containment failure mechanisms were identified. 22 

23 The NRC review and closeout of USI A-46 for JAFNPP is documented in a letter dated April 12, 

24 2000 (NRC 2000b). Based on the information provided by the applicant, the NRC staff finds 

25 that seismic risks are not dominant contributors to external event risk and that the treatment of 

26 seismic events is reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA analysis. 

27 The JAFNPP IPEEE fire analysis employed EPRI’s fire-induced vulnerability evaluation (FIVE) 

28 methodology to perform a qualitative and quantitative screening review and then a probabilistic 

29 risk analysis to estimate the CDF contribution for the areas that did not screen out. After 

30 qualitative screening, fire event initiation frequencies were determined for the unscreened areas 

31 for use in quantitative screening along with the assumption that all equipment in a compartment 

32 was damaged by the fire. Using results from the IPE, a conservative CDF for the compartment 

was determined and areas with a CDF of less than 1 x 10-6 per year (or 1 x 10-7 33 per year if 

34 containment bypass may result) were screened out. Fire propagation and suppression analysis 

35 was then conducted on the unscreened compartments. Fire-induced CDFs were determined by 

36 propagating the fire initiating events and associated equipment failures determined by the fire 

37 propagation and suppression analysis through event trees similar to those in the IPE. The 

38 
June 2007 G-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 potential impact on containment performance and isolation was evaluated following the core 

2 damage evaluation. The JAFNPP fire CDF results are presented in Table E.1-12 of the ER for 

3 the ten fire areas considered in the analysis, and the fire zones/compartments within each fire 

area. The total fire CDF, found by summing the values for all compartments, is 2.56 x 10-5 4 per 

5 year. The ten fire areas and their contributions to the fire CDF are listed in Table G-4. 

6 In the IPEEE, three opportunities for improvements with respect to fire events were identified. 

7 These improvements involve: (1) addition of a bypass switch to allow opening of the LPCI and 

8 core spray injection valves and an associated procedure for use of these switches during plant 

9 fires, (2) changes to administrative procedures to impose strict limitations on unattended 

10 combustible materials in the cable spreading room, and (3) relocation of heat detectors in the 

11 cable spreading room to limit contribution from transient fires. In supplemental information to 

12 the ER, Entergy indicated that the first two of these improvements have been implemented as 

13 recommended in the IPEEE. The third improvement is considered to be addressed by the 

14 changes to administrative procedures to limit unattended combustible material loading in the 

15 room. Entergy stated that none of these improvements are credited in the IPEEE fire CDF 

16 (Entergy 2006b). 

17 In the ER, Entergy states that the IPEEE CDF values are screening values and that a more 

realistic fire CDF may be about a factor of three lower (or 8.53 x 10-6 18 per year) based on 

19 conservatisms in several areas as qualitatively assessed in the ER. In supplemental 

20 information, Entergy presented the results of a sensitivity analysis to quantitatively justify the 

21 factor of three reduction (Entergy 2006b). The sensitivity analysis included the following: (1) 

22 lower probability of occurrence of spurious actuation or failure due to hot shorts and open 

23 circuits within cable jackets in the Cable Spreading Room, Reactor Building East Crescent, and 

24 Relay Room and (2) lower ignition frequency for a fire in the Main Control Room. The results of 

25 this sensitivity analysis are shown for the four impacted areas in the last two columns of the 

26 table below. These reductions would quantitatively justify a reduction in the fire CDF by a factor 

27 of 2.3. 

28 Entergy noted that this fire CDF would be further reduced by IPEEE improvements not included 

29 in the CDF estimate, including monitoring and controlling the quantity of combustible materials 

30 in critical process areas. These measures would reduce the fire CDF in all dominant fire zones. 

31 Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis and the existence of remaining conservatisms, 

the NRC staff finds the use of a fire CDF of 8.53 x 10-6 32 per year to be reasonable for the 

33 purposes of the SAMA analysis. 

34 The NRC staff inquired about additional steps taken to reduce fire risk and the possibility of 

35 additional SAMAs that might be feasible to reduce the fire risk. Entergy provided a listing of fire36 related SAMAs that have been implemented. Most of these SAMAs are improvements in the 

37 fire protection program, which would decrease the fire risk, but are not explicitly credited in the 

38 fire risk analysis. In addition, all but one of the six dominant fire zones (i.e., zones within the 

above-mentioned fire areas with a compartment frequency greater than 1.0 x 10-6 39 per year) are 

40 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-10 June 2007 

1 

2 

3 

4 Table G-4. Fire Areas and Their Contribution to the Fire CDF

 CDF (per year)

Fire Area Description IPEEE Sensitivity Analysis(a)

Cable Spreading Room 6.71 x 10-6 4.66 x 10-7

Relay Room 5.81 x 10-6 6.8 x 10-7

Reactor Building 3.43 x 10-6 2.46x 10-6

Control Room 3.00 x 10-6 7.17x 10-7

Cable Tunnels 1.96 x 10-6 no change 

Diesel Generator Building 1.93 x 10-6 no change 

Battery Room 1.45 x 10-6 no change 

Turbine Building 1.29 x 10-6 no change 

Standby Gas Treatment 

Building 

3.72 x 10-8 no change 

Electric Bays 8.98 x 10-10 no change 

 TOTAL 2.56 x 10-5 1.10 x 10-5

 (a) 5 Source: Entergy 2006b 

6 equipped with fire detection systems, three of the six dominant fire zones have fire suppression 

7 systems, and the Main Control Room, which has neither fire detection or fire suppression 

8 systems, is always occupied ensuring prompt fire detection and manual suppression. Entergy 

9 stated that no further cost-effective changes were identified to reduce CDF in the dominant fire 

10 zones (Entergy 2006b). The NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for fire-related SAMAs 

11 has been adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any potentially cost-beneficial, 

12 fire-related SAMA candidates. 

13 The IPEEE analysis of high winds, floods and other external events followed the screening and 

14 evaluation approaches specified in Supplement 4 to GL 88-20 (NRC 1991b) and did not identify 

any sequences or vulnerabilities that exceeded the 1.0 x 10-6 15 per year criterion (NPA 1996). 

16 However, the licensee identified a condition where low pressures associated with hurricanes, 

17 tornadoes, and high winds could threaten the integrity of the air intake duct work supplying the 
June 2007 G-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 EDG room. Operating procedures were developed to open switchgear room doors or to open 

2 damaged duct work if necessary to ensure adequate ventilation of the switchgear room and 

3 adequate supply of combustion air to the EDGs. Based on this result, Entergy concluded that 

4 these other external hazards would not be expected to impact the conclusions of the SAMA 

5 analysis and did not consider them further.

6 Based on the aforementioned results, the external events CDF is approximately 3.1 times the 

internal events CDF (based on a fire CDF of 8.53 × 10-6 7 per year and an internal events CDF of 

2.74 × 10-6 8 per year). Accordingly, the total CDF (from internal and external events) would be 

9 approximately 4.1 times the internal events CDF. In revised SAMA analyses submitted in 

10 response to an RAI, Entergy multiplied the benefit that was derived from the internal events 

11 model by a factor of 4 to account for the combined contribution from internal and external 

12 events. The NRC staff agrees with the applicant’s overall conclusion concerning the impact of 

13 external events and concludes that the applicant’s use of a multiplier of 4 to account for external 

14 events is reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

15 The NRC staff reviewed the general process used by Entergy to translate the results of the 

16 Level 1 PSA into containment releases, as well as the results of the Level 2 analysis, as 

17 described in the ER and in response to NRC staff requests for additional information (Entergy 

18 2006a, 2007). The current Level 2 model utilizes a single CET containing both 

19 phenomenological and systemic events. The Level 1 core damage sequences are binned into 

20 one of 48 PDS bins based on binning criteria reflecting the state of the reactor, containment and 

21 cooling systems as the accident progresses. The PDSs provide the interface between the Level 

22 1 and Level 2 analysis. CET nodes are evaluated using supporting fault trees and logic rules. 

