ML022270400
| 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: |
| References | |
| Download: ML022270400 (28) | |
Text
Preliminary Results of Environmental Review each Bottom Units 2 & 3 Nuclear Regulato July 31, 20 mumission
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 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
0ýI,
&I 2
N 0
rense Renewal
ý Safety review SEnvironmental review
- Plant inspections
R a
- W
' enewal Process Agency Decision on Application Formal SPublic Participation
- If a request for hearing is granted L
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
mental License Rene ess Notice of Intent Sept 24, 2001 for Additional Formal Public Participation Final Supplement to GElS by February 2003 E
I * *
- n Gathering ments El Social Services I
m License Renewal Application Staff's Site Audit State & Local Agencies Permitting Authorities wig V.
4t
Tea Expertise AtmnosphericScience 3/41 w -
ii
~
K;-
Radiation
~-Protection Regua Socloeconomics/
opi Environmental Justice Terrestrial-i j
uop A.
-Ecology
ýei 3tory iance
s Approach (GELS)
Potential New Issue Perform Site Specific Analysis i<
cl)
YES YES 11
"OL IeImpacts are
!Qu if ied
> 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 of ental Impacts
'ation
ý Cooling System
ý Transmission Lines
- Radiological
ý Socioeconomic
ý Groundwater Use and Quality
ý Threatened or Endangered Species 13
Cooling System Impacts 6FNRHEU 01
ological Impacts is*0 Local PN Sampling
tial New and Signi formation 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 m
Endang latened or eed Species I'
17
nvironmental valuated
- Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Manaj
- Decommissioning 18 Cf)
Impa m
natives
"* No-action
"* New generation
"* Purchased electrical power
"* Alternative technologies
"* Combination of alternatives 1
4, IC')
0
Preliminary Co Alteri sions for S~..
'es
- Alternatives (including the no-action altern, may have environmental effects in at least s impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE significance 0 'p n
rts of Postulated ents
- Design-Basis Accidents
ý Severe Accidents SSevere Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 21 Cl)l I
m a
SAMA ry Results of 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 P
22
SAM esults of
&Evaluation (contin 9 Overall conclusion:
Additional plant improvements to furthel mitigate severe accidents are not required at Peach Bottom Units 2.and 3.
23
- *
- 4t 4
Sclusion
> Impacts of license renewal are SMAL l
l 1 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 I
Envi ental Review Mile es S-Draft SEIS issued: June 02 S.Comment period: July 5 to September 17, 2002
ý Final EIS issued: February 2003 2:
4t
Poin Contact point of contact:
Duke Wheeler (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 I * *
- 0 Pc Provide comments:
N
,ddresses
> By mail at:
Chief, Rules and Directives P Division of Administrative ServT Mail Stop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioi Rockville, Maryland E-mail at:
PeachBottomEIS @nrc.gov SOn-line comment form with web version of the DSEIS 27 SIn person at:
Washington, DC 20555-0001 11545 Rockville Pike kh
COMM4 4
Z 0c
~,rJ~s 6l 141 4z Vt