ML043090302
| ML043090302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2004 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Davis J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3835 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC0768, TAC MC0769 | |
| Download: ML043090302 (30) | |
Text
Preliminary Results of Environmental Review Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 30, 2004
Purpose of Todays Meeting 3/4 Discuss NRCs license renewal process 3/4 Describe the environmental review process 3/4 Discuss the results of our review 3/4 Provide the review schedule 3/4 Accept any comments you may have today 3/4 Describe how to submit comments 2
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant License Renewal 3/4 Operating licenses expire in 2017 and 2021 respectively 3/4 Application requests authorization to operate Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant for up to an additional 20 years 3
NRCs License Renewal Review 3/4 Safety review 3/4 Environmental review 3/4 Plant inspections 3/4 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 4
License Renewal Process Onsite Inspection Inspection Activities Report ACRS ACRS Review Report Safety Review Safety Safety Evaluation Review Report License Renewal Agency Application Hearings* Decision on Application Environmental Scoping Draft Comments Final Review Activities Supplement On Draft Supplement To GEIS To GEIS Formal Public *If a request for hearing is granted Participation 5
National Environmental Policy Act 3/4 NEPA requires Federal agencies to use a systematic approach to consider environmental impacts 3/4 Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a license renewal action 6
Decision Standard for Environmental Review To determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Farley, Units 1 and 2 are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
7
Environmental License Renewal Process Application Notice of Intent Submitted December 5, 2003 September 15, 2003 Environmental Review Requests for Additional Scoping Site Audit Information (RAIs)
Process January 2004 December 17, 2003 Draft Supplement Final Formal to the GEIS Supplement to Public August 2004 the GEIS Participation March 2005 8
Team Expertise Atmospheric Science Radiation Regulatory Protection Compliance Socioeconomics/ Terrestrial Environmental Justice Ecology Nuclear Safety Aquatic Land Use Ecology Archaeology/Historical Resources Hydrology 9
Analysis Approach Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
Category 1 Issues Category 2 Issues GEIS: Impacts Same GEIS: Analyze Potential At All Sites Impacts At All Sites New Issue New and YES YES Perform Site-Site- Validated Significant Specific Analysis New Issue?
Info?
NO NO Adopt the No Further GEIS Conclusion Analysis 10
How Impacts are Quantified 3/4 NRC-defined impact levels:
3/4 SMALL: Effect is not detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource 3/4 MODERATE: Effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize important attributes of the resource 3/4 LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource 3/4 Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for NEPA analyses 11
Information Gathering License Renewal Application Staffs Public Site Audit Comments SEIS State & Local Social Agencies Services Permitting Authorities 12
Environmental Impacts of Continued Operation 3/4 Cooling System 3/4 Transmission Lines 3/4 Radiological 3/4 Socioeconomic 3/4 Groundwater Use and Quality 3/4 Threatened or Endangered Species 3/4 Accidents 13
Cooling System Impacts 3/4 Category 2 issues 3/4 Water Use Conflicts 3/4 Microbiological Organisms Discharge Flume 3/4 Preliminary findings 3/4 Impacts are SMALL 3/4 No additional mitigation required Cooling Pond 14
Radiological Impacts 3/4 Category 1 issues 3/4 Radiation exposures to the public 3/4 Occupational radiation exposures 3/4 Preliminary findings 3/4 No new and significant information identified 3/4 GEIS concluded impacts are SMALL 15
Threatened or Endangered Species 16
Cumulative Impacts of Operation 3/4 Considered impacts of renewal term operations combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 3/4 evaluated to end of 20-year renewal term 3/4 geographic boundaries dependent on resource 3/4 No significant cumulative impacts 17
Other Environmental Impacts Evaluated 3/4 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 3/4 Decommissioning 18
Alternatives 3/4 No-action 3/4 Alternative energy sources 3/4 New generation (Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear) 3/4 Purchased electrical power 3/4 Other alternatives (Oil, Wind, Solar, Conservation) 3/4 Combination of alternatives 3/4 Environmental effects of alternatives in at least some impact categories reach MODERATE or LARGE significance 19
Analysis Approach Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
Category 1 Issues Category 2 Issues GEIS: Impacts Same GEIS: Analyze Potential At All Sites Impacts At All Sites New Issue New and YES YES Perform Site-Site- Validated Significant Specific Analysis New Issue?
Info?
NO NO Adopt the No Further GEIS Conclusion Analysis 20
Preliminary Conclusions 3/4 GEIS Conclusions on Category 1 issues adopted.
3/4 Impacts resulting from Category 2 issues are of SMALL significance.
3/4 No new impacts identified.
3/4 Environmental effects of alternatives may reach MODERATE or LARGE significance.
21
Postulated Accidents 3/4 Design-basis accidents 3/4 Severe accidents 3/4 Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) 22
SAMA Evaluation Process 3/4 Characterize overall plant risk 3/4 Identify potential improvements 3/4 Quantify risk reduction potential and implementation costs 3/4 Determine whether implementation of any of the improvements is required to support license renewal 23
Preliminary Results of SAMA Evaluation 3/4 Approximately 124 candidate improvements considered 3/4 Set of SAMAs reduced to 21 based on multi-step screening process 3/4 Detailed cost/benefit analysis shows that 3 of the 21 candidates are cost beneficial:
3/4 increase the charging pump lube oil capacity by adding supplemental lube oil reservoir for each charging pump 3/4 use existing hydro test pump for RCP seal injection 3/4 proceduralize local manual operation of AFW if control power is lost.
24
Preliminary Results of SAMA Evaluation 3/4 Three SAMAs found to be potentially cost beneficial 3/4 not related to managing the effects of aging 3/4 not required to be implemented as part of license renewal 3/4 SNC has plans to implement SAMA S166 and further evaluate SAMAs 7 and ll 25
Preliminary Conclusions 3/4 Impacts of license renewal are SMALL for all impact areas 3/4 Impacts of alternatives to license renewal range from SMALL to LARGE 3/4 The staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Farley are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable 26
Environmental Review Milestones 3/4 Draft EIS issued - 8/6/04 3/4 Comment period - 8/13/04 to 11/05/04 3/4 Issuance of Final EIS - March 2005 27
Point of Contact and Reference Documents 3/4 Agency point of contact:
Jack Cushing (800) 368-5642, Ext. 1424 3/4 Documents located at the Houston Love Memorial Library, 212 West Burdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama, and the Lucy Maddox Memorial Library, 11880 Columbia Street, Blakely, Georgia 3/4 Draft SEIS can also be viewed at the NRCs Web site (www.nrc.gov) at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement18/
28
Submitting Comments 3/4 By mail at: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3/4 In person at: 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 3/4 E-mail at: FarleyEIS@nrc.gov 29