ML061080076
| ML061080076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/2006 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML061080076 (33) | |
Text
0 Preliminary Results of Environmental Review Palisades Nuclear Plant
I U as. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 5, 2006
= =:
M ", -
rNk Id iel 0P*
Purpose of Today's Meeting 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 2
F-2, Cl`)P NRC's Regulatory Oversight
- Atomic Energy Act
- Issue operating licenses WRegulate civilian use of nuclear materials
> NRC's Mission
> Title 1 0, Code of Federal Regulations 3
0~P 19h Aw
't
"'i C
.NIL C
rmt IaI a-m%
Paiisaaes Nuclear Flant License Renewal Operating licenses expire
)March 2011 Application requests authorization to operate Palisades Nuclear Plant for an additional 20 years.
4
-I se Renewal Process License Renewal Application**
submitted to NRC U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U I.'
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
NRC Decision On Application**
.1 for Hearing is Granted
- Available at www.nrc.gov 5
A_,!,.OSaot~pe of Licen1 se Renewal Safety Review Limited to Aging Management
> Systems, structures and components important to safety
> Determined by license renewal scoping criteria Not on Ongoing Oversight of Current Issues
> Security
> Emergency Planning
> Safety Performance 6
NRI ikc 6%5i F-11, I?
Safety Review Process
> Safety Evaluation
) Audits
- Evaluation of technical information
> Plant inspections
> Independent Review
> Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 7
dutv Review Prnoqss
~9
./
~
w Onsite Inspection(s)
Inspection Report(s)
Issued**
Regional Administrator Letter Issued Safety Review Advisory
//Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Review Safety Evaluation Review Public \\
Meeting(s)
-Tech. Issues L -Audit Exit /
Safety Evaluation report Issued**
iteraction NRU Decision
)n Application*-
- If a Request for Hearing is Granted
- Available at www.nrc.gov
lb -0, 7-3mrntsql Review Pron.ss J- -
w
~-
___.W 10, 1-N Nw
'o ml.0 License Renewal Application**
submitted to NRC F Local Public Information L Meeting,
Final Supplement To GEIS Issued**
Environmental Review US aE a
a a
U U
U a
a E
E Meeting/
Comments On Scoping, Draft Supplement To GEIS Issued**
NRC Decision on Annlicatinn 9
7 SC;r se Renewal Process License Renewal Application**
submitted to NRC Onsite Inspection(s)
Safety Review Review F Local N Public Information L Meeting A
%A U zU Umo EHE NRC Decision On Application**
U U
U U
U U
U Environments Review 10
¢;X
-: m "i
C) fU)-
En Pi I Oft DkL
-PR
,9, A & I F U i~
O Uah a
a ___
Mft
=.du Mdt-
-fi INIdLIUi d.i 1I E virui ii1i 11Ldai Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA requires Federal agencies to use a systematic approach to consider environmental impacts
-An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
~ Commission has determined that a supplement to the "Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" will be prepared for a license renewal application.
11
I nq !x/.qiqs A n nrnq.h.
X w
1Fa mw 1
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 VN and YES Perform Site-YES alidated Signficnt peciic nalsisNew Issue?
lNO lNO Adopt the No Further GEIS Conclusion Analysis 12
0 Y
R Decision Standard for Environmental Review
-I To determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Palisades Nuclear Plant are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
13
'rNR films&
All.>"
.- 5.
-1 0
is 0
V)
Z7 5
1
a
)r;"
9)
P19,
. --1%11 Miles to ne As Miestones Application Received Notice of Intent Scoping Public Meeting Scoping Period Ended Scoping Summary Report Draft SEIS Draft SEIS Public Meeting Draft SEIS Comments Due Final 1iS March 22, June 27, July 28, August 22, December 14, February 14, April 5, May 18, October 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 14
G'4 C13_1x Team Expertise Atmospheric Science
=
=
_=
=
i w -.
.... 1, I
_1 Radiation Protection Regulatory
.- -=--
- .Compliance Socioeconomics/
Environmental Justice Terrestrial
+ Ecology
,,
-L
77
_,. -r,
%_-r ---
7 .
Aquatic Ecology Archaeology/Historical Resources 0
v 0
0 O
0 0
C.
C.
r..
° Hydrology e
0 0
e To 0
I 0
0.
0 i
i
- j 15
/
How Impacts are Quantified
> NRC-defined impact levels:
> SMALL: Effect is not detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource
> MODERATE: Effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize important attributes of the resource
> LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource
> Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for NEPA analyses 16
nation (Gathinrinri License Renewal Application Pijhfirn
,4~A I
I I -.
