ML11263A106
| ML11263A106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2010 |
| From: | Rogers E AECOM |
| To: | Hurley B, Bo Pham, Spangler N Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11263A106 (51) | |
Text
-~
.~. ~
~
-".- ~.-----'------- -. -
Rikhoff, Jeffrey From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
v&g..rsf,,Evelyh [EVELYN ROGER S@.ae6concom.
Monday, August.16, 2010 1:29 PM
- 'eHurl"y, B bbiey Pharni, :Bb;',Spa'ngler,. Nicole.'
Eccleston, Charles; Imboden, Andy; Rikhoff, Jeffrey RE: Chapter 8 edits for Salem & HC Chapter 8 v.4.docx Sure....here is the latest version of the document.
Is 2:30 OK for the call?
Call in # 866-203-6896 Conference Cod (e)
Evelyn Rogers, P.E.
D 864.234.2253 evelyn. roqerscaecom. com Original Message -----
From: Hurley, Bobbie Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:06 PM To: Pham, Bo; Rogers, Evelyn; Spangler, Nicole Cc: Eccleston, Charles; Imboden, Andy; Rikhoff, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Chapter 8 edits for Salem & HC I have back to back conference calls most of the afternoon... Evelyn, can you handle this????
Bobbie Hurley Section/Office Manager D 864.234.8913
&,b, (6) b~~i~hrlyaecom.com
Original Message -----
From: Pham, So rmailto:Bo.Pham~cnrc.qov1 Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:00 PM To: Rogers, Evelyn; Hurley, Bobbie; Spangler, Nicole Cc: Eccleston, Charles; Imboden, Andy; Rikhoff, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Chapter 8 edits for Salem & HC Can we do a call this afternoon after 2pm? I thought I remembered "Land Use" to be a subsection of "Socioeconomics" for only the Coal-fired and Combined-cycle alternatives, and it was a separate section of its own only in the Combination alternative.
Can you also send out the latest version as a reference for the call this afternoon? Thanks.
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301-415-8450
-Original Message----
From: Rogers, Evelyn [mailto: EVELYN. ROG ERS(,aecom.comi Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:48 AM To: Pham, Bo; Hurley, Bobbie; Spangler, Nicole Cc: Eccleston, Charles; Imboden, Andy; Rikhoff, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Chapter 8 edits for Salem & HC Bo-I was planning to move Land Use out of the Socioeconomics section in all three alternatives (Land Use is currently a subsection of Socioeconomics in all 3 alternatives) and also add it as a separate criterion in all of the Section 8 tables. If we are to leave Land Use in socioeconomics, then I would like to revise Section 8.4 so that it does not discuss Land Use as if it was a separate criterion.
Please let me know which way to proceed.
Thanks!
Evelyn Rogers, P.E.
D 864.234.2253 evelyn.roqersaaecom.com Original Message -----
From: Pham, Bo fmailto:Bo.Pham(anrc..qovI Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:47 PM To: Hurley, Bobbie; Spangler, Nicole Cc: Eccleston, Charles; Rogers, Evelyn; Imboden, Andy; Rikhoff, Jeffrey
Subject:
Chapter 8 edits for Salem & HC Hi Bobbie, I spoke to Jeff & Andy today regarding the format/flow of Chapter 8, and we have all agreed that the section on the Combination Alternative should be revised to match the layout of the Coal-fired and Combined-cycle alternatives.
As I understand it per our phone conversation, this would mainly involve revising the table summarizing the impacts of the Combination Alternatives & putting it close to the top of the section and putting the "Land Use" discussion under the "Socioeconomic" subsection. Please go forth with making those changes and let me know if there were other major changes to consider from our discussion.
Thanks.
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8450 2
1 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 2
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that each environmental impact 3
statement (EIS) consider alternatives to any proposed major Federal action significantly 4
affecting the quality of the human environment. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 5 regulations implementing NEPA for license renewal require that a supplemental environmental 6
impact statement (SEIS) consider and weigh "the environmental effects of the proposed action 7
(license renewal); the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 8
alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts," (Title 10 of the 9
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.71d).
