ML030060242
| ML030060242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/2002 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Masnik M, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1191 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml030060091 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML030060242 (17) | |
Text
Preliminary Results of Environmental Review
"*t.
Lucie Units 1 & 2 Nuclear Regulato I December 3, mission Meefi g
>- Discuss NRC's license renewal process
> Describe the environmental review process
> Discuss the results of our review
> Provide the review schedule
> Accept any comments you may have today
>- Describe how to submit comments I
W
St.
Units 1 and 2 Licens enewal
> Operating licenses expire in 2016 (it" and 2023 (Unit 2)
> Application requests authorization to operate units for an additional 20 years CO*
9
's License Renewa eview
> Safety review
> Environmental review
> Plant inspections
> Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 2
PýIlAcyct SNEPA requires Federal agencies tol systematic approach to consider environmental impacts
> Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a license renewal action 3
m
Deci Standard for Environme al Review To determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Lucie Units 1 and 2 are so great that preservin the option of license renewal for energy plannin decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
4
Ho mpacts are Qua fied
> NRC has defined the following impact levels:
" SMALL: Effect is not detectable or too small to destabi noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource
"> MODERATE Effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, but no destabilize important attributes of the resource
"> LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabii:
important attributes of the resource
> These were used in the GEIS and all Supplemental EISs
> Usage is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for NEPA analyses 1I 6
m
of 0 ation
- Cooling System
" Transmission Lines
" Radiological
" Sociocconomics
" Groundwater Use and QL
" Threatened or Endangere
> Uranium Fuel Cycle
> Decommissioning R p5001/4 C
- ng Systemm
-It.
4-(1
"* Entrainment
- <0.02% mortality of fish eggs and larvae pass intake
"* Impingement
- <4 lb/day fish and <2 lb/day shellfish impinged
- Velocity caps limit # in intake canal
"* Heat Shock
- Complies with Florida Water Quality Standards
"* ALL IMPACTS SMALL 7
Lines 11 mi of corridors covering 766 acrc
- ROW impacts SMALL
"* Electric shock from electromagnetic fields',
- Maximum induced currents below National Elec Safety Code limits - impacts SMALL
"* Health effects of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences review concluded that health studies do not show sufficient evidence of risk to warrant concern - impact is not further characterized 8
Co Co 0
0
- -1o rsing and public utility impacts dunn eration No discernable change in housing availability, value, tal rates Increase in water usage can be met with existing capacity Impacts are SMALL
- Offsite land use and transportation Maximum employee addition (60) would not affect land use or co Tax payments are small relative to county revenues Impacts are SMALL
- Historic and archaeological resources No known historic or archeological resources at the site Ground disturbances will be preceded by surveys Impact is SMALL
- Environmental justice All impacts were SMALL, therefore Environmental Justice impact is SMAL 1;
7-7~
9
Endang ed Species
"* Numerous federally-and state-listed sp,
n plant site and within transmission corrido
- National Marine Fisheries Service determin 4-t continued operation of St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 would not adversely affect listed aquatic specie
"* NRC still in consultation process with US Fish and Wildlife Service
"* Preliminary conclusion that impacts of license renewal would be SMALL 19
'L Urani Fuel Cycle
"* No issues that were not addressee GEIS and found to be SMALL at all [1
"* No new and significant information wa discovered since the GEIS and during th review
- GElS concluded that impacts are SMALL 10 m
"* No issues that were not addressedi GEIS and found to be SMALL at all
"* No new and significant information wa discovered since the GEIS and during th review
"* GEIS concluded that impacts are SMALL itial New and an nformation
> No new and significant information identified:
"* during scoping
"* by the licensee
"* by the staff 11
B
- Alternatives not considered in detail
- Alternative energy sources
"* Wind power
"* Solar power
"* Hydropower
"* Geothermal energy
"* Wood waste
"* Municipal solid waste
"* Other biomass-derived fuel
"* Fuel cells
"* Delayed retirement
"* Utility-sponsored conservation
ý5 Altern ytes to License oRenew continued)
- Alternatives considered in detail (i.e e' lst reasonable for St Lucre Units I & 2)
- No Action (decommission after current term e-ie):
- Alternative Energy Sources
"* Coal
"* Natural gas
"* New nuclear
- Purchased Electrical Power
- Combination of Alternatives 12
C, atives to License
- *
- 4 (preliminary clusions) e Impacts of alternatives, including the
ý cin alternative, range from SMALL to LAR
-Current site prevents alternative generation the
- Alternative sites present
"* Higher socioeconomic impacts
"* More land/ecology disturbance
"* Higher atmospheric emissions
"* Potential aesthetic impacts 13
SAA aluation
?,*
- 41j; 169 candidate improvements identified
- - 90 were already implemented S29 not applicable SCostibenefit analysis for 50 remaining candidate
>None of the 50 candidates were found to be cost beneficial 27 esults of SAMA aluation (ontind SOverall conclusion:
Additional plant improvements to furthe mitigate severe accidents are not required at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
14
z N
>Impacts of license renewal are SMAL all impact areas
>Impacts of alternatives to license renewal r from SMALL to LARGE
>The staff's preliminary recommendation is tha adverse environmental impacts of license renew for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable 15 W,-111ý
o in Contact
> Agency point of contact:
Michael T. Masnik (800) 368-5642, Ext. 1191 SDocuments located at the Indian River Commu t
College library, and can be viewed at the NRC'ts e
site (www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html)
> Draft SEIS can also be viewed at:
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs staff/sr1437/supplementl l/
C31 CC (n
0 NR ddresses Provide comme
- By mail at:
Chief, Rules and Directives BI Division of Administrative ServS Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
> In person at:
11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland
> E-mail at:
StLucieEIS @nrc.gov
> On-line comment form with web version of draft 16 m