ML070800408
| ML070800408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2007 |
| From: | Alicia Mullins NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | Monette F Argonne National Lab (ANL) |
| References | |
| TAC MD3021, TAC MD3022 | |
| Download: ML070800408 (93) | |
Text
11 Alicia Mullins - SSES Draft Sections Pane 111 tI AlcaMlis-SE rf etosPo II From:
Alicia Mullins To:
Frederick A. Monette Date:
03/19/2007 4:07:16 PM
Subject:
SSES Draft Sections
- Fred, Attached are the SSES Draft Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9. The Section-front document contains the Abstract, Contents, Figures, Tables, Executive Summary and Abbreviations/Acronyms.
If you have any questions contact me.
- Thanks, Alicia Mullins Environmental Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1224 "USNRC Protecting People and the Environment"axm7@nrc.gov CCO:
axm7; Halil I. Avci; Jennifer Davis; Kirk E. LaGory
jc:\\tempW~W}UUUU1. IMP Page 1 I
11 cAtemp\\GWI00001. I MP Page 1 11 Mail Envelope Properties (45FEED73.C8D:14:10060)
Subject:
Creation Date From:
Created By:
SSES Draft Sections 03/19/2007 4:07:15 PM Alicia Mullins AXM7@nrc.gov Recipients anl.gov PM avci CC (Halil I. Avci) fmonette (Frederick A. Monette) lagory CC (Kirk E. LaGory) nrc.gov OWGWPOO3.HQGWDOO1 PM JXD 10 CC (Jennifer Davis)
PM nrc.gov TWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 PM AXM7 CC (Alicia Mullins)
PM Action Transferred Date & Time 03/19/2007 4:07:34 Delivered Opened Delivered Opened Delivered 03/19/2007 4:07:21 03/19/2007 4:32:19 03/19/2007 4:07:16 03/19/2007 4:36:57 Post Office Route anl.gov OWGWPOO3.HQGWDOO1 TWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 Files MESSAGE Section-9.doc Section-i.doc Section-2.doc Section-3.doc Section-4.doc Section-front.doc Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Size 1142 150754 94751 264084 91399 460196 91301 03/19/2007 4:07:21 PM 03/19/2007 4:07:16 PM Date & Time 03/19/2007 4:07:15 PM 03/19/2007 3:31:44 PM 03/16/2007 2:37:52 PM 03/16/2007 9:54:46 AM 03/16/2007 2:40:32 PM 03/19/2007 3:54:38 PM 03/19/2007 3:50:28 PM nrc.gov nrc.gov No None
I c:\\temp\\GW}O0001.TMP Page 2 11 I
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Yes Standard No None No Standard Immediate Delivered & Opened
Alicia Mull insý _- Section-f66t.ldbc -----
Abstract The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. In the GElS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GELS.
This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) to renew the OLs for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
Regarding the 69 issues for which the GElS reached generic conclusions, neither PPL nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that applies to_
SSES. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not call into question the conclusions in the GELS. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the SSES OLs will not be greater than impacts identified for these issues in the GElS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the GElS is that the impact is of SMALL significance (a) (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level).
Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to SSES, are addressed in this draft SEIS. For each applicable issue, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of renewal of the OLs is SMALL. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted.
(pending any Cat 2 mitigation discussions this may need to be reworded) The staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not identify any new issue that has a significant environmental impact. [Fred check pending Epstein contentions]
(a) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GELS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
j!Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page2!
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for SSES are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GELS; (2) the Environmental Report submitted by PPL; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the NRC staff's own independent review; and (5) the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
liAcica MUllifns-Section-front.doc Page 3 Contents Abstract Executive Summary Abbreviations/Acronyms 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Report Contents
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 1.6 References 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 2.1.2 Reactor Systems 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
IIAlic-Fa-V61fin-s - giý-6iion---f"r"o"nt'.d'o'c-'
Pad_"11 Alicia Mullins - Section-f ront.doc Paae4!I i
2.1.7 Power Transmission System 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment 2.2.1 Land Use 2.2.2 Water Use 2.2.3 Water Quality 2.2.4 Air Quality 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 2.2.8.1 Housing 2.2.8.2 Public Services 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 2.2.8.5 Demography 2.2.8.6 Economy 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the SSES Site 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations 2.3 References 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 3.1 References 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation 4.1 Cooling System 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Make-up Water from a Small River 4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) 4.2 Transmission Lines January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Li`Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc I Pale 5 M 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Period 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utilities.......................................................
4.4.3 Offsite Land Use: (License Renewal Term) 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 4.4.6 Environm ental Justice..................................................................
4.5 Ground-Water Use and Quality 4.5.1 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Make-up From a Small River) 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species 4.6.1 Aquatic Species 4.6.2 Terrestrial Species 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term 4.7.1 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Radiological Im pacts on H um an Health.............................................................
4.7.2 Evaluation of SSES Point Noise and Aesthetic Impacts.......................
4.7.3 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Plant Design Information...
4.8 Cumulative Impacts 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the Transmission Lines 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and,Quality 4.8.6 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page 61 11 Alicia Mullins - Section-f ront.doc Page 6 !j 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term 4.10 References 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents 5.1.2 S evere A ccidents........................................................................
5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
[Structure to be determined by NRC Staff]
5.3 References 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle 6.2 References 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 7.1 Decommissioning 7.2 References 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal 8.1 No-Action Alternative 8.1.1 Power Production 8.1.2 Cooling Water System 8.1.3 Transmission Lines 8.1.4 Radiological Impacts 8.1.5 Socioeconomic Impacts 8.1.6 Ground-Water Use and Quality 8.1.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 8.1.8 Postulated Accidents 8.1.9 Fuel Cycle 8.1.10 Decommissioning January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
A cia Mullins-Section-f rontdoc-.....
Page 8.1.11 Summary 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation 8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System 8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation 8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System 8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation 8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System 8.2.5 Purchased Electrical Power 8.2.6 Other Alternatives 8.2.6.1 Oil-Fired Generation 8.2.6.2 Wind Power 8.2.6.3 Solar Power 8.2.6.4 Hydropower 8.2.6.5 Geothermal Energy 8.2.6.6 Wood Waste 8.2.6.7 Municipal Solid Waste 8.2.6.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 8.2.6.9 Fuel Cells 8.2.6.10 Delayed Retirement 8.2.6.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation 8.2.7 Combination of Alternatives 8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered 8.4 R e fe re n ce s.................................................................
9.0 Summary and Conclusions 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action--License Renewal January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Section-f ront.doc
-Pae 8 11 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations 9.4 R efe re n ce s..........................................................................................
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Appendix D -
Appendix E -
Appendix F -
Appendix G -
Comments Received on the Environmental Review Contributors to the Supplement Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to the PPL Susquehanna, LLC Application for License Renewal of SSES Organizations Contacted PPL Susquehanna, LLC's Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence GElS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to SSES Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.
A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1j" Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page 9l]
b~icia Mu....ns....e.ti.n.fron......Paq.e 9
I Figures 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 Location of SSES, 80-km (50-mi) Region............................................................. 2-2 Location of SSES, 10-km (6-mi) Region............................................................... 2-3 SSES Site Power Block Area............................................................................ 2-6 SSES Site Cooling Canal System..................................................................... 2-8 SSES Transmission Lines............................................................................... 2-14 4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of SSES Based on Census Block Group Data......................................................... 4-28 4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of SSES Based on Census Block Group Data......................................................... 4-29 January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
L~i I~J lins - Section -f ront. do6 PageN 1Oil Tables 2-1 SSES Transmission Line Corridors..........................................................................
2-2 Federally-Listed and Pennsylvania State-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of SSES and Associated Transmission Lines............................
2-3 Federally-Listed and Pennsylvania State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of SSES and Associated Transmission Lines............................
2-4 SSES Permanent Employee Residence Information by C o unty a n d C ity...............................................................................................
2-5 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During Year and. Year.......
2-6 Major Public W ater Supply Systems in Luzerne County in Month Year...........................
2-7 Land Use in Luzerne County, Year..........................................................................
2-8 Population Growth in Luzerne County and Columbia County, Pennsylvania Year to Year...
2-9 Major Employment Facilities W ithin 16 km (10 mi) of the SSES Site..............................
2-10 SSES Contribution to County Property Tax Revenues and O pe rating B udg et................................................................................................
3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation........................................................
3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation........................................................
4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the SSES Cooling System During the Renewal Term................................................................
4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the SSES Cooling System During the Renewal Term................................................................
4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the SSES Transmission Lines During the R e ne w a l T e rm....................................................................................................
4-4 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the SSES Transmission Lines During the R e ne w a l T e rm....................................................................................................
4-5 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations During the Renewal Term...................................................................................
4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term....................
4-7 Environmental Justice and GElS Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term...............................................................
4-8 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the R e n e w a l T e rm....................................................................................................
4-9 Category 2 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the R e n e w a l T e rm....................................................................................................
4-10 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the R e n e w a l T e rm.....................................................................................................
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Sect io'n-f ront. doc Page 11 5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term...............
5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term...........
[Other tables as required.]
6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste M anagem ent During.the Renewal Term..................................................................
7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of SSES Follow ing the R enew al Term..................................................................................
8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative...................................
8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at the SSES Site and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling.......................................
8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an Alternate Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling System....................................................