10 This SEIS considers the proposed Federal action of issuing a renewed license for the Salem 11 Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station 12 (HCGS), which would allow the plants to operate for 20 years beyond the current license 13 expiration dates. In this chapter, the NRC staff (Staff) examines the potential environmental 14 impacts of alternatives to issuing a renewed operating license for Salem and HCGS, as well as 15 alternatives that may reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts from license renewal, 16 when and where these alternatives are applicable.
17 While the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GELS) for License Renewal of Nuclear 18 Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999), reached generic conclusions regarding many 19 environmental issues associated with license renewal, it did not determine which alternatives 20 are reasonable or reach conclusions about site-specific environmental impact levels. As such, 21 the Staff must evaluate environmental impacts of alternatives on a site-specific basis.
22 Alternatives to the proposed action of issuing renewed Salem and HCGS operating licenses 23 must meet the purpose and need for issuing a renewed license; they must 24 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of 25 a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating 26 needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 27 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers.
28 The Staff ultimately makes no decision as to which alternative (or the proposed action) to 29 implement, since that decision falls to utility, State, or other Federal officials to decide.
30 Comparing the environmental effects of these alternatives will assist the Staff in deciding 31 whether the environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of 32 license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable (10 CFR 33 51.95[c][4]). If the NRC acts to issue renewed licenses, all of the alternatives, including the 34 proposed action, will be available to energy-planning decision-makers. If NRC decides not to 35 renew the licenses (or takes no action at all), then energy-planning decision-makers may no 36 longer elect to continue operating Salem and HCGS and will have to resort to another 37 alternative-which may or may not be one of the alternatives considered in this section-to 38 meet their energy needs.
39 In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the Staff first selects energy technologies or 40 options currently in commercial operation, as well as some technologies not currently in 41 commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current Salem and September 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
HCGS operating licenses expire. The current Salem operating licenses will expire on August 13, 2
2016 for Unit 1 and April 18, 2020 for Unit 2. The current HCGS operating license will expire on 3
April 11, 2026. An alternative must be available (constructed, permitted, and connected to the 4
grid) by the time the current Salem and HCGS 5
licenses expire.
6 Second, the Staff screens the alternatives to remove In-Depth 7
those that cannot meet future system needs, and then Alternatives:
8 screens the remaining options to remove those whose 9
costs or benefits do not justify inclusion in the range Supercritical 10 of reasonable alternatives. Any alternatives remaining coal-fired 11 constitute alternatives to the proposed action that the Natural gas-fired 12 Staff evaluates in detail throughout this section. In combined-cycle 13 Section 8.2, the SEIS briefly addresses each Combination 14 alternative that the Staff removed during screening 15 and explains why each alternative was removed.
Other Alternatives Considered:
16 The Staff initially considered 17 discrete potential 0
Offsite Coal-Fired and 17 alternatives to the proposed action, and then Natural Gas-Fired 18 narrowed the list to two discrete alternatives and a 0
New nuclear 19 combination of alternatives considered in Section 8.1.
Conservation/
Efficiency 20 Once the Staff identifies alternatives for in-depth Purchased power 21 review, the Staff refers to generic environmental 0
Solar power 22 impact evaluations in the GELS. The GElS provides 0 Wood-fired 23 overviews of some energy technologies available at 0 Wind 24 the time of its publishing in 1996, though it does not (onshore/offshore) 25 reach any conclusions regarding which alternatives 0
Hydroelectric power 26 are most appropriate, nor does it precisely categorize 0 Wave and ocean 27 impacts for each site. In addition, since 1996, many energy 28 energy technologies have evolved significantly in energy 29 capability and cost, while regulatory structures have 0 Geothermal power 30 changed to either promote or impede development of 0 Municipal solid waste 31 particular alternatives.
Biofuels Oil-fired power 32 As a result, the Staff's analysis starts with the GElS 0
Fuel cells 33 and then includes updated information from sources 0
Delayed retirement 34 like the Energy Information Administration (EIA), other 35 organizations within the Department of Energy (DOE),
36 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry 37 sources and publications, and information submitted in the PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, the 38 applicant) environmental report (ER).