23 Entergy characterized the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios 

24 using a set of 7 release categories based on the timing and magnitude of the release and 

25 whether or not the containment remains intact. The frequency of each release category was 

26 obtained by summing the frequency of the individual accident progression CET endpoints 

27 binned into the release category. The release characteristics for each release category were 

28 developed by grouping the hundreds of source terms generated for internal initiators into the 7 

29 categories based on similar properties. Source term release fractions were developed for each 

30 of the 7 release categories using the results of Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP 

31 4.04) computer code calculations. The release categories, their frequencies, and release 

32 characteristics are presented in Tables E.1-8, E.1-10, and E.1-11 of the ER, respectively 

33 (Entergy 2006a). These release categories and source terms were further collapsed into three 

34 distinct source term bins to represent no containment failure, early releases, and late releases. 

35 The NRC staff noted that in collapsing the 7 release categories into three source term bins, 

36 releases occurring between 0 to 8 hours and between 8 to 24 hours were grouped into one bin. 

37 In response to an RAI, Entergy performed a sensitivity study that showed that this simplification 

38 results in less than a 2 percent change on population dose (Entergy 2007). Based on these 

39 results the NRC staff concludes that the applicant’s characterization of releases is adequate for 

40 the purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-12 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff’s review of the Level 2 IPE concluded that it addressed the most important 

2 severe accident phenomena normally associated with the Mark I containment type, and 

3 identified no significant problems or errors (NRC 1994). It should be noted, however, that the 

4 current Level 2 model is a revision to that of the IPE. The Level 2 PSA model was included in 

5 the independent consultant and BWROG peer reviews mentioned previously. The changes to 

6 the Level 2 model to update the methodology and to address peer review recommendations are 

7 described in Section E.1.4.2.2 of the ER. Based on the NRC staff’s review of the Level 2 

8 methodology, and the fact that the Level 2 model was reviewed in more detail as part of the 

9 BWROG peer review, and updated to address the review findings, the NRC staff concludes that 

10 the Level 2 PSA provides an acceptable basis for evaluating the benefits associated with 

11 various SAMAs.

12 Entergy used the MACCS2 code and scaled the reference BWR core inventory for the JAFNPP 

13 plant-specific power level. Entergy also increased the long-lived radionuclide core inventory by 

14 25 percent to address JAFNPP specific fuel enrichment and burnup. In response to an NRC 

15 staff RAI, Entergy identified that the 25-percent increase was based on a best estimate 

16 inventory of long-lived isotopes (such as Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) from an ORIGEN computer 

17 code calculation assuming 4.66 percent enrichment and average burnup based on expected 

18 fuel management practices (Entergy 2007). The best-estimate evaluation resulted in an 

19 increase of approximately 25 percent in the inventories of the aforementioned radionuclides. 

20 The NRC staff considers the methods and assumptions for power scaling and 25 percent 

21 increase in long-lived inventory reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA 

22 evaluation. 

23 The NRC staff reviewed the process used by Entergy to extend the containment performance 

24 (Level 2) portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 

25 PSA). This included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product 

26 releases for the applicable containment release categories and the major input assumptions 

27 used in the offsite consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was utilized to estimate offsite 

28 consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the source terms for each release 

29 category and the reactor core radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific 

30 meteorological data, projected population distribution within a 50-mile radius for the year 2034, 

31 emergency evacuation modeling, and economic data. This information is provided in 

32 Attachment E to the ER (Entergy 2006a). 

33 Entergy used site-specific meteorological data for the 1994 calendar year as input to the 

34 MACCS2 code. The data were collected from the onsite meteorological monitoring system and 

35 regional National Weather System (NWS) stations. In response to an NRC staff RAI, Entergy 

36 identified the location of the National Weather System stations as being at Fulton-Oswego 

37 County Airport and NWS Station No. 14733 in Buffalo, NY (Entergy 2007). Based on a review 

38 of meteorological data between 1985 and 2001, Entergy stated that it considered the year 1994 

39 data to be the most representative set of data because it contained no significant extremes and 

40 reflected average meteorological conditions at the site (Entergy 2006a). Missing data was 

41 obtained from either the upper elevation on the met tower or from estimates based on adjacent 

42 valid measurements of the missing hour. The NRC staff notes that previous SAMA analyses 
June 2007 G-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 results have shown little sensitivity to year-to-year differences in meteorological data and 

2 concludes that the use of the 1994 meteorological data in the SAMA analysis is reasonable. 

3 The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated 

4 for the year 2034, based on the New York Statistical Information System projections from year 

5 2000 to 2030 (Brown 2005). The 2000 population was adjusted to account for transient 

6 population. These data were used to project county-level resident populations to the year 2034 

7 using a least squares fit method. The NRC staff considers the methods and assumptions for 

8 estimating population reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

9 The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out 16 

10 kilometers (10 miles) from the plant. Entergy assumed that 100 percent of the population would 

11 move at an average speed of approximately 2.0 meters per second (4.4 miles per hour) with a 

12 delayed start time of 2.25 hours (Entergy 2006a). This assumption is similar to the model used 

13 in NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990), which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the 

14 population within the emergency planning zone (EPZ). Sensitivity analyses were performed in 

15 which the evacuation delay time was increased to 4.5 hours, and the evacuation speed was 

16 decreased to 1.0 meters per second. The results were less than a one percent increase in the 

17 total population dose. The NRC staff questioned why the evacuation speed of 2.0 meters per 

18 second (4.4 miles per hour) was different than that used for the Nine Mile Point SAMA analysis 

19 (NRC 2006). In response, Entergy stated that the JAFNPP evacuation speed was based on 

20 evacuation times provided in the 2003 version of the evacuation time study (ETE) (KLD 

21 Associates 2003), whereas the Nine Mile Point evacuation time estimate was based on an ETE 

22 study performed in 1993 (Entergy 2007). The NRC staff also asked Entergy to address the 

23 potential impact on the population dose if 5 percent of the population fails to evacuate the EPZ 

24 (NRC 2006). In response, Entergy performed a sensitivity analysis that showed only a slight 

25 increase in population dose (less than 1 percent for the late release) would result (Entergy 

26 2007). The NRC staff concludes that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are reasonable 

27 and acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

28 Much of the site-specific economic data was provided from the 2002 Census of Agriculture 

29 (USDA 2002). These included the value of farm and non-farm wealth. Other data such as daily 

30 cost for an evacuated person, population relocation cost, daily cost for a person who is 

31 relocated, cost of farm and non-farm decontamination, and property depreciation were provided 

32 from the Code Manual for MACCS2 (NRC 1997c). The data from the default values given in the 

33 MACCS2 code manual were adjusted using the consumer price index of 179.9, the average 

34 value for 2002. Information on regional crops were obtained from the 2002 Census of 

35 Agriculture. Crops for each county were mapped into the seven MACCS2 crop categories. 

36 The NRC staff concludes that the methodology used by Entergy to estimate the offsite 

37 consequences for JAFNPP provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an 

38 assessment of risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the NRC staff based 

39 its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by Entergy. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-14 June 2007 

1 G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

2 The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the 

3 improvements evaluated in detail by Entergy are discussed in this section. 

4 G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements 

5 Entergy's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the 

6 following elements: 

7 · Review of the most significant basic events from the current, plant-specific PSA, 

8 · Review of potential plant improvements identified in the JAFNPP IPE and IPEEE, 

9 · Review of SAMA candidates identified for license renewal applications for six other U.S. 