8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at the SSES_
Site and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling.................................
8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at an Alternate Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling..................................................
8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at the SSES Site and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling........................
8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Sited at an Alternate Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling..................................................
8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with New Oil-Fired Generation Plants at the SSES Site Assuming Use of the Existing Cooling Canal System..................
8-9 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with New Oil-Fired Generation Plants at the SSES Site Assuming Use of Once-Through Cooling.................................
8-10 Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of Generating and A cq uisition A lte rnatives.........................................................................................
9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation.....................................................
A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period A-2 Com m ents Received on the Draft SEIS.................................................................
E-1 C onsultation C orrespondence.............................................................................
E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for Current SSES O peration.........................................................
F-1 GElS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to SSES...................................................
G -1 [A s determ ined by N R C staff].................................................................................
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Jj kllciaýMdfriris-Section-f ront.doc Page 12 11 I Alicia Mullins - Section-f ront.doc Page 12 I Executive Summary By letter dated September 13, 2007, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units, 1 and 2, (SSES) for an additional 20-year period. If the OLs are renewed, State regulatory agencies and PPL will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, then the units must be shut down at or before the expiration dates of the current OLs, which are July 17, 2042, for Unit 1, and March 23, 2044, for Unit 2.
The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95@) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2.(a)
Upon acceptance of the PPL application, the NRC began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff visited the SSES site in August 2007 and held public scoping meetings on November 15, 2006, in Berwick, Pennsylvania. In the preparation of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for SSES, the staff reviewed the PPL Environmental Report (ER) and compared it to the GElS, consulted with other agencies, conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, and considered the public comments received during the scoping process. The public comments received during the scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.
The staff will hold two public meetings in Berwick, Pennsylvania, in March 2008, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on this SEIS.
When the comment period ends, the staff will consider and address all of the comments received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2 of the final SEIS.
(a) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
JAlic!.a M ullins - Section-front.doc.Page...
references to the "GELS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
This SEIS includes the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from the GELS:
The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
The evaluation criterion for the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GELS, is to determine
... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.
NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:
.January 2008 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 32
JFAkcia
-- Mullinsý_ 866_tion_-fr6iitd P age 1 4Aj Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page 14~I The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no significant environmental impact"] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).
The GElS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance--SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE--developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.
The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:
SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GELS, the analysis in the GElS reached the following conclusions:
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc
_Page l5jl (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.
(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
These 69 issues were identified in the GElS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GElS for issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.
Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GElS. The remaining two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.
Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the GELS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared.
This draft SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in the GELS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not renewing the OLs for SSES) and alternative methods of power generation.
Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA), gas-and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation alternatives if the power from SSES is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the SSES site or some other unspecified alternate location.
PPL and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither PPL nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GElS. Similarly, neither the scoping process nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to SSES, that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GElS January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
I Alicia-M-61h6s - Section-front.doc Page 1 I, Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page 16?I I for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to SSES.
PPL's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issuesplus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed the PPL analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Five Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at SSES. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS, because they are specifically related to refurbishment. PPL has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of SSES, for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant operation, and are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission's 1972 Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Twelve Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 12 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GELS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for SSES, and the plant improvements already made, the staff concludes that none of the candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial.
Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where SSES license renewal impacts are deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.
If the SSES operating licenses are not renewed and the units cease operation on or before the January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
IFýMullins - Section-front.d6c, P ag 667f ý I Alicia Mullins - Section-f ront.doc Page 17 expiration of their current operating licenses, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of SSES. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some areas.
The preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for SSES, are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS; (2) the ER submitted by PPL; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process.
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
!-k flis-Section -f ront. doc Page_1 Abbreviations/Acronyms
[]
degree pCi microcurie(s) pCi/ml microcuries per milliliter pGy microgray(s) pm micrometer(s) pSv microsieverts ac acre(s)
ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission AOC present value of averted offsite property damage costs AOE present value of averted occupational exposure AOSC present value of averted onsite costs APE present value of averted public exposure ATWS anticipated transient without scram Bq becquerel(s)
BMT basemat melt-through Btu British thermal unit(s)
BWR boiling water reactor C
Celsius CDF core damage frequency CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations Ci curie(s) cm centimeter(s)
COE cost of enhancement COPC chemicals of potential concern CWA Clean Water Act DBA design-basis accident DOE U.S. Department of Energy DPR demonstration project reactor DSM demand-side management EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
EIS environmental impact statement ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field EOP Emergency Operating Procedure EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EQ equipment qualification ER Environmental Report ESA Endangered Species Act ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, Operating License Renewal F
Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FES Final Environmental Statement FR Federal Register FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report ft foot/feet FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of 1977)
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gal gallon GDC general design criteria GElS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 gpm gallons per minute ha hectare(s)
HLW high-level waste hr hour(s)
Hz Hertz in.
inch(es)
ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation kg kilogram(s) km kilometer(s) kV kilovolt(s) kV/m kilovolt per meter kWh kilowatt hour(s)
L liter(s)
January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
["Alicia Mullins Pad6ge 201 M
l is....... t...........
P a ge..
2..
lb pound LNG liquefied natural gas LOCA loss-of-coolant accident LWR light-water reactor m
meter(s) m/s meter(s) per second m3/d cubic meters per day m3/s cubic meter(s) per second mA milliampere(s)
MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 mi mile(s) mGy milligray(s) mL milliliter(s) mph miles per hour mrad millirad(s) mrem millirem(s) mSv millislevert(s)
MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])
MTU metric ton(s)-uranium MW megawatt(s)
MWd/MTU megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium MW(e) megawatt(s) electric MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal MWh megawatt hour(s)
NA not applicable NAS National Academy of Sciences NCI National Cancer Institute NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NESC National Electric Safety Code ng/J nanogram per joule NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO, nitrogen oxide(s)
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
I jrARciaM-611irýs6d6Pft&nfdoc Page 2-11 I~Alicia Mullins - Section-front.doc Page 21 II OL operating license PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter ppt parts per thousand PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment PSD prevention of significant deterioration PSW plant service water RAB reactor auxiliary building RAI request for additional information RCP reactor coolant pump RCS Reactor Coolant System REMP radiological environmental monitoring program rms root mean square ry reactor year s
second(s)
SAG Severe Accident Guideline SAMA Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative SAMG Severe Accident Management Guideline SAR Safety Analysis Report SBO station blackout SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SER Safety Evaluation Report SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxide(s)
TBq terabecquerel UDB urban development boundary UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report U.S.
United States USC United States Code USCB U.S. Census Bureau USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture yr year January 2008 NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
I Alicia Mullins - Section-i.doc Paae l!J 1.0 Introduction Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations in Title 10, Part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51), which implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license (OL) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the EIS, the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public comment, and then issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(a) The GElS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. Use of the GElS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal process.
The PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) operates Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES) in Northeastern Pennsylvania-under OLs NPF-014 and NPF-022, which was issued by the NRC. These OLs will expire in July 2022 for Unit 1 and March 2024 for Unit 2. On September 13, 2006, PPL submitted an application to the NRC to renew the SSES Units 1 and 2 OLs for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. PPL is a licensee for the purposes of its current OLs and an applicant for. the renewal of the OLs. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), PPL submitted an Environmental Report (ER; PPL 2006a) in which PPL analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects.
This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GElS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the PPL license renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GElS because it relies, in part, on the findings of the GELS. The staff will also prepare a separate safety evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.
{ The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GELS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
January 2008 Draft-NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
P-a" q-e' )I
ý 2ý IAliciaMullins - Section-i.doc Paae ~1I 1.1 Report Contents The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of this SEIS, including the development of the GElS and the process used by the staff to assess the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal action to renew the SSES OLs, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and (4) present the status of PPL's compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are responsible for environmental protection.
The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GELS.
Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment.
Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided; the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Chapter 9 also presents the staff's preliminary recommendation with respect to the proposed license renewal action.
Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments related to the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those comments.
Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following:
" The preparers of the supplement,
" A chronology of NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this draft
- SEIS,
" The organizations contacted during the. development of this draft SEIS,
" PPL's compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of consultation correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process),
- GElS environmental issues that are not applicable to SSES, and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 1-2 January 2008
I Alicia-Mulin-'s-Section-i.doc Paae 3
- Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs).
1.2 Background
Use of the GELS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the established license renewal evaluation process supports the thorough evaluation of the impacts of renewal of OLs.
1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This assessment is provided in the GELS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear power plant license renewal ElSs.
The GElS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GElS (1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same significance level for all plants.
The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of both "context" and "intensity.") Using the CEO terminology, the NRC established three significance levels-SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as follows:
SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
January 2008 Draft-NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
[Alicia Mu llins - Section-i.doc Paged 4-11 The GElS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing mitigation measures would continue.
The GElS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted.
Issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GELS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
(1)
The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.
(2)
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
(3)
Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.
Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.
In the GELS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized.
The latter two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the GELS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared.
Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning, 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GElS is codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 1-4 January 2008
IFl1ida'Wllins ý-TiSecionh_-i.d6c Pg
-page.5I 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process An applicant seeking to renew its OLs is required to submit an ER as part of its application.
The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's ER and assurance that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or available during the GElS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered, or (2) relevant to mitigation
- consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives
" discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b) contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information on a specific issue--this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(iii) and (iv).