Comments IS I
Social Services AuthoII Ltles Authorities 17
44 "ICovinueIdIII ILUE IIIIIJIonL
%I C ontminued Oeratmion
> Cooling System I> Transmission Lines
> Radiological
> Socioeconomic
> Groundwater Use and Quality I>
Threatened or Endangered Species
> Accidents 18
,, NR I -41 EC&
4 I
-1.1-,
-1 10 "i
T1.
O is 0
Z:x5 11'.
- l
-VL 4(
Cooling System Impacts
> There are no Category 2 issues related to the closed-cycle cooling system operation at the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
> Preliminary findings
- No new and significant information identified
) GEIS concluded impacts are SMALL 19
vP.k¶ HEQ&
U)
Radiological Impacts
> Category 1 issues
> Radiation exposures to the public
> Occupational radiation exposures
> Preliminary findings
> No new and significant information identified
> GEIS concluded impacts are SMALL 20
11 NR HEOU G
4
. I
-11>,
C', -
-5-
&,
C a
C U) 1 4
V)r;"
15*
-VL 44 Threatened or Endangered Species wFour terrestrial Federally listed species and one candidate species potentially in vicinity.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined there is no need for a biological assessment.
AIMPACTS ARE SM\\/ALL I
I01 21 Images: http://www.kidzone.ws/animals/birdsl.htm; http://www.fws.gov; http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/indianabatl, www.entm.purdue.edu
V~)
0L I.
Ng E
55-Iu IoinI Oph'I Iert IonIh'%
%OFIIIILIILI VI II IIjUJC;LO of O eration
> Considered impacts of renewal term operations combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
- evaluated to end of 20-year renewal term
- geographic boundaries dependent on resource
> No significant cumulative impacts 22
,,NR title&
z
-1
,'j lbs Cnis S
)r;"
a
;P,9
- * * -( 4 0
a fImplact s
fl E
valuated Imacts Evaluated I
> Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management
> Decommissioning 23
0
- l
- B Alternatives No-action
> Alternative energy sources
> New generation (Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear)
> Purchased electrical power
> Other alternatives (Oil, Wind, Solar, Conservation)
> Combination of alternatives Environmental effects of alternatives in at least some impact categories reach MODERATE or LARGE signnirfnnrca
%.Oti,,,,,4" W.O 24
NR I k, fie&
6%5
-1>
I"?
- -o,
00a V
4
Yq" R) 19 4-
-kf- -'%"'
Preliminary Conclusions
- GEIS Conclusions on Category 1 issues adopted.
> Impacts resulting from Category 2 issues are of SMALL significance.
- No new impacts identified.
> Environmental effects of alternatives may reach MODERATE or LARGE significance.
25
S$NR lit-6 is Postulated Accidents I> Design-basis accidents I> Severe accidents PSevere accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) 26
N~gR Iiot-Qa P
0 119
-B N':
SAMA Evaluation Process
> Characterize overall plant risk
)> Identify potential improvements I> Quantify risk reduction potential and implementation costs
> Determine whether implementation of any of the improvements is required to support license renewal 27
Aliic O
U);
SAMA Evaluation
> 23 candidate improvements considered for Palisades.
> Set of SAMAs reduced to 8 based on multi-step screening process.
> Detailed cost/benefit analysis shows that several SAMAs could be potentially cost-beneficial at Palisades.
28
NR 6'4-Fh Ct l)
SAMA Evaluation None of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to managing the effects of aging.
Accordingly, none of the SAMAs are required to be implemented as part of license renewal Notwithstanding this, the licensee has committed to further evaluate the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for possible implementation Completion of the evaluations is being tracked in the licensee's plant change process 29
~z 0
U) 5 Preliminary Conclusions
> Impacts of license renewal are SMALL for all impact areas.
> Impacts of alternatives may reach MODERATE to LARGE.
> The staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Palisades Nuclear Plant are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
30
0 I-.I U)
- a%
Environmeniai review Mi lestones
> Draft EIS issued February 14, 2006
> Comment period ends -May 18, 2006 I> Issuance of Final EIS -
October 2006 (est.)
31
F c,
el P
4U C
~s 0
Additional Information
- * * -( -r-
> NRC contact: Bo Pham (800) 368-5642, Ext. 8450
> Documents located at South Haven Memorial Library, 314 Broadway Street, South Haven, Ml.
- Draft SEIS can also be viewed at the NRC's Web site (www.nrc.gov) at
- www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collectlons/,%
v e u,
/- ive% /t4 e%+- f-,/sr1
-43AO 7 /supplei&
vI
,en -7 /
32
Pyk if~Q&Z
'44 AA-rU.a in.L it i-a a
Cummeillint 0o ments
- t 4x-m
- By mail
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 ln person: 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland
- By e-mail
- PalisadesEIS © nrc.gov 33