10 General Electric (GE) plants, and 

11 · Review of other NRC and industry documentation discussing potential plant 

12 improvements. 

13 Based on this process, an initial set of 293 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs, 

14 was identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, Entergy performed a qualitative screening of the 

15 initial list of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following 

16 criteria: 

17 · The SAMA is not applicable at JAFNPP due to design differences, 

18 · The SAMA has already been implemented at JAFNPP, or 

19 · The SAMA is similar in nature and could be combined with another SAMA candidate. 

20 Based on this screening, 230 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 63 for further evaluation. The 

21 remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II SAMAs, are listed in Table E.2-1 of the ER (Entergy 

22 2006a). In Phase II, a detailed evaluation was performed for each of the 63 remaining SAMA 

23 candidates, as discussed in Sections G.4 and G.6 below. To account for the potential impact of 

24 external events, the estimated benefits based on internal events were multiplied by a factor of 4, 

25 as previously discussed. 

26 G.3.2 Review of Entergy’s Process 

27 Entergy’s efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal 

28 initiating events. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident sequences 

29 considered to be important to CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk reduction worth 

30 (RRW) perspectives at JAFNPP, and included selected SAMAs from prior SAMA analyses for 

31 other plants. 
June 2007 G-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 Entergy provided a tabular listing of the PSA basic events sorted according to their RRW 

2 (Entergy 2006a). SAMAs impacting these basic events would have the greatest potential for 

3 reducing risk. Entergy used a RRW cutoff of 1.005, which corresponds to about a one-half 

4 percent change in CDF given 100-percent reliability of the SAMA. This equates to a benefit of 

5 approximately $2,500 (after the benefits have been multiplied to account for external events). 

6 Entergy also provided and reviewed the large early release frequency (LERF)-based RRW 

7 events down to a RRW of 1.005. Entergy correlated the top Level 1 and Level 2 events with the 

8 SAMAs evaluated in the ER, and showed that all of the significant basic events are addressed 

9 by one or more SAMAs (Entergy 2006a).

10 NRC staff noted that no Phase II SAMAs were recommended for event NR-LOSP-7HR, non11 recovery of offsite power in seven hours, which is the highest risk reduction worth non-initiator 

12 event. The NRC staff asked the applicant to identify and evaluate SAMAs for this event (NRC 

13 2006). In response to the RAI, Entergy stated that procedure and training improvements for 

14 restoring power to vital equipment following a recovery of the offsite power supply have been 

15 implemented, but that hardware improvements that could facilitate recovery of offsite power 

16 would merely shift NR-LOSP-7HR to a slightly later time on the power recovery curve and 

17 therefore would have little impact on the RRW of the event (Entergy 2007). Entergy further 

18 noted that other Phase II SAMAs (26 through 36 and 62), if implemented, would reduce the 

19 CDF contribution from this basic event. These SAMAs would enhance AC or DC system 

20 reliability or otherwise cope with loss of offsite power and SBO events. These Phase II SAMAs 

21 were evaluated in the ER. 

22 NRC staff also noted that no Phase I or Phase II SAMAs were recommended for event IE23 RRFLOOD, transient caused by internal flooding in the relay room, although a procedure 

24 change has been implemented to address the event. In an NRC staff RAI, the applicant was 

25 asked to provide justification for why no SAMAs were identified to address internal flooding 

26 events (NRC 2006). Entergy responded that additional methods of mitigating this flood event 

27 would entail either moving the fire protection line or installing a guard pipe to channel floodwater 

28 out of the relay room, both of which were judged to be costly relative to the risk significance of 

29 the related flood scenarios (Entergy 2007). The remaining flood scenarios are not risk30 significant (i.e., above the 1.005 RRW threshold for SAMA identification). 

31 For a number of the Phase II SAMAs listed in the ER, the information provided did not 

32 sufficiently describe the proposed modification. Therefore, the NRC staff asked the applicant to 

33 provide more detailed descriptions of the modifications for several of the Phase II SAMAs 

34 candidates (NRC 2006). In response to the RAI, Entergy provided the requested information 

35 (Entergy 2007).

36 The NRC staff questioned the ability of some of the candidate SAMAs to accomplish their 

37 intended objectives (NRC 2006a). In response to the RAIs, Entergy addressed the NRC staff’s 

38 concerns by either re-evaluating the existing SAMA using revised modeling assumptions, or by 

39 evaluating an alternative (additional) SAMA (Entergy 2007). This is discussed further in Section 

40 G.6.2.
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-16 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff also questioned Entergy about lower cost alternatives to some of the SAMAs 

2 evaluated, including: the use of a redundant diesel fire pump to address event FXT-ENG-FR3 76PI (failure of diesel driven fire pump 76P-1), the use of a local hand wheel or gas bottle 

4 supplies for manual venting of containment, and the use of a portable generator to provide 

5 alternate DC power feeds (NRC 2006). In supplemental information and in response to the 

6 RAIs, Entergy addressed the suggested lower cost alternatives, some of which are covered by 

7 an existing procedure, or are addressed by a new SAMA (Entergy 2006b, 2007). This is 

8 discussed further in Section G.6.2. 

9 In the ER, Entergy states that in both the IPE and IPEEE, several enhancements related to 

10 severe accident insights were recommended and implemented, and that these enhancements 

11 were included in the comprehensive list of Phase I SAMA candidates. However, the list of 

12 Phase I SAMA candidates was not provided in the ER. Therefore, the NRC staff requested that 

13 the applicant indicate whether the enhancement has been implemented, and whether credit for 

14 the enhancement is taken in the current PSA model (used for the SAMA analysis) (NRC 2006). 

15 In supplemental information to the ER, Entergy indicated that Phase I SAMAs 253, 256, 262, 

16 and 280 through 293 include enhancements recommended in the IPE and IPEEE (Entergy 

17 2006b). Entergy further indicated that most of these SAMAs have been implemented and that 

18 SAMA 280 was determined to be unnecessary. Those enhancements that have not been 

19 implemented or determined to not be necessary (SAMAs 281 through 284) were retained for 

20 consideration during Phase II. In response to the RAI, Entergy noted that except for Phase I 

21 SAMAs 94, 101, 120, and 267, the implemented Phase I SAMAs mentioned in the ER have 

22 been credited in the current PSA model (Entergy 2007). The absence of these four 

23 implemented modifications from the PSA model adds conservatism to the benefit estimates for 

24 Phase II SAMAs. 

25 Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER, 

26 together with those identified in supplemental information to the ER and in response to NRC 

27 staff RAIs, addresses the major contributors to internal event CDF.

28 Entergy did not identify JAFNPP-specific candidate SAMAs for seismic events. In the JAFNPP 

29 IPEEE seismic analysis, the overall plant HCLPF value was determined to be 0.22g. This value 

30 reflects implemented improvements to strengthen block walls EGB-272-6, 7, 9, and 10 in the 

31 Emergency Diesel Generator Building, which increased the plant HCLPF value from 0.17g to 

32 0.22g. Several buildings and structures have HCLPF values at the 0.22g level. Thus, further 

33 increases in seismic capacity would require multiple plant modifications. The JAFNPP IPEEE 

34 also identified that there is a fire-induced seismic vulnerability due to failure of the hydrogen line 

35 in the turbine building. The NRC staff requested that the applicant provide details on actions 

36 taken to reduce this risk and whether a SAMA to further reduce this risk is cost-beneficial (NRC 

37 2006). In their response, Entergy stated the hydrogen supply is protected by excess flow valves 

38 outside the turbine building that are intended to limit hydrogen release in the event of a line 

39 break (Entergy 2007). Entergy also indicated that this event has already been further mitigated 

40 by making a modification to plant abnormal procedure AOP-14, “Earthquake,” to require that 