New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental issue not covered in the GElS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GElS and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GElS and codified in 10 CFR Part 51.
In preparing to submit its application to renew the SSES OLs, PPL developed a process to ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GElS evaluation regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal for SSES would be properly reviewed before submitting the ER, and to ensure that such new and potentially significant information related to renewal of the licenses for SSES would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period January 2008 Draft-NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
111-AlOcia-611ins --S-e,-cti6-n-1.d-oc--
Page-6 i IIf*
i4il n
-Scin-dc a
l6I of NRC review. PPL reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GElS remained valid with respect to SSES. This review was performed by personnel from PPL and its support organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the preparation of a license renewal ER.
The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2006a). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using the criteria set forth in the GELS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information.
Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GElS that are applicable to SSES. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GElS where the issue is discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of short paragraphs that state the GElS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For Category 2'issues, in addition to the list of GElS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the draft SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The draft SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2 issues are presented immediately following the table.
The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of the PPL license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for docketing of the Application, notice of opportunity for hearing and notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (71 FR 64566 [NRC 2006b]) on November 2, 2006. Two public scoping meetings were held on November 15, 2006 in Berwick Pennsylvania. Comments received during the scoping periodwere summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report - SSES (NRC 2007) dated April 2007. Comments that are applicable to this environmental review are presented in Part 1 of Appendix A.
The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000a).
The staff and contractors retained to assist the staff visited the SSES site on August 2006, to gather information and to become familiar with the site and its environs. The staff also Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 1-6 January 2008
fAlicia Mullins - Section-1.doc Pagee7 reviewed the comments received during scoping, and consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to SSES were reviewed and are referenced.
This SEIS presents the staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the OLs for SSES, the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects.
Chapter 9, "Summary and Conclusions," provides the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, two public meetings will be held in Berwick, Pennsylvania in March 2008. During these meetings, the staff will describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answer questions related to it to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments.
1.3 The Proposed Federal Action The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OLs for SSES. The SSES is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, with the nearest metropolitan area Wilkes-Barre 20 miles to the northeast; Allentown, 50 miles to the southeast; and Harrisburg, 70 miles southwest of the SSES site. The plant has two Siemens-Westinghouse-designed boiling-water reactors, each with a design power level of 3,952 megawatts thermal (MW[t]) and a net power output of 1,300 megawatts electric (MW[e]). Plant cooling is provided by a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that dissipates heat primarily to the air. Units 1 and 2 produces electricity to supply the needs of more than 13,000 homes. The current OL for Unit 1 expires on July 17, 2022, and for Unit 2 on March 23, 2044. By letter dated September 13, 2006, PPL submitted an application to the NRC (PPL 2006b) to renew these OLs for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until July 17, 2044, for Unit 1 and March 23, 2064, for Unit 2).
1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once an OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
January 2008 Draft-NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins-Section-l.doc
_page 8 I Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and need (GEIS Section 1.3):
The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the current term of the plant's license.
1.5 Compliance and Consultations PPL is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, PPL provided a list of the authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as environmental approvals and consultations associated with SSES license renewal.
Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed OL renewal action are included in Appendix E. [NOTE: FWS/NMFS consultation, NHPA consultation.]
The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant environmental issues. The ER states that PPL is in compliance with applicable environmental standards and requirements for SSES. The staff has not identified any environmental issues that are both new and significant.
1.6 References 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 1-8 January 2008
.11 1-- _____
Alicia~9e MliSCtioni1.doPae9 40 CFR 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and Index."
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). 2006. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 1 and 1. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
September.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C. June.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. Dockets Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C.
June.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal.
NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006x. Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for an Additional 20 year period. Federal Register: Vol 71, No. 190 p. 58014. October 2, 2006.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006x. "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register: Vol. 71, No. 212, pp. 664566-64568. November 2, 2006.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report - Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2, Berwick, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C. April.
January 2008 Draft-NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
[Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Pati el
[Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Paqe 1 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES) Plant is located in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, along the Susquehanna River. The plant consists of two boiling water reactors that produce steam that turns turbines to generate electricity. SSES utilizes a closed-cycle heat dissipation system designed to remove waste heat from the circulating waster system via two natural draft cooling towers. The SSES facilities and infrastructure includes the 500-kilovolt (kV) switchyard, concrete reactor building, an independent spent fuel storage installation for dry storage, natural draft cooling towers, river intake structure, a submerged discharge structure/diffuser, outfall structure, an 8-acre lined concrete spray pond, control structure, turbine building, sewage treatment plant, learning center, meteorological tower and an environmental lab. The plant and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the plant's interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.
2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term
[Review recent SEISs for similar reactors for guidance on contents of the following sections.]
Figure 2-1. Location of SSES, 80-km (50-mi) Region Figure 2-2. Location of SSES, 10-km (6-mi) Region 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 2.1.2 Reactor Systems Figure 2-3. SSES Area Map 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1, -A I icia _lVlulhn"_s_-_ _Se'_ction_-2.doc____
-Alici -----
Setin2.ocP Plant and the Environment Figure 2-4. SSES Closed-Cycle Heat Dissipation System 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance 2.1.7 Power Transmission System Figure 2-5. SSES Transmission Lines
[Note that the there has been a tendency to use right-of-way or rights-of-way instead of corridor in recent SEISs. Be consistent in terminology.]
Table 2-1. SSES Transmission Line Corridors Substation Number kV Approximate Corridor Corridor Corridor Area of Lines Distance Width km (mi) m (ft) hectares (acres)
Source: PPL 2000a.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
t FAicia Mullins - S6cfion-2.doc Paae 3 11 I[Aicia Mull.ns.-Section-2-doc......
311 I
2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near SSES as background information. They also provide detailed descriptions where needed to support the analysis of potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal term, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological resources in the area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts associated with other Federal project activities.
2.2.1 Land Use
[Include a paragraph on the Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification, if applicable to the site.]
2.2.2 Water Use 2.2.3 Water Quality 2.2.4 Air Quality
[This section should include general climate information, climate information related to wind and solar energy, and air quality information. The air quality information should include identification of AQCR that includes the site, nearby AQCRs, attainment status, Air Quality Index (if available), closest Class I regions, routine releases at the site, and local regulations covering those releases.]
2.2.5 Aquatic Resources
[See guidance prepared by Goodman and Keto on preparation of the aquatic and terrestrial resources sections. This guidance covers both content and order of presentation.]
Table 2-2. Federally-Listed and Pennsylvania State-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of SSES and Associated Transmission Lines Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Status(a)
Status(a)
January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Page 4~
"Wif&iiMuF1ins-S6&_t n-2.doc Page 4 11 Plant and the Environment
()
E = endangered, T = threatened, T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance, C = candidate for federal listing, S = Pennsylvania species of special concern, -- = no listing.
2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources
[See guidance prepared by Goodman and Keto on preparation of the aquatic and terrestrial resources sections. This guidance covers both content and order of presentation.]
Table 2-3.
Federally-Listed and Florida State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of SSES and Associated Transmission Lines Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Status(a)
Status(a)
Reptiles Birds Mammals Insects Plants (a)
E = endangered, T = threatened, T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance, C = candidate for Federal listing, S =Pennsylvania species of special concern.
Sources: Based on FWS http://(fish and wildlife site) and FNAI http://www.fnai.org Internet Sites as of Month/Year, and FGDL 2000.
2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 2.2.8.1 Housing Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
JIAIýqiaMylýins - Section-2.doc Page 5 j]
II Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Page 5~l Table 2-4. SSES Permanent Employee Residence Information by County and City County and City(a)
PPL Employees Luzerne County Total Luzerne County Columbia County Total Columbia County Other County Total Other County Other Counties Grand Total (a) Addresses are for both unincorporated (counties) and incorporated (cities and towns) areas.
Source: NRC 2007.
Table 2-5. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During 1990 and 2000 1980 1990 Approximate Percentage Change Luzerne County Housing Units Occupied Units Vacant Units Columbia County Housing Units Occupied Units Vacant Units Other County Housing Units January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
IFAlicia-M-u--Ilins- --Se-ction--2.do-c Page 6;1 I Alici+v+uiiii+ Seci........Pge 6
Plant and the Environment Occupied Units Vacant Units (a) Values are the same due to rounding to the nearest thousands.
Sources: GEOSTAT 2001a and GEOSTAT 2001 b.
2.2.8.2 Public Services Water Supply Table 2-6. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Luzerne County in December 1999 Water System Source Maximum Daily Average Daily Area Served Capacity Capacity m3/s (ft3/s) m3/s (ft3/s)
Other Source: Luzerne County 2000a.
Education Transportation 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 32 January 2008
Alicia Mullins-Section-2.doc....
Page 7 Table 2-7. Land Use in Luzerne, Year Land Use Hectares Acres Percent of Total Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreation Transportation and utilities Agriculture Open lands designated for environmental protection and not available for development Open lands available for development Water Total Source: USAF 2000.
2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 2.2.8.5 Demography Table 2-8. Population Growth inLuzerne and Columbia Counties Pennsylvania, Year to Year Luzerne Columbia Other County County County Population Annual Population Annual Population Annual Growth Growth Growth Percent(a)
Percent Percent 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1\\14ý!ins - Section-2.doc Page 8!,
P Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Page 81 J Plant and the Environment 2020
(
Annual percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade.