39 For each in-depth analysis, the Staff analyzes environmental impacts across seven impact 40 categories: (1) air quality, (2) groundwater use and quality, (3) surface water use and quality, (4) 41 aquatic and terrestrial ecology, (5) human health, (6) socioeconomics, and (7) waste 42 management. As in earlier chapters of this draft SEIS, the Staff uses the NRC's three-level Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-2 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
standard of significance-SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE-to indicate the degree of the 2
environmental effect on each of the seven aforementioned categories that have been evaluated.
3 The in-depth alternatives that the Staff 4
considered include a supercritical coal-Energy Outlook: Each year the Energy 5
fired plant in Section 8.1.1, a natural gas-Information Administration (EIA), part of the 6
fired combined-cycle power plant in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), issues 7
Section 8.1.2, and a combination of its updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
8 alternatives in Section 8.1.3 that includes AEO 2009 indicates that natural gas, coal, 9
natural gas-fired combined-cycle and renewable are likely to fuel most new 10 generation, energy conservation, and a electrical capacity through 2030, with some 11 wind power component. In Section 8.2, growth in nuclear capacity (EIA, 2009a),
12 the Staff explains why it dismissed many though all projections are subject to future 13 other alternatives from in-depth developments in fuel price or electricity 14 consideration. In Section 8.3, the Staff demand:
15 considers the environmental effects that 16 may occur if NRC takes no action and "Natural-gas-fired plants account for 53 17 does not issue renewed licenses for percent of capacity additions in the 18 Salem and HCGS. Finally, in Section 8.4, reference case, as comparedwith 22 19 the impacts of all alternatives are percent for renewable, 18 percent for 20 summarized.
coal-fired plants, and 5 percent for nuclear.
Capacity expansion decisions consider 21 8.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY capital, operating, and transmission costs.
22 SOURCES Typically, coal-fired, nuclear, and renewable plants are capital-intensive, whereas 23 8.1.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired operating (fuel) expenditures account for 24 Generation most of the costs associated with natural-gas-fired capacity."
25 The GElS indicates that a 3656 26 megawatt-electric (MWe) supercritical coal-fired power plant (a plant equivalent in capacity to 27 each individual Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 2, and HCGS plants) could require 6,233 acres (2,523 28 hectares) of available land area, and thus would not fit on the existing 1,480 (599 hectares) 29 acres owned by PSEG at the Salem and HCGS sites; however, the Staff notes that many coal-30 fired power plants with larger capacities have been located on smaller sites. In the ERs, PSEG 31 assumed that a coal-fired alternative would be developed on the existing Salem and HCGS 32 sites. The Staff believes this to be reasonable and, as such, will consider a coal-fired alternative 33 located on the current Salem and HCGS sites.
34 Coal-fired generation accounts for 48.2 percent of U.S. electrical power generation, a greater 35 share than any other fuel (EIA, 201 Oa). Furthermore, the EIA projects that coal-fired power 36 plants will account for the greatest share of added capacity through 2030-more than natural 37 gas, nuclear or renewable generation options (EIA, 2009a). While coal-fired power plants are 38 widely used and likely to remain widely used, the Staff notes that future coal capacity additions 39 may be affected by perceived or actual efforts to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For 40 now, the Staff considers a coal-fired alternative to be a feasible, commercially available option 41 that could provide electrical generating capacity after the Salem and HCGS current licenses 42 expire.
September 2010 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Supercritical technologies are increasingly common in new coal-fired plants. Supercritical plants 2
operate at higher temperatures and pressures than most existing coal-fired plants (beyond 3
water's "critical point", where boiling no longer occurs and no clear phase change occurs 4
between steam and liquid water). Operating at higher temperatures and pressures allows this 5
coal-fired alternative to function at a higher thermal efficiency than many existing coal-fired 6
power plants do. While supercritical facilities are more expensive to construct, they consume 7
less fuel for a given output, reducing environmental impacts. Based on technology forecasts 8
from EIA, the Staff expects that a new, supercritical coal-fired plant beginning operation in 2014 9
would operate at a heat rate of 9069 British thermal units/kilowatt hour (Btu/kWh), or 10 approximately 38 percent thermal efficiency (EIA, 2009a).
