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 mission December 3, W
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
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
m 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
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
m 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 attributeof the resource
">MODERATE Effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, but no destabilize importantattributesof the resource
">LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeableand sufficient to destabii:
important attributesof 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
of 0 ation
- Cooling System
" Transmission Lines
" Radiological
" Sociocconomics
" Groundwater Use and QL
" Threatened or Endangere
> Uranium Fuel Cycle
> Decommissioning p5001/4 R
- -It.
C *ng
"* Systemm -' 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
Co Co 0
0 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
7-7~
- -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
- All impacts were SMALL, therefore Environmental Justice impact is SMAL 1;
9
m 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 Service process with US Fish and Wildlife
"* 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
"*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 reasonablefor 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
?,*
- 41j; SAA aluation 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 W,-111ý
>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
m 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 NR CC (n 0 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