-- = No data available.
Sources: Pennsylvania Legislature 2001 a (population for the years 1970 to 1990 and 2010); PPL 2000a (population projections for 2020); and U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2001 a (populations for year 2000 that are actual accounts from the 2000 census).
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
11"Wr6a'w ns-8e'cti'on'-2.doc Page 9 !!
I:
Alicia Mullins - Section-2.doc Page ~
Transient Population Table 2-9. Major Employment Facilities Within 16 km (10 mi) of the SSES Firm Number of Employees Source: PPL 1999b and USAF 2000.
Migrant Farm Labor 2.2.8.6 Economy Table 2-10. SSES Contribution to County Property Tax Revenues and Operating Budget Year Total Luzerne County Property Tax Paid to Luzerne Percent of Total Property Tax County for SSES ($)
Property Taxes Revenues ($)
1995 1996 1997 1998 Source: PPL 2000a.
2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological resources at the site of SSES and in the surrounding area.
2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at SSES January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins-Section-2.doc Page 10,1 Plant and the Environment 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the renewal of the OLs for SSES. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.
Describe the results of the review.., a listing agencies and activities identified.
NRC is required under Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. NRC consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). Consultation correspondence is included in Appendix E.
2.3 References (Verify) 10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
10 CFR 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
10 CFR 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."
10 CFR 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material."
40 CFR 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."
40 CFR 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
JIAiicia Mullins - Section-2.doc P
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2006. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Information Sheet. Found at www.srbc.net. November.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C. June.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. "Pennsylvania. Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990."
Available URL: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/pa1 90090.tx.
(Accessed July 22, 2004)
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. "Pennsylvania Quickfacts: Luzerne County."
Available URL: http://quickfacts.census.qov/.
(Accessed July 22, 2004)
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. "Pennsylvania Quickfacts: Columbia County."
Available URL: http://quickfacts.census.qov/.
(Accessed July 22, 2004)
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2003a. Tiger/Line Files. 1 08P CCD. 200. U.S. Department of Commerce. March.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2003b. Summary File 1. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Department of Commerce. September.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2004. Summary File 3. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Department of Commerce. March.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. National Register Information System.
Available URL: http://www.nr.nps.gov/. (Accessed August 5 and 6, 2004)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washincgton, D.C.
January 2008 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(a) The GElS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GELS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.
(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.
Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and, therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.
License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.
Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GElS for which these conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.
January 2008 3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
L~hca Mullns-Seaction-3.d-oc
_0ý6:66_ý_jj Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ISSUE--10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1 Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)
Refurbishment 3.5 Ground-Water Use and Quality Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water use and quality 3.4.2 Land Use Onsite Land Use 3.2 Human Health Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2 Socioeconomics Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6 3.7.8 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment)
Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to refurbishment that are not applicable to_
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES) because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at SSES are listed in Appendix F.
The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of structures and components pursuant to Title 10, Part 54, Section 54.21, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.21) to identify activities that are necessary to continue Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 3-2 January 2008
Alicia Mullins - Section-3.doc Paqe 3 II I Alicia Mullins - Section-3.doc Pacie 3f Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ISSUE--10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS 10 CFR 51.53 Sections (c)(3)(ii)
Subparagraph Terrestrial Resources Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E
Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)
Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E
Air Quality Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and 3.3 F
maintenance areas)
Socioeconomics Housing impacts 3.7.2 1
Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 1
Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 1
Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 1
Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J
Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K
Environmental Justice Environmental justice Not Not addressed(a) addressed(a)
(a)
Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GElS and the associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the applicant's environmental report and the staff's environmental impact statement.
operation of SSES during the requested 20-year period of extended operation. These activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities and are described in the Environmental Report (ER; PPL 2006).
However, PPL stated that the replacement of these components and the additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of plant operations as evaluated in the final environmental statement (AEC 1973; NRC 1981). In addition, PPL's evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued operation of SSES beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore, refurbishment is not considered in this draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
January 2008 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1ý AliciaKA611ins - Section-3.d(
Paae 4 It Alicia Mullins - Section-3.doc Paoe 4~l Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 3.1 References (Verify) 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). 2006. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 1 and 1. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
September.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C. June.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. Dockets Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C.
June.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 3-4 January 2008
1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation 2
3 4
Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal 5
term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 6
Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996a; 1999a).(a) The GElS 7
includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied 8
to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then 9
assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GELS, Category 1 10 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
11 12 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 13 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type. of cooling system 14 or other specified plant or site characteristics.
15 16 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE) has been assigned 17 to the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 18 from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
19 20 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 21 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures 22 are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
23 24 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 25 required unless new and significant information is identified.
26 27 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and 28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.
29 30 This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in 31 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B and are applicable to the Susquehanna 32 Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES). Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the 33 SSES cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission lines and on-site 34 land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological impacts of normal operation, and Section 4.4 35 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of normal operation during the renewal 36 term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to groundwater use and quality, while Section 4.6 37 discusses the impacts of renewal-term operations on threatened and endangered species.
38 Section 4.7 addresses potential new information that was raised during the scoping period and (a) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GELS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
January 2008 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
Section 4.8 discusses cumulative impacts. The results of the evaluation of environmental 2
issues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in Section 4.9. Finally, 3
Section 4.10 lists the references for Chapter 4. Category 1 and Category 2 issues that are not 4
applicable to SSES because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not 5
found at SSES are listed in Appendix F.
8 4.1 Cooling System 9
10 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable 11 to SSES cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. PPL 12 Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; PPL 2006a) that it is not 13 aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the SSES 14 operating licenses (OLs). The staff has not identified any new and significant information 15 during its independent review of the PPL ER (PPL 2006a), the staff's site visit, the scoping 16 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that 17 there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For all of the 18 issues, the staff concluded in the GElS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-19 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
20 21 A brief description of the staff's review and the GElS conclusions, as codified in Table B-i, for 22 each of these issues follows:
23 24 Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the SSES Cooling System 25 During the Renewal Term 26 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)
Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)
Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish Distribution of aquatic organisms Premature emergence of aquatic insects Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)
Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Stimulation of nuisance organisms GEIS Sections 4.2.2.1.6 4.2.2.1.6 4.2.2.1.7 4.2.2.1.8 4.2.2.1.9 4.2.2.1.10 4.2.2.1.11 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING-TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)
Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3 Heat shock 4.3.3 1
2 3
4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4 Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1 Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2 HUMAN HEALTH Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 Noise 4.3.7 Altered current patterns at intake and dischargqe structures. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 January 2008 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
1 2
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 3
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 4
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 5
temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during the renewal term beyond those 6
discussed in the GELS.
7 8
Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, 9
the Commission found that 10 Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
11 12 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 13 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring 14 programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 15 that there are no impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the 16 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
17 18 Eutrophication. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 19 Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
20 21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 22 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring 23 programs, or its evaluation of other available information including plant monitoring data and 24 technical reports. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of eutrophication 25 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
26 27 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GElS, the 28 Commission found that 29 Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-2 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
2 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 3
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 4
available information including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 5
(NPDES) permit for SSES, or discussion with the NPDES compliance office. Therefore, the 6
staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during 7
the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.
8 9
° Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in 10 the GELS, the Commission found that 11 Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
12 13 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 14 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 15 available information including the NPDES permit for SSES, or discussion with the NPDES 16 compliance office. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of 17 sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills during the renewal term beyond those discussed 18 in the GELS.
19 20 Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GELS, the 21 Commission found that 22 These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
23 24 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 25 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 26 available information including the NPDES permit for SSES and the ecological risk 27 assessment study for the closed-cycle heat dissipation system (ESE 2000), or discussion 28 with the NPDES compliance office. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts 29 of discharges of other metals in wastewater during the renewal term beyond those 30 discussed in the GELS.
31 32 33 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the 34 GELS, the Commission found that January 2008 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
2 3
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 4
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of available 5
information, including the ecological risk assessment for the closed-cycle heat dissipation 6
system (ESE 2000). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 7
accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during the renewal term beyond those 8
discussed in the GELS.
9 10
° Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GELS, 11 the Commission found that 12 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
13 14 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 15 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring 16 programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 17 that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the 18 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
19 20
° Cold shock. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 21 Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
22 23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 24 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 25 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold 26 shock during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-2 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GELS, the 2
Commission found that 3
Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
4 5
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 6
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 7
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of thermal 8
plume barriers to migrating fish during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 9
GELS.
10 11 Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GELS, the 12 Commission found that 13 Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.
14 15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 16 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring 17 programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 18 that there are no impacts on distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal term 19 beyond those discussed in the GElS.
20 21
° Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GELS, the 22 Commission found that 23 Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
24 25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 26 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 27 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of premature 28 emergence of aquatic insects during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
29 30 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GELS, the 31 Commission found that 32 January 2008 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
I 2
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 3
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 4
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of gas 5
supersaturation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.
6 7
Low dissolved oxyqen in the discharge. Based on information in the GELS, the 8
Commission found that 9
Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
10 11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 12 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring 13 programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 14 that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the renewal term beyond those 15 discussed in the GELS.
16 17 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to 18 sublethal stresses. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 19 These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
20 21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 22 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 23 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of losses 24 from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sub-lethal stresses 25 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
26 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-2 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GELS, the 2
Commission found that 3
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
4 5
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 6
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 7
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 8
stimulation of nuisance organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 9
GELS.