11 In a supercritical coal-fired power plant, burning coal heats pressurized water. As the 12 supercritical steam/water mixture moves through plant pipes to a turbine generator, the 13 pressure drops and the mixture flashes to steam. The heated steam expands across the turbine 14 stages, which then spin and turn the generator to produce electricity. After passing through the 15 turbine, any remaining steam is condensed back to water in the plant's condenser.
16 In most modern U.S. facilities, condenser cooling water circulates through cooling towers or a 17 cooling pond system (either of which are closed-cycle cooling systems). Older plants often 18 withdraw cooling water directly from existing rivers or lakes and discharge heated water directly 19 to the same body of water (called open-cycle cooling). Salem operates open-cycle cooling water 20 using once-through cooling at both of their units, while HCGS operates a closed-cycle cooling 21 system with a natural draft cooling tower. Although nuclear plants require more cooling capacity 22 than an equivalently sized coal-fired plant, the existing cooling tower at HCGS, by itself, is not 23 expected to be adequate to support a coal-fired alternative that would have the capacity to 24 replace both Salem and HCGS. Therefore, implementation of a coal-fired alternative would 25 require the construction of additional cooling towers to provide the necessary cooling capacity to 26 support the replacement of both Salem and HCGS. Under the coal-fired alternative, the facility 27 would withdraw makeup water from and discharge blowdown (water containing concentrated 28 dissolved solids and biocides) from cooling towers back to the Delaware River, similar to the 29 manner in which the current HCGS cooling tower operates. However, additional cooling towers 30 would be required, so the volume of water managed in cooling towers would increase. At the 31 same time, the once-through cooling system associated with the Salem Units 1 and 2 would 32 cease operation.
33 In order to replace the 3656 net MWe that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the coal-fired 34 alternative would need to produce roughly 3889 gross MWe, using about 6 percent of power 35 output for onsite power usage (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Onsite electricity demands 36 include scrubbers, cooling towers, co*al-handling equipment, lights, communication, and other 37 onsite needs. A supercritical coal-fired plant equivalent in capacity to Salem and HCGS would 38 require less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because the alternative operates at a higher 39 thermal efficiency. The 3889 gross MWe would be achieved using standard-sized units, which 40 are assumed to be approximately equivalent to six units of 630 MWe each.
41 The 3656 net MWe power plants would consume approximately 11.1 million metric tons (MT, 42 12.2 million tons) of coal annually (EPA, 2006). EIA reports that most coal consumed in New 43 Jersey originates in West Virginia or Pennsylvania (EIA, 2010b). Given current coal mining Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-4 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 operations in this area, the coal used in this alternative would likely be mined by a combination of strip (mountaintop-removal) mining and underground mining. The coal would be mechanically processed and washed, and transported by barge to the Salem and HCGS facility.
Limestone for scrubbers would also likely be delivered by barge. This coal-fired alternative would produce roughly 684,440 MT (753,960 tons) of ash annually (EIA, 2010b), and roughly 222,700 MT (245,300 tons) of scrubber sludge annually (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Much of the coal ash and scrubbed sludge could be reused depending on local recycling and reuse markets.
The coal-fired alternative would also include construction impacts such as clearing the plant site of vegetation, excavation, and preparing the site surface before other crews begin actual construction of the plant and any associated infrastructure. Because this alternative would be constructed at the Salem and HCGS site, it is unlikely that new transmission lines would be necessary. Because coal would be supplied by barge, no construction of a new rail line would be necessary.
Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical Coal-Fired Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS Supercritical Coal-Fired Continued Salem and HCGS Generation Operation Air Quality MODERATE SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Human Health MODERATE SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Waste Management MODERATE Not Applicable 17 8.1.1.1 Air Quality 18 Air quality impacts from coal-fired generation can be substantially increased because these 19 power plants emit significant quantities of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
20 particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), and hazardous air pollutants such as mercury. However, 21 many of these pollutants can be substantially reduced using various pollution control 22 technologies.
September 2010 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, New Jersey. Salem County is designated as 2
an attainment/unclassified area with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3
(NAAQSs) for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2 5), Sulfur dioxide (SO 2),
4 NOx, CO, and lead. The county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area 5
with respect to the 1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-6 hour ozone standard, Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-7 Trenton non-attainment area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the 8
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) non attainment area.