41 
June 2007 G-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 plant operators close hydrogen supply valve 89A-H2HAS-1 following a seismic event (Phase I 

2 SAMA 286). Finally, Entergy notes that the turbine building fire risk provided in the ER (which 

does not reflect the implemented plant procedure) is less than 1 x 10-6 3 per year, and cannot be 

4 further reduced in a cost-effective manner. Based on the licensee’s IPEEE, the A-46 efforts to 

5 identify and address seismic outliers, the modifications that have already been implemented, 

6 and the expected cost associated with further seismic risk analysis and potential plant 

7 modifications, the NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has been 

8 adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any cost-beneficial, seismic-related 

9 SAMA candidates. 

10 Entergy also did not identify any JAFNPP-specific candidate SAMAs for fire events. The fire 

11 risk at JAFNPP is dominated by ten fire areas, eight of which have fire CDF contributions in 

excess of 1 x 10-6 12 per year, with the largest contributor being the Cable Spreading Room. The 

13 NRC staff asked the applicant to explain what measures were taken to further reduce risk and 

14 why the fire risk cannot be further reduced in a cost-effective manner (NRC 2006). In 

15 supplemental information to the ER, Entergy stated that the fire area CDFs are conservative 

16 and presented the results of a sensitivity analysis that reduced modeling conservatisms 

17 (Entergy 2006b). This analysis, as discussed previously in Section G.2.2, reduced the 

18 individual CDF contributions for three of the top four dominant fire areas to below the 

1 x 10-6 19 per year threshold. Entergy also noted that the fire CDF is further reduced by IPEEE 

20 improvements not included in the CDF estimate, such as restraining or relocating flammables 

21 cabinets, monitoring and controlling the quantity of combustible materials in critical process 

22 areas, and monitoring and control of pre-staging of outage materials (Phase I SAMAs 287 

23 through 289). These measures would reduce the fire CDF in all dominant fire zones. 

24 Therefore, modifications to further reduce the fire CDF are unlikely to be cost-beneficial 

25 (Entergy 2006b). Entergy also stated that all but one of the six dominant fire zones are 

26 equipped with fire detection systems, three of the six dominant fire zones have fire suppression 

27 systems, and the Main Control Room, which has neither fire detection or fire suppression 

28 systems, is always occupied ensuring prompt fire detection and manual suppression (Entergy 

29 2006b). Therefore, no cost-effective hardware changes or other modifications were identified. 

30 As stated earlier, other external hazards (high winds, external floods, and transportation and 

31 nearby facility accidents) are below the threshold screening frequency and are not expected to 

32 impact the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. However, the licensee identified a condition 

33 where low pressures associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, and high winds could threaten the 

34 integrity of the air intake duct work supplying the EDG room. Operating procedures were 

35 developed to open switchgear room doors or to open damaged duct work if necessary to ensure 

36 adequate ventilation of the switchgear room and adequate supply of combustion air to the 

37 EDGs. No plant modifications were identified for these external hazards. The NRC staff 

38 concludes that the applicant’s rationale for eliminating fire and other external hazards 

39 enhancements from further consideration is reasonable.

40 

41 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-18 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional, 

2 possibly even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the NRC 

3 staff concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the 

4 benefits of the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely 

5 cost less than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated 

6 with maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

7 The NRC staff concludes that Entergy used a systematic and comprehensive process for 

8 identifying potential plant improvements for JAFNPP, and that the set of potential plant 

9 improvements identified by Entergy is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. 

10 This search included reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, and reviewing plant 

11 improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses. While explicit treatment of external 

12 events in the SAMA identification process was limited, it is recognized that the prior 

13 implementation of plant modifications for fire risks and the absence of external event 

14 vulnerabilities reasonably justifies examining primarily the internal events risk results for this 

15 purpose. 

16 G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

17 Entergy evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 63 remaining SAMAs that were applicable 

18 to JAFNPP. The majority of the SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in 

19 that the SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed 

20 enhancement. Such bounding calculations overestimate the benefit and are conservative. 

21 Entergy used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and 

22 population dose reductions were estimated using the JAFNPP PSA model. The changes made 

23 to the model to quantify the impact of SAMAs are detailed in Section E.2.3 of Attachment E to 

24 the ER (Entergy 2006a). Table G-5 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk 

25 reduction for each of the evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent 

26 reduction in CDF and population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the 

27 averted risk. The estimated benefits reported in Table G-4 reflect the combined benefit in both 

28 internal and external events, as well as a number of changes to the analysis methodology 

29 subsequent to the ER. The determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further 

30 discussed in Section G.6. 

31 The NRC staff questioned the assumptions used in evaluating the benefits or risk reduction 

32 estimates of certain SAMAs provided in the ER (NRC 2006). SAMAs 8, 14, and 22 were each 

33 modeled by assuming that reactor building failures were completely eliminated, yet the results 

34 presented in the ER indicated no reduction in offsite dose. In response to the RAI, Entergy 

35 revised the estimated benefit values submitted in the ER for these SAMAs and all other SAMAs 

36 which directly impact the containment event tree model and alter the distribution of releases 

37 within a release bin (Entergy 2007). In response to this RAI, Entergy also changed the CDF 

38 reductions for Phase II SAMAs 11, 16, 17, and 39 to 0 percent to correct erroneous entries in 

39 the ER. The CDF reduction values for these SAMAs are now consistent with that for SAMA 25, 

40 which resolves another NRC staff RAI questioning that the benefit estimates for these SAMAs 
June 2007 G-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 should not have been different (NRC 2006). Table G-4 reflects all of these revisions. Revision 

2 of these benefit estimates had no impact on the original conclusions. 

3 For SAMA 57, control containment venting within a narrow band of pressure, the staff noted that 

4 the analysis assumptions were not directly related to the impact of the SAMA on CDF. In 

5 supplemental information to the ER, Entergy described a sensitivity analysis to assure that the 

6 benefit values reported for this SAMA are conservative. The sensitivity analysis resulted in a 

7 decrease in the assessed benefit; Entergy thus concluded that the benefit values reported in 

8 Table S-1 of the supplemental submittal (and in Table G-4) are conservative (Entergy 2006b). 

9 For SAMA 61, develop a procedure to use a portable power supply for battery chargers, the 

10 staff noted that the events eliminated in the analysis were not included in the list of risk 

11 significant events in ER Table E.1-2. In response to an NRC staff RAI, Entergy reevaluated the 

12 benefit by eliminating the failures of both DC battery chargers and both 125-V DC battery 

13 control boards, which resulted in an increase in the assessed benefit (Entergy 2007). 

14 The NRC staff has reviewed Entergy’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various 

15 plant improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk 

16 reduction are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher 

17 than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the NRC staff based its estimates of averted 

18 risk for the various SAMAs on Entergy’s risk reduction estimates. 

19 G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

20 Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the 63 candidate SAMAs through the application of 

21 engineering judgment, and use of other licensees’ estimates for similar improvements. The cost 

22 estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended 

23 outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they include contingency costs 

24 associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER 

25 did not account for inflation. For those SAMAs whose implementation costs were originally 

26 developed for severe accident mitigation design alternative analyses (i.e., during the design 

27 phase of the plant), additional costs associated with performing design modifications to the 

28 existing plant were not included. 