10 11 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (coolingq-tower-based systems).
12 Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 13 Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
14
.15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 16 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 17 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 18 entrainment of fish and shell fish in early life stages for cooling-tower-based systems during 19 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
20 21 Impingement of fish and shellfish (coolin g-tower-based systems). Based on 22 information in the GELS, the Commission found that 23 The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
24 25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 26 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 27 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 28 impingement of fish and shell fish for cooling-tower-based systems during the renewal term 29 beyond those discussed in the GELS.
January 2008 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
2
° Heat shock (coolingq-tower-based systems). Based on information in the GELS, the 3
Commission found that 4
Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
5 6
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 7
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 8
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of heat 9
shock for cooling-tower-based systems during the renewal term beyond those discussed in 10 the GELS.
11 12 Coolinq tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Based on information 13 in the GElS, the Commission found that 14 Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the renewal term.
15 16 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 17 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 18 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower 19 impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation during the renewal term beyond those 20 discussed in the GELS.
21 22
° Coolinq tower impacts on native vegetation. Based on information in the GELS, the 23 Commission found that 24 Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
25 26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 27 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 28 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower 29 impacts on native vegetation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-2 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
2 Bird collisions with cooling towers. Based on information in the GELS, the 3
Commission found that 4
These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
5 6
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 7
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 8
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of bird 9
collisions with cooling towers during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
10 11 Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the 12 GELS, the Commission found that 13 Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures.
14 15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 16 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 17 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 18 microbiological organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.
19 20 0
Noise. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 21 Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.
22 23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 24 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 25 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of noise 26 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
27 28 The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are 29 applicable to SSES are discussed in the sections that follow, and are listed in Table 4-2.
30 Although the PPL ER identified only microbiological organisms (public health) as an applicable 31 Category 2 issue, the staff determined that all the Category 2 issues pertaining to plants with 32 cooling ponds are applicable to SSES.
January 2008 4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
2 3
Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the SSES Cooling System 4
During the Renewal Term 5
6 10 CFR ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
SEIS Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)
Water use conflicts (plants with cooling 4.3.2.1; 4.4.2.1 A
4.1.1 ponds or cooling towers using make-up water from a small river with low flow) 9 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Make-up Water from a Small River) 10 11 Insert a plant specific discussion of the-issue. 'The discussion should end with a conclusion 12 that thepotential impacts are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, and a statement about 13 mitigation. In most cases there will be existing mitigation measures and these measures will 14 continue. A statement such as the following would be appropriate:
15 16 treiwd~
Ik rfmaonhe staff has rve'dthe available ifrmtonmluding... Based on t'hi inomain the 17 staff concludes that the potential iimpats of...
are SMALL. During the course of [is 18 evaluation, the staff considered mitigation measures for continued operation of... Based on 19 this evaluation, the staff expects that mitigation measure in place at.... (e.g..
)are 20 appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.'
21 22 23 4.2 Transmission Lines 24 25 The Final Environmental Statement for SSES (FES; AEC 1973) describes seven transmission 26 lines that connect SSES with the transmission system. An additional transmission line was 27 constructed in the early 1990s, and four other lines connect the Davis substation with other 28 substations (Figure 2-5 and Table 2-1). These transmission corridors cover approximately 930 29 ha (2300 ac) over a total corridor length of approximately 92 km (57 mi). Tree trimming is 30 normally only required at mid-span or when exotic species such as Australian pine invade the 31 tower pads or corridor. Herbicides are used occasionally, primarily applied to individual trees or 32 shrubs to prevent re-sprouting, although broadcast applications are used as general weed 33 control in some of the urban or suburban areas. Regular mowing is also used for maintenance 34 of corridors in suburban areas. PPL uses a computer database to prepare management Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-2 January 2008
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 prescriptions for each section of transmission line corridor that incorporates known management concerns and environmental sensitivities.
Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to transmission lines from SSES are listed in Table 4-3. PPL stated in its ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the SSES OLs. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the PPL ER (PPL 2006), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For all of those issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specif ic mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be-warranted.,
A brief description of the staff's review and GElS conclusions, as codified in Table B-i, for each of these issues follows:
Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the SSES Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term ISSUE--10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1 Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 4.5.6.3 honeybees, wildlife, livestock)
Floodplains and wetland on power line right of way 4.5.7 AIR QUALITY Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 LAND USE Onsite land use 4.5.3 Power line right of way 4.5.3 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small significance at all sites.
25 26 January 2008 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 2
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the U.S.
3 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 4
Natural Resources (DCNR), or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff 5
concludes that there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the 6
renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
7 8
Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission 9
found that 10 Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.
11 12 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 13 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS 14 and DCNR, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there 15 are no impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal term beyond those 16 discussed in the GELS.
17 18 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 19 honeybees, wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GELS, the Commission 20 found that 21 No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
22 23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 24 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 25 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of electromagnetic 26 fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
27 28 Floodplains and wetland on power line right of way. Based on information in the 29 GELS, the Commission found that 30 Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.
31 32 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 33 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS 34 and DCNR, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there 35 are no impacts of power line rights-of-way on floodplains and wetlands during the renewal 36 term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 4-16 January 2008
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
2 Air quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GELS, the 3
Commission found that 4
Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.
5 6
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 7
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 8
information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality impacts of 9
transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
10 11
° Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GELS, the Commission found that 12 Projected onsite land use changes required during... the renewal period would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the applicant.
13 14 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 15 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 16 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no onsite land use impacts during 17 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.
18 19
° Power line right of way. Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found 20 that 21 Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.
22 23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 24 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 25 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-of-26 way on land use during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
27 28 There is one Category 2 issue related to transmission lines, and another issue related to 29 transmission lines is being treated as a Category 2 issue. These issues are listed in Table 4-4 30 and are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
31 32 33 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects 34 35 Based on the GELS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 36 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 37 problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the January 2008 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 6
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 2
the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 3
of this SEIS.
4 5
Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the SSES Transmission 6
Lines During the Renewal Term 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ISSUE-l 0 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
SEIS Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section HUMAN HEALTH Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric 4.5.4.1 H
4.2.1 shock)
Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA(a) 4.2.2 (a) NA = not addressed In the GElS (NRC 1996a), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC 1997) [Check for most recent date of the NESC and use this for your evaluation] criteria, it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was not addressed in the, licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents.
[Insert a plant specific, discussion of the issue.' The discussion should end with a conclusioni that the potential impacts are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, and a statement about mitigation. In most cases there will be existing mitigation measures and these measures will continue.
A statement such as the following would be appropriate:
The staff has reviewed the available information including...
Based on this information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of.. are SMALL. During the course of its evaluation, the staff considered mitigation measures for continued operation of... Based on this evaluation, the staff expects that mitigation measures in place at.... (e.g...... are appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.
Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-18 January 2008
1 2
4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects 3
4 In the GELS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not 5
designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 6
health implications of these fields.
7 8
The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 9
this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 10 research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) 11 contains the following conclusion:
12 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field] exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.
13 14 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the 15 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. Footnote 4 to Table B-1 states: "If in the future, the 16 Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by 17 appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic 18 fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of those health
- 19.
effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants fro license 20 renewal are not required to submit information on this issue." The staff considers the GElS 21 finding of "Uncertain" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.
22 23 24 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 25 26 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to 27 SSES in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. SSES stated in its ER (PPL 28 2006a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of 29 the SSES OLs. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 30 independent review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of 31 other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to 32 these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the 33 GElS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not 34 likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
35 36 April 2002 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 6
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 2
During the Renewal Term 3
ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections HUMAN HEALTH Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 4
5 A brief description of the staff's review and the GElS conclusions, as codified in Table B-i, for 6
each of these issues follows:
7 8
Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the 9
GELS, the Commission found that 10 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations.
11 12 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 13 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 14 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of radiation 15 exposures to the public during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
16 17 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in 18 the GELS, the Commission found that 19 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.
20 21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 22 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 23 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 24 occupational radiation exposures during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 25 GELS.
26 27 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations. Or, Refer 28 to Section 4.7 for an evaluation of potential new and significant radiological impacts on human 29 health.
30 31 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-22 January 2008
1 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the 2
License Renewal Period 3
4 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to 5
socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-6. PPL stated in its ER 6
(PPL 2006a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the 7
renewal of SSES OLs. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during 8
its independent review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation 9
of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related 10 to these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS (NRC 1996a). For these issues, the staff I I concluded in the GElS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation 12 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
13 14 Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term 15 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections SOClOECONOMICS Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6 Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8 16 17 A brief description of the staff's review and the GElS conclusions, as codified in Table B-i, for 18 each of these issues follows:
19 20
° Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based 21 on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 22 Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to be of small significance at all sites.
23 24 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 25 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 26 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on public 27 safety, social services, and tourism and recreation during the renewal term beyond those 28 discussed in the GELS.
29 30 Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the 31 GELS, the Commission found that January 2008 4-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation Only impacts of small significance are expected.
2 3
The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 4
review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 5
available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on education 6
during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
7 8
Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GELS, the 9
Commission found that 10 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.
11 12 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 13 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 14 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts 15 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
16 17
° Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on 18 information in the GELS, the Commission found that 19 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.
20 21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 22 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 23 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of 24 transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GELS.
25 26 Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and 27 environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GELS.
28 29 Table 4-7.