9 A new coal-fired generating plant would qualify as a new major-emitting industrial facility and 10 would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review under 11 requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA), adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental 12 Protection (NJDEP) Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. A new coal-fired generating plant would 13 need to comply with the new source performance standards for coal-fired plants set forth in 40 14 CFR 60 Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 15 60.42(a)), SO 2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). Regulations issued by NJDEP 16 adopt the EPA's CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power plant emissions of SOx, NOx, 17 particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants. The new coal-fired generating plant would 18 qualify as a major facility as defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey Administrative 19 Code, and would be required to obtain a major source permit from NJDEP.
20 Section 169A of the CAA (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7401) establishes a national goal of 21 preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 22 areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional 23 haze rule in 1999 (64 Federal Register (FR) 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory 24 Class I Federal area located within a state, the State must establish goals that provide for 25 reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress 26 goals must provide an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of 27 implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the 28 same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). Five regional planning organizations (RPO) collaborate on 29 the visibility impairment issue, developing the technical basis for these plans. The State of New 30 Jersey is among eleven member states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New 31 York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) of the 32 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), along with tribes, Federal agencies, and 33 other interested parties that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies 34 to address them (NJDEP, 2009a). The visibility protection regulatory requirements, contained in 35 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, include the review of the new sources that would be constructed in 36 the attainment or unclassified areas and may affect visibility in any Federal Class I area (40 37 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307). If a coal-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class 38 I area, additional air pollution control requirements would be imposed. There is one mandatory 39 Class I Federal area in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 40 (40 CFR 81.420), located approximately 58 miles (mi; 93 kilometer [km]) southeast of the Salem 41 and HCGS facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in Delaware, and no other areas 42 located within 100 miles (161 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). New Jersey is also subject 43 to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has outlined emissions reduction goals for both 44 SO2 and NOx for the year 2015. CAIR will aid New Jersey sources in reducing S02 emissions Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-6 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
by 23,000 MT (25,000 tons, or 49 percent), and NOx emissions by 10,000 MT (11,000 tons, or 2
48 percent) (EPA, 2010).
3 The Staff projects that the coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would have the 4
following emissions for criteria and other significant emissions based on published EIA data, 5
EPA emission factors and on performance characteristics for this alternative and likely emission 6
controls:
7 0
Sulfur oxides (SOx) - 11,407 MT (12,566 tons) per year 8
0 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - 2769 MT (3050 tons) per year 9
0 Particulate matter (PM) PM10 - 77.5 MT (85.4 tons) per year 10 0
Particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 - 20.5 MT (22.6 tons) per year 11 0
Carbon monoxide (CO) - 2773 MT (3050 tons) per year 12 Sulfur Oxides 13 The coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely use wet, limestone-based 14 scrubbers to remove SOx. The EPA indicates that this technology can remove more than 95 15 percent of SOx from flue gases. The Staff projects total SOx emissions after scrubbing would be 16 11,407 MT (12,566 tons) per year. SOx emissions from a new coal-fired power plant would be 17 subject to the requirements of Title IV of the CAA. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of 18 SO 2 and NOx, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these 19 pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO 2 emissions and 20 imposes controls on SO 2 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA 21 issues one allowance for each ton of SO 2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive 22 allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their SO 2 emissions. Owners of new 23 units must therefore purchase allowances from owners of other power plants or reduce SO 2 24 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future years.
25 Thus, provided a new coal-fired power plant is able to purchase sufficient allowances to 26 operate, it would not add to net regional SO 2 emissions, although it might do so locally.
27 Nitrogen Oxides 28 A coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would most likely employ various available 29 NOx-control technologies, which can be grouped into two main categories: combustion 30 modifications and post-combustion processes. Combustion modifications include low-NOx 31 burners, over fire air, and operational modifications. Post-combustion processes include 32 selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction. An effective combination of 33 the combustion modifications and post-combustion processes allow the reduction of NOx 34 emissions by up to 95 percent (EPA, 1998). PSEG indicated in its ER that the technology would 35 use low NOx burners, overfire air, and selective catalytic reduction to reduce NOx emissions by 36 approximately 95 percent from uncontrolled emissions. As a result, the NOx emissions September 2010 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
associated with a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would be approximately 2
2,769 MT (3,050 tons) per year.
