ML022270400

Presentation Slides - Preliminary Results of Environmental Review Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 31, 2002

ML022270400
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	07/31/2002
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Wheeler LL, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1444
Shared Package
ML022310317	List: ML022270352 ML022270356 ML022270364 ML022270372 ML022270376 ML022270379 ML022270390 ML022270400
References
Download: ML022270400 (28)

Text

Preliminary Results of Environmental Review each Bottom Units 2 & 3 Nuclear Regulato mumission July 31, 20

P Pu of Today's Discuss NRC's license renewal process

> Describe the environmental review process SDiscuss the results of our review SProvide the review schedule SAccept any comments you may have today SDescribe how to submit comments 2

ottom Units 2 0ýI, &I and 3 Lic Renewal

> Operating licenses expire in 2013 (1U and 2014 (Unit 3)

> Application requests authorization to operate units for an additional 20 years 3

Renewal 0

N rense a

R *W

ý Safety review SEnvironmental review

Plant inspections

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)

L 'enewal Process Agency Decision on Application Formal SPublic *Ifa request for hearing is granted Participation

NatiEnvironmental

% Poli Act

> NEPA requires Federal agencies to systematic approach to consider environmental impacts

> Commission has determined that an environmental impact-,statement (EIS) will be prepared for a license renewal action

00 De isi -Standard for Environm al Review To determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.

7

E mental License I*

Rene ess Notice of Intent Sept 24, 2001 for Additional Final Supplement to Formal GElS by Public February Participation 2003

m I n Gathering wigV. License Renewal 4t Application Staff's Site Audit ments El State & Local Social Agencies Services Permitting Authorities

Tea Expertise AtmnosphericScience 3/41

- w- ii ~ K;- Radiation

- ~-Protection Regua 3tory Socloeconomics/ opi Environmental Justice Terrestrial-i j uop iance A. -Ecology ýei

i<

cl) s Approach (GELS)

Potential New Issue YES YES Perform Site Specific Analysis 11

"OL IeImpacts are

!Qu ified

> NRC-defined impact levels:

SSMALL: Effect is not detectable or too small to destabi noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource SMODERATE: Effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, but no destabilize important attributes of the resource

> LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabiliz important attributes of the resource SConsistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for NEPA analyses 12

En ental Impacts of 'ation

ý Cooling System

ý Transmission Lines

Radiological

ý Socioeconomic

ý Groundwater Use and Quality

ý Threatened or Endangered Species 13

6FNRHEU 01 Cooling System Impacts

ological Impacts is*0 Local PN Sampling

tial New and Signi formation m

S Comments were received during scopl with claims of elevated childhood canc8 resulting from releases of strontium-90.

S No new and significant information identified by the licensee or the NRC staff.

16

latened or Endang eed Species I'

17

nvironmental Cf)

Impa valuated m

• Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Manaj

• Decommissioning 18

4, I

C')

0 natives No-action New generation Purchased electrical power Alternative technologies Combination of alternatives 1

Preliminary 0

'p Co sions for S~..

Alterin 'es

• Alternatives (including the no-action altern, may have environmental effects in at least s impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE significance

I rts of Postulated Cl)l ents

Design-Basis Accidents

ý Severe Accidents SSevere Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 21

a P ry Results of m

SAMA Evaluation 204 candidate improvements identifie .

S174 eliminated during initial, qualitative!scre SRemaining 30 subjected to quantitative cost-be analysis S30 SAMAs reduced to 5 based on cost and risk reduction considerations SDetailed conceptual design and cost estimates developed for 5 remaining SAMAs SNone of the candidates were found to be cost beneficial 22

esults of

• *

• 4t 4 SAM &Evaluation (contin 9 Overall conclusion:

Additional plant improvements to furthel mitigate severe accidents are not required at Peach Bottom Units 2.and 3.

23

Sclusion I

> Impacts of license renewal are SMAL l l1 impact areas SImpacts of alternatives to license renewal ra from SMALL to LARGE SThe staff's preliminary recommendation is tha any adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 are not great that preserving the option of license renewa for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable 24

Envi ental Review 4t Mile es SEIS issued: June 02 S-Draft 17, 2002 period: July 5 to SeptemberS.Comment

ý Final EIS issued: February 2003 2:

Poin Contact I* *

• point of contact: Duke Wheeler S (800) 368-5642, Ext. 11

Documents locations

SCollinsville Public Library, Brogue, PA SQuarryville Public Library, Quarryville, PA SWhiteford Branch Library, Whiteford, MD SCan be viewed at the NRC's Web site (www.nrc.gov)

ý Draft SEIS can also be viewed at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr 1437/supplement I0 26

Pc 0

N ,ddresses Provide comments:

kh

> By mail at: Chief, Rules and Directives P Division of Administrative ServT Mail Stop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioi Washington, DC 20555-0001 SIn person at: 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland E-mail at: PeachBottomEIS @nrc.gov SOn-line comment form with web version of the DSEIS 27

COMM4 4 ,

Z 0c

~,rJ~s 6l 141 4z Vt