Environmental Justice and GElS Category 2 Issues Applicable to 30 Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term 31 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph SEIS Section SOCIOECONOMICS Housing impacts 4.7.1 1
4.4.1 Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 1
4.4.2 Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 1
4.4.3 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-22 January 2008
ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph SEIS Section Public Services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J
4.4.4 Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K
4.4.5 Environmental Justice Not Not addressed(a) 4.4.6 addressed(a)
(a)
Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GElS and the associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in the staff's environmental impact statement.
2 3
4 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations 5
6 In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GElS (NRC 7
1996a), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors, 8
"sparseness" and "proximity" (GELS Section C.1.4 [NRC 1996a]). Sparseness measures 9
population density within 32 km (20 mi) of the site, and proximity measures population density 10 and city size within 80 km (50 mi). Each factor has categories of density and size (GELS 11 Table C.1), and a matrix is used to rank the population category as low, medium, or high (GELS 12 Figure C.1).
13 14 Add-s-ite-specific discussion of population category.
15 16 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 states that impacts on housing availability 17 are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a high-population area where 18 growth-control measures are not in effect. The SSES site is located in a low-population' area 19 and Luzerne County is not subject to growth-control measures that would limit housing 20 development. Based on the NRC criteria, PPL expects housing impacts to be SMALL during 21 continued operations (PPL 2006a).
22 23 SMALL impacts result when no discernible change in housing availability occurs, changes in 24 rental rates and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing 25 construction or conversion is required to meet new demand (NRC 1996a). The GElS assumes 26 that an additional staff of 60 permanent per unit workers might be needed during the license 27 renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities.
28 29 Add site-specific discussion of impacts on housing 30 31 The staff reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts and PPL's conclusions.
32 Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on housing during the license renewal 33 period would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.
January 2008 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement. 32
1 2
4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations 3
4 Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the 5
ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, and thus there is no need to add capital 6
facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs 7
during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service 8
(e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to 9
meet ongoing demands for services. The GElS indicates that, in the absence of new and 10 significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be 11 significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996a).
12 13 Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plant-14 related population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the SSES permitted withdrawal rate and 15 actual use of water.
16 17
[Insert a plant specific discussion of the issue. The discussion should end with a conclusion 18 that the potential impacts are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, and a statement about 19 mitigation. In most cases there will be existing mitigation measures and these measures will 20 continue. A statement such as the following would be appropriate:-
21 22 The staff has reviewed the available information including... Based on this information, the 23 staff concludes that the potential impacts of ý... are SMALL. During the course of its 24 evaluation, the staff considered mitigation measures for continued operation of... Based on 25 this evaluation, the staff expects that mitigation measure in place at.. (e.g.....
are 26 appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted. ]
27 28 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations 29 30 Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, 31 Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B notes that "significant 32 changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from 33 license renewal."
34 35 Section 4.7.4 of the GElS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant 36 operation during the license renewal term as follows:
37 38 SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern.
39 40 MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern.
41 42 LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.
Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-24 January 2008
1 2
Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to be able to provide the 3
public services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development.
4 Section 4.7.4.1 of the GElS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during 5
the license renewal term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the 6
community's total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and 7
(3) the extent to which the community already has public services in place to support and guide 8
development. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's 9
total revenue, tax-driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be 10 SMALL, especially where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has I1 provided adequate public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the 12 GElS states that if tax payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing 13 jurisdictions revenue, the significance level would be SMALL. If the plant's tax payments are 14 projected to be medium to large relative to the community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-15 use changes would be MODERATE. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be a dominant 16 source of the community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE.
17 This would be especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of 18 development or has not provided adequate public services to support and guide development.
19 20 Insert site-specific information and conclusions.
21 22 23 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations 24 25 Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51 states: "Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic 26 generated... during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small 27 significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local 28 road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at 29 some sites." All applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) to assess the impacts of 30 highway traffic generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways 31 during the term of the renewed license.
32 33 insert site-specific information andc-onclusions.'s.
34 35 36 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 37 38 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take into account 39 the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic review process mandated 40 by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic In accordance with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data.
Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2005b).
January 2008 4-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an OL is an undertaking that could potentially 2
affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to make a reasonable 3
effort to identify historic properties in the areas of potential effects. If no historic properties are 4
present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 5 before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required 6
to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking.
7 8
Insert site-specific information and, conclusions.
9 10 4.4.6 Environmental Justice 11 12 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that requires that Federal agencies identify and 13 address, as appropriate, disproportionately high. and adverse human health or environmental 14 effects of its actions on minority(a) or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying 15 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider 16 environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The 17 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental 18 justice (CEQ 1997). Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent agencies, 19 the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific 20 guidance is provided in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, 21 Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering 22 Environmental Issues Rev. 1 (NRC 2004a). In 2004, the Commission issued a final Policy 23 Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 24 Actions (NRC 2004b).
25 26 The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (NRC 2004a) includes identification of 27 impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and significance of any 28 environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and 29 information pertaining to mitigation. It also includes evaluation of whether these impacts are 30 likely to be disproportionately high and adverse.
31 32 The staff looks for minority and low-income populations within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the 33 site. For the staff's review, a minority population exists in a census block group(b) if the 34 percentage of each minority and aggregated minority category within the census block group 35 exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in the state of which it is a part by 20 a The NRC guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines "minority" as American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Island; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity. "Other" races and multiracial individuals may be considered as separate minorities (NRC 2004a).
(b) A Census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of. a census tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) collects and tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-26 January 2008
I percentage points, or the corresponding percentage of minorities within the census block group 2
is at least 50 percent. A low-income population exists if the percentage of low-income 3
population within a census block group exceeds the corresponding percentage of low-income 4
population in the state of which it is a part by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of 5
low-income population within a census block group is at least 50 percent.
6 7
For the SSES review, the staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 8
populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the site, employing the 1990 Census (USCB 1991) for low*
9 income populations and the 2000 Census (USCB 2000) for minority populations. The analysis 10 was supplemented by field inquiries to the planning department and social service agencies in 11 Luzerne County.
12 13 Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the distribution of census block groups for the minority and low-14 income populations, respectively.
17 Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within
.1.8 80-km (50-mi) of SSES Based on Census Block Group Data(a) 19 20 Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas) 21 Within 80-km (50-mi) of the SSES Site Based on Census Block Group Data (a) 22
[Add site-specif-ic d-iscussion of distributions.]
25 26 With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff proceeded to 27 evaluate whether any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these 28 populations in a disproportionately high and adverse manner. Based on staff guidance (NRC 29 2001), air, land, and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of the SSES site were 30 examined. Within that area, a few potential environmental impacts could affect human 31 populations; all of these were considered SMALL for the general population.
32 33 The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with SSES license renewal 34 can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section. The staff evaluated 35 whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by these 36 impacts. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence 37 agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations could be disproportionately high 38 and adversely affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent 39 disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting these minority and low-income 40 populations. Thestaff concludes that offsite impacts from Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 to 41 minority and low-income populations would be SMALL, and no special mitigation actions are 42 warranted.
In accordance with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data.
Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2005b).
January 2008 4-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1 2 4.5 Ground-Water Use and Quality 3
4 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to 5
SSES groundwater use and quality are listed in Table 4-8. PPL stated in its ER that it is not 6
aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the SSES OLs 7
(PPL 2006a). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 8
independent review of the PPL ER (PPL 2006a), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its 9
evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 10 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the I I GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures 12 are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
13 14 A brief description of the staff's review and the GElS conclusions, as codified in Table B-i, 15 10 CFR 51, follows.
09 18 Table 4-8.
Category 1 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality 19 During the Renewal Term 20 GElS ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm).
4.8.1.1 21 22 Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 qpm).
23 Based on information in the GELS, the Commission found that 24 Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use conflicts.
25 26 As discussed in Section 2.2.2, SSES groundwater use is less than 0.068 m3/s (100 gpm).
27 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 28 review of the PPL ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 29 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no groundwater use 30 conflicts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.
31 32 Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality during the renewal term that are 33 applicable to SSES are discussed in the sections that follow. These issues, which require 34 plant-specific analysis, are listed in Table 4-9.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Table 4-9.
Category 2 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the Renewal Term ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
SEIS Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY Ground-water use conflicts (plants using 4.8.1.3 A
4.5.2 cooling towers withdrawing make-up water 4.4.2.1 from a small river) 4.5.1 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Make-up From a Small River)
[Insert a small discussion of the issue]
4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species Threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the Renewal Term ISSUE--10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GElS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
SEIS Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)
Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E
4.6 This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued operation of the nuclear plant during the license renewal term. The presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the SSES site is discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.
Add a discussion of consultation correspondence.
4.6.1 Aquatic Species Insert a plant specific discussion of the issue. The discussion should end with a conclusion that the potential impacts are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, and a statement about mitigation. In most cases there will be existing mitigation measures and these measures will continue. A statement such as the following would be appropriate:
January 2008 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
2 The staff has reviewed the available information including... Based on this information, the 3
staff concludes that the potential impacts of... are SMALL. During the course of its 4
evaluation, the staff considered mitigation measures for continued operation of,.. Based on 5
this evaluation, the staff expects that mitigation measure in place at..... (e.g.,.... ) are 6
appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.