3 Section 407 of the CAA establishes technology-based emission limitations for NOx emissions. A 4
new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standards for such 5
plants as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 6
(63 FR 49453), limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (NO2) to 200 7
nanograms (ng) of NOx per joule (J) of gross energy output (equivalent to 1.6 pounds per 8
megawatt hour [lb/MWh]), based on a 30-day rolling average. Based on the projected 9
emissions, the proposed alternative would easily meet this regulation.
10 Particulates 11 The new coal-fired power plant would use baghouse-based fabric filters to remove particulates 12 from flue gases. PSEG indicated that this technology would remove 99.9 percent of particulate 13 matter. The EPA notes that filters are capable of removing in excess of 99 percent of 14 particulate matter, and that SO 2 scrubbers further reduce particulate matter emissions (EPA, 15 2008a). Based on EPA emission factors, the new supercritical coal-fired plant would emit 77.5 16 MT (85.4 tons) per year of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 17 to 10 microns (PM1 o) annually (EPA, 1998; EIA, 2010b). In addition, coal burning would also 18 result in approximately 20.5 MT (22.6 tons) per year of PM2.5. Coal-handling equipment would 19 introduce fugitive dust emissions when fuel is being transferred to onsite storage and then 20 reclaimed from storage for use in the plant. During the construction of a coal-fired plant, onsite 21 activities would also generate fugitive dust. Vehicles and motorized equipment would create 22 exhaust emissions during the construction process. These impacts would be intermittent and 23 short-lived, however, and to minimize dust generation construction crews would use applicable 24 dust-control measures.
25 Carbon Monoxide 26 Based on EPA emission factors and assumed plant characteristics, the Staff computed that the 27 total CO emissions would be approximately 2,769 MT (3,050 tons) per year (EPA, 1998).
28 Hazardous Air Pollutants 29 Consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's February 8, 2008 ruling that vacated its Clean Air 30 Mercury Rule (CAMR), the EPA is in the process of developing mercury emissions standards for 31 power plants under the CAA (Section 112) (EPA, 2009a). Before CAMR, the EPA determined 32 that coal-and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous 33 air pollutants (HAPs) (EPA, 2000a). The EPA determined that coal plants emit arsenic, 34 beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, 35 and mercury (EPA, 2000a). The EPA concluded that mercury is the HAP of greatest concern; it 36 further concluded that:
37 (1) a link exists between coal combustion and mercury emissions Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-8 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
(2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury 2
emissions, and 3
(3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-4 eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects resulting 5
from mercury exposures caused by the consumption of contaminated fish (EPA, 2000a).
6 On February 6, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the EPA's request to review the 2008 7
Circuit Court's decision, and also denied a similar request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group 8
later that month (EPA, 2009a).
9 Carbon Dioxide 10 A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide (C02) emissions during 11 operations as well as during mining, processing, and transportation, which the GElS indicates 12 could contribute to global warming. The coal-fired plant would emit approximately 30,512,000 13 MT (33,611,000 tons) per year of CO 2.
14 Summary of Air Quality 15 While the GElS analysis mentions global warming from unregulated C02 emissions and acid 16 rain from SOx and NOx emissions as potential impacts, it does not quantify emissions from 17 coal-fired power plants. However, the GElS analysis does imply that air impacts would be 18 substantial (NRC, 1996). The above analysis shows that emissions of air pollutants, including 19 SOx, NOx, CO, and particulates, exceed those produced by the existing nuclear power plant, as 20 well as those of the other alternatives considered in this section. Operational emissions of C02 21 are also much greater under the coal-fired alternative, as reviewed by the Staff in Section 6.2 22 and in the previous paragraph. Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema 23 have also been associated with air emissions from coal combustion, and are discussed further 24 in Section 8.1.1.5.