29 The NRC staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates (presented in Section E.2.3 

30 of Attachment E to the ER), in supplemental information to the ER (Entergy 2006b), and in 

31 response to NRC staff RAIs (Entergy 2007). For certain improvements, the NRC staff also 

32 compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, 

33 including estimates developed as part of other applicant’s analyses of SAMAs for operating 

34 reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The NRC staff noted that several of the cost 

35 estimates provided by the applicant were drawn from previous SAMA analyses for a dual-unit 

36 site. For those cost estimates that were taken from a dual-unit SAMA analysis, Entergy reduced 

37 the estimated costs by half. The staff reviewed the costs and found them to be reasonable, and 

38 generally consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-20 June 2007 

1 The NRC staff questioned the estimated cost of $400,000 for implementation of SAMA 57, 

2 control containment venting within a narrow band of pressure, for what appears to be a 

3 procedure and training issue (NRC 2006). In supplemental information to the ER, Entergy 

4 further described this modification as requiring detailed engineering studies, potential hardware 

5 modifications, procedure changes, simulator changes, and training (Entergy 2006b). Based on 

6 this additional information, the NRC staff considers the estimated cost to be reasonable and 

7 acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

8 The NRC staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by Entergy are sufficient and 

9 appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (a) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Common cause failures of the SW system CDF contribution due to 

common cause failure of ESW pumps was eliminated 

1 1 5,000 6,000 

1 - Add a service water pump 5,900,000 Decay Heat Removal Capability – Torus Cooling 

Completely eliminate loss of torus cooling mode of RHR system events 

8 9 40,000 52,000 

2 - Install an independent method of suppression pool cooling 

 5,800,000 

15 - Dedicated suppression pool cooling 5,800,000 Decay Heat Removal Capability – Drywell Spray 10 - Install a passive containment spray system 

Completely eliminate loss of drywell spray mode of RHR system events 

8 9 40,000 51,000 5,800,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Filtered Vent Reduce successful torus 

venting accident progression source terms by a factor of two 

0 4 16,000 23,000 

3 - Install a filtered containment vent to provide fission product scrubbing. Option 1: Gravel bed filter Option 2: Multiple venturi scrubber 

 1,500,000 

20 - Install a filtered vent 1,500,000 Containment Vent for ATWS Decay Heat Removal 

Completely eliminate ATWS sequences associated with containment bypass 

3 8 28,000 38,000 

4 - Install a containment vent large Entergyugh to remove anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) decay heat 

 >1,000,000 

52 - Install an ATWS sized vent >1,000,000 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-22 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Molten Core Debris Removal(c) Completely eliminate 

containment failures due to core-concrete interaction (not including liner failure) 

0 64 34,000 48,000 

5 - Create a large concrete crucible with heat removal potential under the base mat to contain molten core debris 

 >100,000,000 

6 - Create a water cooled rubble bed on the pedestal. 

 19,000,000 

9 - Create a core melt source reduction system 

 >5,000,000 

24 - Install a reactor cavity flooding system 8,750,000 Flooding the Rubble Bed(c)

23 - Provide a means of flooding the rubble bed 

Completely eliminate dry coreconcrete interactions 0 22 12,000 16,000 2,500,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Base Mat Melt-Through(c)

12 -Increase the depth of the concrete base mat or use an alternative concrete material to ensure melt-through does not occur 

Completely eliminate containment failures due to base mat melt-through 

0 ~0 ~0 ~0 >5,000,000 

Reactor Vessel Exterior Cooling(c)13 - Provide a reactor vessel exterior cooling system 

Reduce probability of vessel failure by a factor of two 

0 3 2,000 2,000 2,500,000 

Drywell Head Flooding Completely eliminate drywell 

head failures due to high temperature 

0 0 0 0 

7 - Provide modification for flooding the drywell head 

 >1,000,000 

19 - Increase the temperature margin for seals 

 12,000,000 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-24 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

21 - Provide a method of drywell head flooding 

 >1,000,000 

Reactor Building Effectiveness(c) Completely eliminate reactor 

building failures 

0 31 17,000 24,000 

8 - Enhance fire protection system and SGTS hardware and procedures 

 >2,500,000 

14 - Construct a building connected to primary containment that is maintained at a vacuum 

 >1,000,000 

22 - Use alternate method of reactor building spray 

 >2,500,000 

Strengthen Containment(c) Completely eliminate all 

energetic containment failure modes (Direct containment heating [DCH], steam explosions, late overpressurization) 

0 28 13,000 19,000 

11 - Strengthen primary and secondary containment 

 12,000,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

16 - Create a larger volume in containment 8,000,000 17 - Increase containment pressure capability (sufficient pressure to withstand severe accidents) 

 12,000,000 

25 - Add ribbing to the containment shell 12,000,000 Vacuum Breakers 18 - Install improved vacuum breakers (redundant valves in each line) 

Completely eliminate vacuum breaker failures 

~0 7 22,000 31,000 >500,000 

DC Power Increase time available to 

recover offsite power (before HPCI and RCIC are lost) from 14 to 24 hours during SBO scenarios

39 44 209,000 270,000

26 - Provide additional DC battery capacity

500,000

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-26 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

27 - Use fuel cells instead of lead-acid batteries 

 >1,000,000 

30 - Provide 16-hour SBO injection 500,000

34 - Install fuel cells >1,000,000 36 - Extended SBO provisions 500,000

Improved DC System 

28-Incorporate an alternate battery charging capability

Completely eliminate loss of DC battery chargers 

3 ~0 8,000 10,000 90,000 

29 - Modification for improving DC bus reliability 

Completely eliminate loss of 125 VDC bus B initiator 

1 1 5,000 6,000 500,000 

61 - power supply for battery chargers(d) Completely eliminate loss of 

DC battery chargers and battery control boards

2 2 10,000 13,000 10,000

Dedicated DC Power and Additional Batteries and Divisions 

Completely eliminate loss of DC battery control board BCB-2A 

1 1 5,000 6,000 

32 - Add a dedicated DC power supply 3,000,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

33 - Install additional batteries or divisions 3,000,000 35-Install DC Buss cross-ties. 300,000 Alternate Pump Power Source 31 - Provide an alternate pump power source 

Completely eliminate SBO diesel generator failures 

1 1 3,000 4,000 >1,000,000 

Locate RHR Inside Containment 37 - Locate RHR inside containment 

Completely eliminate all RHR ISLOCA sequences 

1 1 3,000 4,000 >500,000 

Interfacing System Loss of Coolant Accident (ISLOCA) 38 - Increase frequency of valve leak testing 

Completely eliminate all ISLOCA events 

1 2 7,000 10,000 100,000 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-28 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) Design 39 - Improve MSIV design(c)

Completely eliminate containment bypass due to MSIV leakage failures 

0 20 9,000 13,000 >1,000,000 

Main Feedwater Completely eliminate loss of 

feedwater initiator 

1 1 3,000 4,000 

40-Install a digital feedwater upgrade 1,500,000 Backup Water for feedwater/condensate injection 41-Create ability to connect to existing or alternate water sources to feedwater/condensate 

Completely eliminate contribution due to failure of alternate injection from feedwater/condensate 

1 1 3,000 4,000 170,000 

43-Install motor driven feedwater pump Completely eliminate the failure 

of feedwater turbine driven pumps 

~0 0 0 0 1,650,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Diesel to condensate storage tank (CST) Makeup Pumps 42 - Install an independent diesel for the CST makeup pumps 

Completely eliminate switchover from CST to torus failures 

2 ~0 2,000 3,000 135,000 

High Pressure Injection System HPCI system is always 

available 

3 1 8,000 10,000 

44 - Provide an additional high pressure injection pump with independent diesel 

 >1,000,000 

45 - Install independent AC high pressure injection system 

 >1,000,000 

46 - Install a passive high pressure system >1,000,000 48 - Install an additional active high pressure system 

 >1,000,000 

49 - Add a diverse injection system >1,000,000 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-30 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Improve the Reliability of High Pressure Injection System 47 - Improved high pressure systems 

Reduce HPCI system failure probability by a factor of 3 

2 ~0 6,000 7,000 

>1,000,000 

Increase reliability of instrument air after loss of offsite power (LOSP) 