7 8
4.6.2 Terrestrial Species 9
10
[insert faplant specific discussion of the issue-. The discussion should end with a conclusion II that the potential impacts are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, and a statement about 12 mitigation. In most cases there will be existing mitigation measures and these measures will 13 continue. A statement such as the following would be appropriate:
14 15 The staff has reviewed the available information including...
Based on this information, the 16 staff concludes that the potential impacts of... are SMALL. Duringthe course of its 17 evaluation, the staff*rconrsidered mitigation measures for continued operation of... Based on 18 this evaluation, the staff expects that mitigation measure in place at.... (e.g......
) are 19 appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are. warranted.]
20 21 4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant 22 Information on Impacts of Operations During the 23 Renewal Term (contractor Input) 24 25 The sta~ff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues listed in 10 26
'CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to operation during the renewal term.
27 the -staff also determined that information provided during the public comment period did not 28 identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment. The staff reviewed the d iscussion:
29 of environmental impacts associated with operation during the renewal term in the GElS and 30 has conducted its own independent review, including public scoping meetings, to identify issues 31 with new and significant information. Processes for, identification and evaluation of new 32 information are described in Section 1.2.2.
33 34 Or 35 36 During the scoping period, comments indicated concern about the health effects from exposure 37 to radiation from SSES, the noise and aesthetic impacts of these SSES units on National Park 38 visitors, and the plant's ability to withstand severe weather. These issues are discussed in the 39 following sections.,
40 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-38 January 2008
I 2
4.7.1 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Radiological 3
Impacts on Human Health 4
5 4.7.2 Evaluation of SSES Point Noise and Aesthetic Impacts 6.
7 4.7.3 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Plant Design Information 8
9 Other possible sections include dredging, shorelineerosion, and stimulation of nuisance 10 organisms or plants. Check if these need to be addressed until the time of the GEIS Update, 11 which should include these ideas.
12 13 The discussion of new issues found not to be significant should conclude with a statement 14 similar to the following.
15 16 On the basis of this information, the staff concludes that although continued disposal of 17 wastewater to onsite absorptibn ponds and sewage lagoons during the license renewal period 18 is considered a new issue, the impact to groundwater quality that would result would be SMALL 19 and, therefore, not significant. Further mitigation is not warranted.
20 21 22 4.8 Cumulative Impacts 23 24 Inl this Section address the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts 25 of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 26 actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes these other 27 actions.!
28 29 Focus on effects that are truly meaningful. An examPle tocommonly include would beimpacts 30 on aquatic species in the cooling water resource (lake or river) if there are other human 31 activities affecting those same resources. An example of something that can be excluded 32 would be the impacts on air quality 9othe small emissions sources at a nuclear plant located in 33
'an area that is in attainment.
For license renewal reviews impacts to aquatic species and 34 other water quality issues, and human health impacts, are the areas that will most likely be of 35 importance. But other areas (e.g., terrestrial resources, socioeconomics) can also be 36 important.
37 38 When looking at cumulative effects, it is usually best to look at it from the perspective of the 39 affected resource (do the review from the resource UP). So, for example, if you're looking at 40 impacts to a fish species in a river, you should consider activities that are impacting that 41 species within the spawning and migratory range of the fish in that part of the river. What is 42 impacting the river and the fish-the license renewal of this power plant, perhaps another plant January 2008 4-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
being built or currently operating on the same water body, periodic dredging? Make sure your 2
'geographic aretaand time periods are-defined broadly enough!
3 4
The 're-su!ts of your review should be organized by the type of resource affected (e.g., aquatic, 5
terrestrial, water body, land use).ý 6
The format is as follows:
7 Define geographic area and time period, define past actions, define present actions (baseline 8
condition of the environment), define reasonably foreseeable future actions.]
9 10 The staff considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment resulting from the 11 incremental impact of license renewal when added to other past, present, and reasonably 12 foreseeable future actions. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to 13 the resources at the time of the power plant licensing and construction, present actions are 14 those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plant, and future 15 actions are considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant 16 operation including the 20-year license renewal term. The geographic area over which past, 17 present, and future actions are assessed is dependent on the affected resource.
18 19 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4, are combined with other past, 20 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-21 Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts are defined as 22 "cumulative" in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively significant actions 23 taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself 24 could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in combination with the 25 impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining 26 or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or 27 accelerates the overall resource decline.
28 29 The following impacts were analyzed and found not to contribute to cumulative impacts:
30 emissions sources at the nuclear plant in an attainment area, historic and archeological 31 impacts? [add more here or delete if not applicable].
32 33 34 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts (Will be determined once chapter 4 and new and 35 significant review is completed) 36 37
[Address the following issues in this section:
38
- surface water quality, 39 "surface water use, 40
- discharges, surface runoff, nutrient loading 41
° biocides, 42
- consumptive use/evaporative loss, Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-38 January 2008
I
- _dredging,,
2
- beach erosion or beach closure, 3
- recreational impacts, 4
-_aquatic ecology impacts on population and ecosystem, 5
- impingement/entrainment 6
- aquatic habitat]
7 8
9 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 10 11
[Address the following issues in this section; 12
- Transmission Line ROW maintenance activities impact on yegetation,,
13
, Transmission Line ROW maintenance impacts on T+E species habitats (both aquatic (if 14 stream crossing) and terrestrial),
15
- impacts to terrestrial resources (e.g., wildlife populations, the size and distribution of habitat 16 areas collisions with deer due to increased vehicle traffic on roads from development in the site 17 vicinity) 18
- refurbishment or land-disturbing activities on plant site or Transmission Lines ROWs]
19 20 21, 4.8.3 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 22 23
[Address the following issues in this section:ni!
24 25 4.8.3.1 Radiological Impacts (either address this here or categorize as having no cumulative 26 impacts in summary statement above and in 4.8.6)y 27
_radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP),
28
- public and workers (occupational) dose, 29
- address any other nearby nuclear facilities (Three Mile Island, Beaver Valley, Limerick, Peach 30 Bottom),
31
, mention that NRC and State will regulate future activities' radiological impacts, 32 33 4.8.3.2 Electromagnetic Impacts 34
- Electric Shock from Transmission Lines, electromagnetic impacts]
35 36 37 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 38 39
[Address the following issues in this section:
40
- Address future County plans, 41
'OAddress population increases in the-area, 42
- public services, housing, and offsite land use from Section 4.4, January 2008 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
- Historic and Archeological Resources (either address this here or categorize as having no 2
cumulative impacts in summary statement above and in 4.8.6),
3 1 mention consultation with SHPO and appropriate Native American tribes as required under 4
Section 106 of the NHPA for ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic resources, 5
- aesthetic impacts, tourism, recreation, 6
e employment, personal income, utilities, and education, 7
- transportation impacts, new road development (Dept. Of Transportation),
8
. refurbishment or land-disturbing activities on plant site or Transmission Lines]
10 11 12 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality 13 14
[Address the following issues in this section:
15
- ,Location of groundwater supplies,!
16
- past/current/future degradation of groundwater resources from all sources, 17
- past/current/future use of groundwater resources for all sources, 18
- current operating groundwater wells and predicted future use of groundwater,r 19 o'past/current/future groundwater discharges from nuclear plant and facilities nearby, 20
- groundwater to surface water interaction]
21 22 23 4.8.6 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts 24 25 fS§u-mmiarize the impacts. State'whiclh impacts were found--to be SMALL," MODERATE, 26 LAi4i-GE.] ;The following impacts were analyzed and found not to contribute to cumulative 27 impacts: emissions sources at the nuclear plant in an attainment area, historic and 28 archeological, impacts? [add more here or delete if not applicable].
29 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-38 January 2008
1 2
4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the 3 Renewal Term 4
5 Neither PPL nor the staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to any 6
of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with the SSES operation during the renewal 7
term. Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with these 8
issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GELS. For each of these issues, the GElS 9
concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation 10 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation." OR NRC has 11 identified certain mitigation measures that can reduce the aesthetic and noise impacts 12 associated with Units 1 and 2 (Section 4.7.2) and brought these to PPL's attention.
13 14 Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 1 1 Category 2 issues applicable to
.15 SSES operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic effects of 16 electromagnetic fields. or 10 1issues and environmental justice, the staff concluded that the 17 potential environmental impact of renewal term oper#ations of SSES would be of SMALL 18 significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS and that additional mitigation 19 would not be warranted. For threatened and endangered species, the staff's preliminary 20 conclusion is that the impact resulting from license renewal would be SMALL and further 21 investigation is not warranted. In addition the staff determined that a consensus has not been 22
'reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from 23
-ectromanetic fields. Therefore, the staff did not conduct an evaluation of this issue.
24 25 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were 26 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 27 other actions. [SUMMARIZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS DISCUSSION].
28 January 2008 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
2 4.10 References (Verify) 3 4
10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for Protection 5
Against Radiation."
6 7
10 CFR 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Domestic Licensing of 8
Production and Utilization Facilities.
9 10 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection 11 Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
12 13 59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 14 Minority and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 32. February 16, 1994.
15 16 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 17 National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.
18 19 Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.
20 21 Ecology II1. 2001. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 22 Station 2000: Water quality and Fishes. Prepared by Ecology Ill, Inc., Berwick, Pennsylvania.