25 The NRC analysis for a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site indicates that impacts 26 from the coal-fired alternative would have clearly noticeable effects, but given existing regulatory 27 regimes, permit requirements, and emissions controls, the coal-fired alternative would not 28 destabilize air quality. Therefore, the appropriate characterization of air impacts from coal-fired 29 plant located at Salem and HCGS site would be MODERATE. Existing air quality would result in 30 varying needs for pollution control equipment to meet applicable local requirements, or varying 31 degrees of participation in emissions trading schemes.
32 8.1.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 33 If the onsite coal-fired alternative continued to use groundwater for drinking water and service 34 water, the need for groundwater at the plant would be minor. Total usage would likely be less 35 than Salem and HCGS because many fewer workers would be onsite, and because the coal-36 fired unit would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. No effect on groundwater 37 quality would be apparent.
September 2010 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Construction of a coal-fired plant could have a localized effect on groundwater due to temporary 2
dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of construction and 3
the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of the coal-fired 4
alternative would be SMALL.
5 8.1.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 6
The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 7
purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the NRC concludes the 8
impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new coal-fired plant would be required to 9
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the NJDEP 10 for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, and other discharges. Assuming the plant 11 operates within the limits of this permit, the impact from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, 12 and other effluent discharges on surface water quality would be SMALL.
13 8.1.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 14 Aquatic Ecology 15 Impacts to aquatic ecology resources from a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site 16 could result from effects on water bodies both adjacent to and distant from the site. Temporary 17 effects on some aquatic organisms likely would result from construction that could occur in the 18 water near the shoreline at the facility. Longer-term, more extensive effects on aquatic 19 organisms likely would occur during the period of operation of the facility due to the intake of 20 cooling water and discharge of effluents to the estuary. The numbers of fish and other aquatic 21 organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be substantially 22 smaller than those associated with license renewal. Water consumption from and discharge of 23 blowdown to the Delaware Estuary would be lower due to the higher thermal efficiency of the 24 coal-fired facility and its use of only closed-cycle cooling. In addition, the intake and discharge 25 would be monitored and regulated by the NJDEP under the facility's NPDES permit, including 26 requirements under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) and 316(b) for thermal discharges 27 and cooling water intakes, respectively. Assuming the use of closed-cycle cooling and 28 adherence to regulatory requirements, the impact on ecological resources of the Delaware 29 Estuary from operation of the intake and discharge facilities would be minimal for this 30 alternative.
31 Aquatic resources distant from the site also have the potential to be affected by a coal-fired 32 alternative. Disposal of waste by landfilling offsite could affect the aquatic ecology of water 33 bodies downgradient from the disposal site; however, regulatory requirements for such facilities 34 are expected to minimize or prevent such effects. Aquatic ecology in offsite coal mining areas 35 also could be affected, such as by acid mine drainage, although water bodies in the mining 36 areas are likely to be disturbed already due to ongoing mining operations, and regulatory 37 requirements are expected to limit these impacts. Acid rain resulting from NOx and SOx 38 emissions, as well as the deposition of other pollutants, also could affect the aquatic ecology of 39 water bodies downwind of the site. The emission controls discussed in Section 8.1.1.1 are 40 expected to reduce but not eliminate such effects.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-10 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Thus, impacts to aquatic ecology as a result of the effects of facility operations may occur on the 2
adjacent Delaware Estuary as well as more distant effects from waste disposal, coal mining, 3
and air emissions. The coal-fired alternative potentially would have noticeable effects on 4
aquatic resources in multiple areas. Given existing regulatory regimes, permit requirements, 5
and emissions controls, these effects would be limited and unlikely to destabilize aquatic 6
communities. Therefore, the impacts to aquatic resources from a coal-fired plant located at the 7
Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL for the Delaware Estuary but could range from SMALL 8
to MODERATE depending on the extent to which other aquatic resources may be affected.
9 Terrestrial Ecology 10 Constructing the coal-fired alternative onsite would require approximately 204 hectares [ha]
11 (505 acres [ac]) of land for construction of the power block with an additional 78-156 ha (193-12 386 ac) for waste disposal, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated on the existing site 13 (see Section 8.1.1.6) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Terrestrial ecology in offsite coal mining 14 areas also could be affected, although some of the land is likely to already be disturbed as a 15 result of ongoing mining operations. Thus, impacts to terrestrial ecology may occur as a result of 16 construction and operational activities both onsite and offsite.