Reduce probability of failure of normal electric power supply to air compressors by a factor of 10 

~0 0 0 0 

50-Modify EOPs for ability to align diesel power to more air compressors 

 1,200,000 

Safey relief valve (SRVs) Reseat 51 - Increase SRV reseat reliability 

Completely eliminate stuck open SRV events 

4 4 18,000 23,000 

2,200,000

 Appendix G June 2007 G-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Diversity of Explosive Valves 53 - Diversify explosive valve operation 

Completely eliminate common cause failures of SLC explosive valves 

~0 0 0 0 

>200,000 

Prevent catastrophic containment failure Reduce CDF contribution in 

scenarios where containment venting is successful by a factor of 2 

2 2 10,000 14,000 

54-Implement passive overpressure relief >500,000 Improve control rod drive (CRD) reactor vessel injection reliability 

Eliminate failure of CRD reactor vessel injection 

~0 0 0 0 

55-Change CDR flow control valve failure position to the “fail-safest” position 

 >140,000 

Large Break LOCA 56 - Provide digital large break LOCA protection 

Completely eliminate large break LOCAs 

~0 0 0 0 >100,000 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-32 June 2007
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Controlled Containment Venting 57 - Control containment venting within a narrow band of pressure 

Reduce probability of operator to recognize the need to vent the torus by a factor of 3 

14 16 74,000 95,000 400,000 

RHR heat removal Completely eliminate CDF 

contribution from failure of cross-tie from fie protection to RHR heat exchanger “A”

~0 1 2,000 3,000 

58-Provide tap from fire protection to RHR heat exchanger “B” via RHRSW header B 

 150,000 

Injection and containment heat removal Complete eliminate failure from 

residual heat removal service water (RHRSW )loop B 

11 12 56,000 73,000 

59- Provide a cross-tie between RHRSW trains downstream of the RHRSW pump discharge valves 400,000 

 Appendix G June 2007 G-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for JAFNPP (cont.) 1 

 % Risk Reduction

SAMA Assumptions

CDF

Population 

Dose

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate 

 ($) (b)

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate

 ($) (b)

Cost ($)

Turbine Bypass Eliminate CDF contribution due 

to loss of power conversion system (PCS) initiator 

10 7 42,000 52,000 

60-Improve turbine bypass valve capability 745,000 Emergency Diesel Generators 21 24 116,000 149,00062-Develop a procedure to open the doors of the EDG buildings upon receipt of a high temperature alarm

Reduce probability of EDG to run failures by a factor of three.

10,000

Reactor Vessel Instrumentation Completely eliminate CDF 

contribution due to loss of reactor vessel water level reference leg 

2 2 7,000 9,000 

63-Provide additional reactor vessel monitoring and actuation system 

 1,200,000 

(a) SAMAs in bold are potentially cost-beneficial 2 (b) Unless noted otherwise by Footnote (c) or (d), estimated benefits taken from Table S-1 in the supplemental information to the ER (Entergy 2006b) 3 (c) Estimated benefits taken from a revised assessment provided in response to RAI 5.7 (Entergy 2007) 4 (d) Estimated benefits taken from a revised assessment provided in response to RAI 5.1 (Entergy 2007) 5 

Appendix G Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-34 June 2007
Appendix G 

June 2007 G-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 

1 G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

2 Entergy's cost-benefit analysis and the NRC staff’s review are described in the following 

3 sections. 

4 G.6.1 Entergy’s Evaluation 

5 The methodology used by Entergy was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing cost6 benefit analysis, i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook

7 (NRC 1997a). The guidance ivolves determining the net value for each SAMA according to the 

8 following formula: 

9 Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE where, 

10 APE = present value of averted public exposure ($) 

11 AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($) 

12 AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($) 

13 AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($) 

14 COE = cost of enhancement ($). 

15 If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the 

16 benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. Entergy’s derivation 

17 of each of the associated costs is summarized below. 

18 NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency's policy on discount rates. 

19 Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed, one at 3 

20 percent and one at 7 percent (NRC 2004).

21 Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

22 The APE costs were calculated using the following formula: 

23 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Δperson-rem/year) 

24 x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem) 

25 x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a 

26 7-percent discount rate). 

27 As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997a), it is important to note that the monetary value of 

28 the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-36 June 2007

1 health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential 

2 losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

3 Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an 

4 accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these 

5 potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes 

6 elimination of all severe accidents due to internal events, Entergy calculated an APE of 

7 approximately $35,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

8 Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

9 The AOCs were calculated using the following formula: 

10 AOC = Annual CDF reduction 

11 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis) 

12 x present value conversion factor. 

13 For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events 

14 are eliminated, Entergy calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $3,300 based on the 

15 Level 3 risk analysis. This results in a discounted value of approximately $36,000 for the 20-

16 year license renewal period. 

17 Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

18 The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula: 

19 AOE = Annual CDF reduction 

20 x occupational exposure per core damage event 

21 x monetary equivalent of unit dose 

22 x present value conversion factor. 

23 Entergy derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in 

24 Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997a). Best estimate values provided 

25 for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose (20,000 

26 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these doses was 

27 calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a monetary 

28 equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent, and a time 

29 period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of initial screening, 

30 which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated, Entergy calculated an 

31 AOE of approximately $1,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

32 Averted Onsite Costs
June 2007 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G - 37

1 Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted 

2 power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable 

3 accidents only and not for severe accidents. Entergy derived the values for AOSC based on 

4 information provided in Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184, the regulatory analysis handbook 

5 (NRC 1997a). 

6 Entergy divided this cost element into two parts – the onsite cleanup and decontamination cost, 

7 also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the replacement 

8 power cost. 

9 Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula: 

10 ACC = Annual CDF reduction 

11 x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event 

12 x present value conversion factor. 

13 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 14 (undiscounted). This value was converted to 

15 present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed 

16 license extension. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents 

17 due to internal events are eliminated, Entergy calculated an ACC of approximately $32,000 for 

18 the 20-year license renewal period. 

19 Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula: 

20 RPC = Annual CDF reduction 

21 x present value of replacement power for a single event 

22 x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is 

23 required 

24 x reactor power scaling factor 

25 For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events 

26 are eliminated, Entergy calculated an RPC of approximately $22,000 for the 20-year license 

27 renewal period. 

28 Using the above equations, Entergy estimated the total present dollar value equivalent 

29 associated with completely eliminating severe accidents from internal events at JAFNPP to be 

30 about $125,000. Use of a multiplier of 4 to account for external events increases the value to 

31 $500,000 and represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal and 

32 external event severe accident risk at JAFNPP. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-38 June 2007

1 Entergy’s Results

2 If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA 

3 was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 

4 7 percent discount rate, and considering the combined impact of both external events and 

5 uncertainties), Entergy identified five potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. The potentially cost6 beneficial SAMAs are: 

7 · SAMA 26 – provide additional DC battery capacity to ensure longer battery capability 

8 during the station blackout event, which would extend HPCI/RCIC operability and allow 

9 more time for AC power recovery. 

10 · SAMA 30 – modify plant equipment to provide 16-hour SBO injection to improve 

11 capability to cope with longer SBO scenarios. 

12 · SAMA 36 – modify plant equipment to extend DC power availability in an SBO event, 

13 which would extend HPCI/RCIC operability and allow more time for AC power recovery. 

14 · SAMA 61 – modify plant procedures to allow use of a portable power supply for battery 

15 chargers, which would improve the availability of the DC power system. 

16 · SAMA 62 – modify plant procedures to open the doors of the EDG buildings upon 

17 receipt of a high temperature alarm, which improves the reliability of the EDGs following 

18 high temperatures in the EDG buildings. 