23 May.
24 25 Ecology II1. 2002. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 26 Station 2000: Water quality and Fishes. Prepared by Ecology III, Inc., Berwick, Pennsylvania.
27 June.
28 29 Ecology III. 2003. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 30 Station 2000: Water quality and Fishes. Prepared by Ecology Ill, Inc., Berwick, Pennsylvania.
31 August.
32 33 Ecology 111. 2004. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 34 Station 2000: Water quality and Fishes. Prepared by Ecology III, Inc., Berwick, Pennsylvania.
35 December.
36 37 Ecology III. 2005. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 38 Station 2000: Water quality and Fishes. Prepared by Ecology Ill, Inc., Berwick, Pennsylvania.
39 June.
40 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-38 January 2008
I National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 1997. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers, 2
3 4
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.
5 6
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. "NIEHS Report on Health 7
Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields." Publication 8
No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
9 10 PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). 2006. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License 1
Renewal Stage Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 1 and 1. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
12 September.
13 14 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2000.
15 Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol. 1: Sources. United Nations, New York.
16 17 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to 18 Construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Pennsylvania Power and 19 Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C. June.
20 21 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. "Pennsylvania Quickfacts: Columbia County."
22 Available URL: http://quickfacts.census..qov/.
(Accessed July 22, 2004) 23 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement related to 25 the Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 26 and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. Dockets Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C.
27 June.
28 29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987 Standard Review Plan for the Review of 30 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.
31 32 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996a. Generic Environmental Impact 33 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, 34 Washington, D.C.
35 36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996b. "Environmental Review for Renewal of 37 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses." Federal Register. Vol. 61, No. 109, pp. 28467-38 28497, Washington, D.C.
39 40 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact 41 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, January 2008 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Environmental Impacts of Operation I
Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, 2
Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
3 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. "Procedural Guidance for Preparing 5
Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues." Appendix D to NRR 6
Office Instruction LIC-203, June 21, 2001, Washington, D.C. NOTE. This Reference may no 7
longer be needed.
8 9
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. "Procedural Guidance for Preparing 10 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues." Revision 1. Appendix D 11 to NRR Office Instruction LIC-203. Washington, D.C.
12 13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of 14 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, 15 Vol. 69, pp. 52040-52048. Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 32 4-38 January 2008
W!9iiYA1!E~- Section-9.doc Page 1 IfAicia Muflins - Section-9.doc Page lý I 9.0 Summary and Conclusions By letter dated September 13, 2006, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES) for an additional 20-year period (PPL 2006a). If the OLs are renewed, State regulatory agencies and PPL will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, then the plants must be shut down at or before the expiration of the current OLs, which expire on July 17, 2022, for Unit 1, and March 23, 2044, for Unit 2.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). Part 51 identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS),
NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(a),
Upon acceptance of the PPL application, the NRC began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (Federal Register, Volume 71, page 64566 [71 FR 64566] [NRC 2006a]) on November 2, 2006. The staff visited the SSES site in August 2006 and held public scoping meetings on November 15, 2006, in Berwick, Pennsylvania (NRC 2006). The staff reviewed the PPL Environmental Report (ER; PPL 2006b) and compared it to the GELS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000b). The staff also considered the public comments received during the scoping process for preparation of this draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for SSES. The public comments received during the scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.
The staff will hold two public meetings in Berwick, Pennsylvania in March 2008, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and to answer questions to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments on this 1(a) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GELS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
JIanuary 2008 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Page 2 11 l~Alicia Mullins - Secton-9.doc Paqe 211 Summary and Conclusions draft SEIS. When the comment period ends, the staff will consider and address all of the comments received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of the final SEIS.
This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the.
environmental effects of the proposed action, including cumulative impacts, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. This draft SEIS also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from the GELS:
The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
The evaluation criterion for the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GELS, is to determine
... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.
NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:
The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 9-2 January 2008
I ý! I i c i ý i, V u 1-1 i n s- -- S-e 0 -io-n --9. d 66-Page 3 I Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Pacie31I Summary and Conclusions need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with
§ 51.23(b).(a)2 The GElS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance--SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE--developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.
The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:
SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GELS, the staff analysis in the GElS shows the following:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.
(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
These 69 issues were identified in the GElS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GElS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The staff also determined that information provided during the public comment 2 (a)
The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is "Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations-generic determination of no significant environmental impact.
January 2008 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
1ý Alicia1ii s - Section-9.doc Paae 4 il Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Paoe 41 Summary and Conclusions period did not identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment.
Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GElS. The remaining two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.
Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the GELS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared.
This draft SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in the GELS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not renewing the OLs for SSES Units, 1 and 2) and alternative methods of power generation. These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the SSES site or some other unspecified greenfield location.
9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action-License Renewal PPL and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither PPL nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GELS. Similarly, neither the scoping process, PPL, nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to SSES, that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GElS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to SSES.
PPL's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are applicable to SSES Units 1 and 2, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed the PPL analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. Five Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at SSES. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. PPL (PPL 2006b) has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of SSES, for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 9-4 January 2008
f 11 Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Page 5 11 Alci Mllns.
.e.i..9do Pa..... f Summary and Conclusions the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of SSES (AEC 1972).
Twelve (total number of Cat 2 issues addressed in EIS plus 1 issue [SAMA from chp. 5])
Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 12 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GElS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for SSES, and the plant improvements already made, the staff concludes that none of the candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial. OR see Robinson SEIS for alternative ending if cost-beneficial SAMAs are identified.
Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
(Wait for all sections to be edited then modify this paragraph)
Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where SSES license renewal impacts are deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.
The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the environment and long-term productivity.
9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those associated with refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.
January 2008 9-5 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
[I Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Pai6-6I1 Summary and Conclusions The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The adverse impacts of likely alternatives if SSES, ceases operation at or before the expiration of the current OLs will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of these_
units, and they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.
9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of the SSES, during the current license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be considered in this draft SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an additional 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent offsite storage space for the spent fuel assemblies.
The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are the fuel and the permanent storage space. SSES replaces approximately one third of the fuel assemblies in each of the two units on a 24-month refueling cycle with Units 1 and 2 refueling on alternate years.
The likely power generation alternatives if SSES, ceases operation on or before the expiration of the current OLs will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.
9.1.2 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the SSES site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now well established. Renewal of the OLs for SSES, and continued operation of the plant will not alter the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of the application to renew the OLs will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in a manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental consequences of turning the SSES site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.
9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives The proposed action is renewal of the OLs for SSES. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at SSES, Chapters 4 through 7 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32 9-6 January 2008
kAlicia Mullins_- Section-9.doc Pa_ ge7il Summary and Conclusions discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OLs. Environmental issues associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and use reduction are discussed in Chapter 8.
The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the application for renewal of the OLs), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),
alternatives involving nuclear or coal-, gas-generation of power at the SSES site and an unspecified "greenfield site," and a combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. Continued use of a closed-cycle cooling system for SSES, is assumed for Table 9-1.
Substitution of once-through cooling for the recirculating cooling system in the evaluation of the nuclear and gas-and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in somewhat greater environmental. impacts in some impact categories. {This remains to be seen}
Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned [see Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE significance.
9.2 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS (NRC 1996; 1999), (2) the ER submitted by PPL (PPL 2006b), (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the staff's own independent review, and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received, the preliminary recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for SSES, are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
January 2008 9-7 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
I I, Alicia Mullins - Section-9.doc Page 8d Summary and Conclusions Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using Once-Through Cooling (Waiting for for Drew's write-up)
Proponed No-Action Coal-Fired Natural-Ges-Fired Generation New Nuclear Combination of Action Alternative Generation Generation Alternatives Impact Category License Denial of SSES Site Alternate SSES Site Alternate SSES Sitl Alternate SSES Site Alternate Renewal Renewal Greenfield Site Greenfield Site Greenfield Site Greenfield Site 1Land Us.
SMALL SMALL MODERATE to MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE to MODERATE 10 I
LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL to MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL to MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE LARGE LARGE MODERATE LARGE Water Us, SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to and Quality-MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Surface Water Water Use and SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to Quality-MODERATE MODERATE LARGE LARGE Groundwater Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL lHurman Health SMALL(a)
SMALL SMALL "
SMALL SMALL-SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Socio-SMALL MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE economics LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE ITransportatlon SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to, SMALL to LARGE SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to LARGE LARGE -,,-
MODERATE" LARGE LARGE MODERATE LARGE Aesthetics SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE LARGE MODERATE LARGE LARGE Hitoic-and
-SMALL, SMALL L
SMALL SMALLL SMLL SMALL
- SMALL, SMAIL SMALL Environmental SMALL MODERATE SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to Justice LARGE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE LARGE MODERATE MODERATE (a) Except for collective offsito radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not assigned. See Section 6 for details.
January 2008 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32
IA ii Mullins....
dP g
!I 1ý Alicia Mullins - Section-.94.9.c.........
Page 9 il Summary and Conclusions 9.4 References (Verify)-
10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL Susquehanna). 2006x. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Application for License Renewal, Appendix E--Applicant's Environmental Report. Allentown, Pennsylvania. September.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Washington, D.C. June.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, Section 6.3, Transportation, Table 9. 1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.
NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2006. "Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 212, pp.
64566-64568. Washington, D.C. November.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. "Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal."
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report - Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 2 & 2, Berwick, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C. April.
January 2008 DRAFT NUREG-1437, Supplement 32