19 Entergy performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of alternative discount rates and 

20 remaining plant life on the results of the SAMA assessment. No additional SAMA candidates 

21 were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006a). In supplemental information 

22 to the ER, Entergy provided a revised assessment based on a separate accounting of 

23 uncertainties. The revised assessment resulted in identification of the same potentially cost24 beneficial SAMAs. However, based on further consideration of potentially cost-beneficial 

25 SAMAs at other plants, Entergy identified one additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA for 

26 JAFNPP (Entergy 2006b). The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, and Entergy’s plans for 

27 further evaluation of these SAMAs are discussed in more detail in Section G.6.2. 

28 G.6.2 Review of Entergy’s Cost-Benefit Evaluation

29 The cost-benefit analysis performed by Entergy was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 

30 1997a) and was conducted consistent with this guidance. 

31 In the ER, Entergy evaluated the reduction in risk for each SAMA in the context of an upper 

32 bound analysis which combined the impact of external events with the impact of uncertainty. 

33 The impact of external events was considered by applying a multiplier of 4.1 to the estimated 

SAMA benefits in internal events (1 + [fire CDF of 8.53 x 10-6 34 per year] / [internal events CDF of 
June 2007 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G - 39

2.74 x 10-6 1 per year]). The impact of uncertainties was considered by applying an additional 

2 multiplier of 3.83, which represents the ratio of the 95th percentile CDF to the mean CDF for 

3 internal events. Entergy bounded the combined impact of external events and uncertainties by 

4 applying a multiplier of 16 to the estimated SAMA benefits in internal events. 

5 In an RAI, the NRC staff requested that the baseline evaluation be revised to include only the 

6 impact of internal and external events (without uncertainties), and that the impact of analysis 

7 uncertainties on the SAMA evaluation results be considered separately (NRC 2006). In 

8 supplemental information to the ER, Entergy revised the baseline benefit values by applying a 

9 multiplier of 4 to the estimated SAMA benefits in internal events to account for potential SAMA 

10 benefits in both internal and external events (Entergy 2006b). 

11 As a result of the revised baseline analysis (using a multiplier of 4 and a 7 percent real discount 

12 rate), Entergy found that the same five SAMA candidates (mentioned above) remained 

13 potentially cost-beneficial. No additional SAMA candidates were found to be potentially cost14 beneficial. When benefits were evaluated using a 3 percent discount rate, as recommended in 

15 NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4 (NRC 2004), no additional SAMAs were determined to be 

16 potentially cost-beneficial.

17 Entergy considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties 

18 would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. In the ER, Entergy presents the results of 

19 an uncertainty analysis of the internal events CDF which indicates that the 95 percentile value is 

20 a factor of 3.83 times the mean CDF. Entergy re-examined the Phase II SAMAs to determine if 

21 any would be potentially cost-beneficial if the revised baseline benefits were increased by an 

22 additional factor of 4. No additional SAMAs were identified. 

23 The NRC staff questioned the ability of several of the candidate SAMAs identified in the ER to 

24 accomplish their intended objectives or provide the estimated risk reductions (NRC 2006). In 

25 response to the RAI, Entergy provided revised or new evaluations as discussed below. 

26 • Phase II SAMA 57, control containment venting within a narrow pressure band, was 

27 identified as a potential SAMA to further reduce the risk contribution from basic event 

28 NVP-XHE-FO-LVENT, operator fails to vent containment using the direct torus vent. 

29 This SAMA would be subject to the same failure-to-vent human error as in the basic 

30 event. The NRC staff questioned both the risk reduction estimate provided by Entergy 

31 for this SAMA, as well as whether an alternative SAMA to create a passive vent system 

32 might be more effective in reducing the risk from this event and be cost-beneficial (NRC 

33 2006). 

34 In the ER, Entergy estimated the benefit of controlling containment venting within a 

35 narrow pressure band by reducing the probability of operator failure to vent by a factor of 

36 3. In supplemental information to the ER, Entergy included a sensitivity analysis in 

37 which continued vessel injection from LPCI or Core Spray was credited for those 

38 sequences in which torus venting is successful and alternative injection systems fail after 

39 torus venting (Entergy 2006b). Since the available net positive suction head (NPSH) is 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-40 June 2007

1 likely to be less than the required NPSH with the vent open, a failure probability of 0.9 

2 was assigned for this new success path. The PSA model change resulted in about a 

3 0.5-percent reduction in CDF, a 0.6-percent reduction in population dose, and a benefit 

4 (including the impact of uncertainties) of approximately $10,000. Entergy concluded that 

5 the original benefit values reported for SAMA 57 (and reported in Table G-4) are more 

6 conservative (Entergy 2006b). Therefore, this SAMA continues to not be cost-beneficial 

7 at JAFNPP. 

8 The NRC staff also asked the applicant to provide an evaluation of the costs and 

9 benefits of converting the vent system to a passive design. In response, Entergy 

10 evaluated a new SAMA that would convert the existing torus vent to a passive torus vent 

11 (Entergy 2007). The benefit of this SAMA was conservatively estimated by removing 

12 operator failure to implement torus venting (NVP-XHE-FO-LVENT was set to zero). 

13 Entergy estimated that this modification would result in a CDF reduction of about 18 

14 percent, a population dose reduction of about 20 percent, and a benefit (7 percent 

15 baseline with uncertainty) of approximately $377,000. However, Entergy estimated the 

16 cost of implementing this SAMA to be greater than $1M. Therefore, this SAMA 

17 alternative would not be cost-beneficial at JAFNPP. 

18 • Phase II SAMA 61, develop a procedure to use a portable power supply for battery 

19 chargers, was identified as a potential SAMA to improve DC system reliability. The staff 

20 questioned the risk reduction estimate provided by Entergy for this SAMA since the 

21 events identified as being eliminated for the analysis were not included in the list of risk 

22 significant events in ER Table E.1-2. In response to an NRC staff RAI, Entergy 

23 performed a revised evaluation by eliminating failures of both DC battery chargers and 

24 both 125-V DC battery boards. The PSA model change resulted in about a 2-percent 

25 reduction in CDF, a 2-percent reduction in population dose, and a benefit (including the 

26 impact of uncertainties) of approximately $40,000. Entergy concluded that this SAMA 

27 remains potentially cost-beneficial (Entergy 2007). 

28 The NRC staff noted that for certain SAMAs considered in the ER, there may be alternatives 

29 that could achieve much of the risk reduction at a lower cost. Several of these alternatives were 

30 evaluated by Entergy subsequent to the ER, and described in the supplemental information to 

31 the ER (Entergy 2006b). One such alternative involves use of a portable generator to extend 

32 the coping time in loss of AC power events (to power battery chargers). Based on a bounding 

33 analysis in which the probability of non-recovery of offsite power for 7 hours was changed to 24 

34 hours for SBO scenarios, this alternative was estimated to result in a CDF reduction of about 39 

35 percent, a population reduction of 44 percent, and a benefit (including impact of uncertainties) of 

36 $838,000. Since the estimated cost of implementing and using the portable generator is 

37 $712,000, Entergy concluded that this SAMA is potentially cost-beneficial to JAFNPP. 

38 The NRC staff asked the applicant to evaluate several additional lower cost alternatives to the 

39 SAMAs considered in the ER. These alternatives included: (1) use a portable generator to 

40 provide alternate DC feed to panels supplied only by the DC bus, (2) addition of a redundant 

41 diesel fire pump to address event FXT-ENG-FR-76P1, diesel driven fire water pump 76P-1 fails 
June 2007 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G - 41

1 to continue to run (an alternative to SAMA 49, which involves addition of an entire new injection 

2 system), and (3) several additional alternatives (NRC 2006). Entergy provided a further 

3 evaluation of these alternatives, as summarized below. 

4 • Use of a portable generator to provide power to an individual 125 VDC Motor Control 

5 Center (MCC), which would support returning HPCI to service in the event its bus was to 

6 fail -- Based on a bounding analysis in which failure of the HPCI system was eliminated, 

7 this alternative was estimated to result in a CDF reduction of about 3 percent, a 

8 population dose reduction of 1 percent, and a benefit (including impact of uncertainties) 

9 of $34,000 (Entergy 2006b). However, Entergy estimated the cost of implementing this 

10 alternative to be approximately $700K. Therefore, this alternative would not be cost11 beneficial at JAFNPP. 

12 • Use of a third redundant diesel fire pump to address event FXT-ENG-FR-76PI -- Based 

13 on a bounding analysis in which events FXT-EG-FR-76PI and FPS-MAI-MA-P4 are set 

14 to zero in the PSA model, this alternative was estimated to result in a CDF reduction of 

15 about 1 percent, a population dose reduction of 1 percent, and a benefit (including the 

16 impact of uncertainties) of $20,000. However, Entergy estimated the cost of 

17 implementing this alternative to be approximately $2M (Entergy 2007). Therefore, this 

18 alternative would not be cost-beneficial at JAFNPP. 

19 • Entergy indicated that the remaining low cost alternatives identified in the RAI are 

20 already implemented or already addressed by existing plant procedures. 

21 

22 In response to an NRC staff RAI, Entergy indicated that the five potentially cost-beneficial 

23 SAMAs identified in the ER plus the one additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA identified in 

24 the supplemental information to the ER have all been entered into the licensee’s engineering 

25 request process to be evaluated for implementation (Entergy 2007). SAMAs 26, 30, 36 and the 

26 one additional SAMA were combined into a single engineering request to determine and 

27 implement the best approach to extend station battery capacity. SAMA 61 has been approved 

28 as a minor modification and is scheduled for installation for late 2007. SAMA 62 was 

29 implemented in November 2006 by revising applicable annunciator response procedures. 

30 The NRC staff notes that all of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in either 

31 Entergy’s baseline analysis or uncertainty analysis are included within the set of SAMAs that 

32 Entergy plans to further evaluate. The NRC staff concludes that, with the exception of the 

33 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs discussed above, the costs of the other SAMAs evaluated 

34 would be higher than the associated benefits. 

35 G.7 Conclusions

36 Entergy compiled a list of 293 SAMAs based on a review of: the most significant basic events 

37 from the plant-specific PSA, insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE, Phase II SAMAs 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-42 June 2007

1 from license renewal applications for other plants, and review of other NRC and industry 

2 documentation. A qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that (1) were not applicable 

3 at JAFNPP due to design differences, (2) had already been implemented at JAFNPP, or (3) 

4 were similar and could be combined with another SAMA. Based on this screening, 230 SAMAs 

5 were eliminated leaving 63 candidate SAMAs for evaluation. 

6 For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate were developed 

7 as shown in Table G-4. The cost-benefit analyses showed that five of the SAMA candidates 

8 were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (Phase II SAMAs 26, 30, 36, 61, and 

9 62). Entergy performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and 

10 uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment. No additional SAMAs were identified as 

11 potentially cost-beneficial in the ER. However, as a result of additional analysis, Entergy 

12 concluded that one additional SAMA is potentially cost-beneficial, i.e., use of a portable 

13 generator to extend the coping time in loss of AC power events. Entergy has indicated that the 

14 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs have been entered into the engineering request process to be 

15 evaluated for implementation. The NRC staff concluded that all of these SAMAs are potentially 

16 cost-beneficial. 

17 The NRC staff reviewed the Entergy analysis and concludes that the methods used and the 

18 implementation of those methods was sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs 

19 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable 

20 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external 

21 events was somewhat limited, the likelihood of there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this 

22 area was minimized by improvements that have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process, 

23 and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events. 

24 The NRC staff concurs with Entergy’s identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced 

25 in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, potentially cost26 beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the NRC staff agrees 

27 that further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted. However, these SAMAs do not 

28 relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

29 Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to Title 10 of the 

30 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54. 

31 G.8 References

32 Brown, W. 2005. “Baseline Population Projections Nysis Projects SEP02,” New York Statistical 

33 Information System, Ithaca, New York, available online at: 

34 http://www.nysis.cornell.edu/data.html/ [accessed May 12, 2005]. 

35 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

36 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant --- License Renewal Application, Appendix E: 

37 Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Lycoming, New York. 

38 Accessible at ML062160557. 
June 2007 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G - 43

1 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

2 Letter from Pete Dietrich, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Entergy Nuclear 

3 Operations, Inc., James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. 

4 DPR-59, License Renewal Application, Amendment 1,” JAFP-06-0167, Lycoming, New York, 

5 dated December 6, 2006. Accessible at ML063480624. 

6 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007. Letter 

7 from Pete Dietrich, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Entergy Nuclear 

8 Operations, Inc., James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, License No. 

9 DPR-59, License Renewal Application, Amendment 4,” JAFP-07-0013, Lycoming, New York, 

10 dated January 29, 2007. Accessible at ML070370170. 

11 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1991 “A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear 

12 Power Plant Seismic Margin,” EPRI NP-6041-SL, Revision 1, Palo Alto, CA, August 1991. 

13 KLD Associates, Inc. 2003. “Nine Mile Point/JA Fitzpatrick Nuclear Facility Development of 

14 Evacuation Time Estimates,” Report KLD TR 370.359, Commack, New York, August 2003. 

15 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1991. “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket 

16 No. 50-333, Individual Plant Examination,”(JPN-91-048), September 1991. 

17 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1996. “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Individual 

18 Plant Examination for External Events,” (JAF-RPT-MISC-02211), June 1996, Revision 0. 

19 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 2004. Utility Participation and Internal Review Team James 

20 A. Fitzpatrick PSA, Revision 2, October 2004. 

21 Seismic Qualification Users Group (SQUG). 1992. “Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for 

22 Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment,” Revision 2, Corrected, February 14, 1992. 

23 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. “2002 Census of Agriculture.” Available online 

24 at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. (Accessed April 26, 2005). 

25 Accessible at ML071200083. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant 

27 Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

29 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C. 

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. “Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the 

31 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” 

32 NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C., June 1991. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 31 G-44 June 2007

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991b. Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4, 

2 “Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” NUREG3 1407, Washington, D.C., June 28,1991. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1994. “Staff Evaluation of the FitzPatrick 

5 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (Internal Events Only), (TAC No. M74411),” Washington, 

6 D.C., May 9, 1994. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

8 Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

10 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, 

12 User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-6613, Washington, D.C. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

14 Plant - Review of Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC No. 

15 M83622),” Washington, D.C., September 21, 2000. Not publicly available. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Letter from Guy S. Vissing, U.S. NRC, to 

17 James Knubel, JAFNPP. Subject: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant - Plant-Specific 

18 Safety Evaluation Report for Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 Program Implementation at 

19 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (TAC No. M69446), April 12, 2000. Accessible at 

20 ML003702154. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 

22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2006. Letter from Samuel Hernandez, U.S. NRC, to 

24 Michael Kansler, Entergy. Subject: Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe 

25 Accident Mitigation Alternatives for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Station (TAC No. 

26 MD2667), November 29, 2006. Accessible at ML063060257.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 31

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

June

YEAR

2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 31

Regarding James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

Draft Report

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix B of Report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as 8 above.

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 50-333; Operation License No. DPR-59

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to

the NRC by Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and Enerty Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew the operating licenses for

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. The draft 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 preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of

license renewal for JAFNPP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers

would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

Report submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review;

and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, 

FitzPatrick, 

JAFNPP, 

GEIS, 

SEIS, 

EIS, 

Environmental Impact Statement

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Washington, DC 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program