17 Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology would be minor because the site is on an artificial island 18 and most of the site has been previously disturbed. If additional roads would need to be 19 constructed through less disturbed areas, impacts would be greater since these construction 20 activities may fragment or destroy local ecological communities. Land disturbances could affect 21 habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. Cooling 22 tower operation would produce drift that could result in some deposition of dissolved solids on 23 surrounding vegetation and soils onsite and offsite. Overall, impacts to terrestrial resources at 24 the site would be minimal and limited mostly to the period of construction.
25 Onsite or offsite waste disposal by landfilling also would affect terrestrial ecology at least until 26 the time when the disposal area is reclaimed. Deposition of acid rain resulting from NOx and 27 SOx emissions, as well as the deposition of other pollutants, also could affect terrestrial 28 ecology. Air deposition impacts may be noticeable but, given the emission controls discussed in 29 Section 8.1.1.1, are unlikely to be destabilizing. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial resources from 30 a coal-fired plant located at the Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL for the area of the site 31 but could range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the extent to which terrestrial 32 resources at other locations may be affected.
33 8.1.1.5 Human Health 34 Coal-fired power plants introduce worker risks from new plant construction, coal and limestone 35 mining, from coal and limestone transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion and 36 scrubber wastes. In addition, there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions (as 37 addressed in Section 8.1.1.1) and the secondary effects of eating foods grown in areas subject 38 to deposition from plant stacks.
39 Human health risks of coal-fired power plants are described, in general, in Table 8-2 of the 40 GElS (NRC, 1996). Cancer and emphysema as a result of the inhalation of toxins and 41 particulates are identified as potential health risks to occupational workers and members of the September 2010 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
public (NRC, 1996). The human health risks of coal-fired power plants, both to occupational 2
workers and to members of the public, are greater than those of the current Salem and HCGS 3
facilities due to exposures to chemicals such as mercury; SOx; NOx; radioactive elements such 4
as uranium and thorium contained in coal and coal ash; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 5
(PAH) compounds, including benzo(a)pyrene.
6 During construction activities there would be also risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 7
and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry and accidents 8
resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated by the use 9
of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training. Occupational 10 and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by continued 11 application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety practices.
12 Regulations restricting emissions-enforced by EPA or State agencies-have acted to 13 significantly reduce potential health effects but have not entirely eliminated them. These 14 agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Even if 15 the coal-fired alternative were located in a nonattainment area, emission controls and trading or 16 offset mechanisms could prevent further regional degradation; however, local effects could be 17 visible. Many of the byproducts of coal combustion responsible for health effects are largely 18 controlled, captured, or converted in modern power plants (as described in Section 8.1.1.1),
19 although some level of health effects may remain.
20 Aside from emission impacts, the coal-fired alternative introduces the risk of coal pile fires and, 21 for those plants that use coal combustion liquid and sludge waste impoundments, the release of 22 the waste due to a failure of the impoundment. Although there have been several instances of 23 this occurring in recent years, these types of events are still relatively rare.
24 Based on the cumulative potential impacts of construction activities, emissions, and materials 25 management on human health, the NRC staff considers the overall impact of constructing and 26 operating a new coal-fired facility to be MODERATE.
27 8.1.1.6 Socioeconomics 28 Land Use 29 The GElS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power plant operations on land use both 30 on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of 31 land area that would be affected by the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-32 fired power plant on the Salem and HCGS site.
33 The GElS indicates that an estimated 700 ha, (1,700 ac) would be required for constructing a 34 1,000-MW(e) coal plant. Scaling from the GElS estimate, approximately 2,523 ha (6,233 ac) 35 would be required to replace the 3,660 MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. PSEG indicated 36 that approximately 204 ha (505 ac) of land would be needed to support the power block for a 37 coal-fired alternative capable of replacing the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 38 2009b). The Staff notes that many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities have been 39 located on smaller sites, and believes that the PSEG estimate is reasonable. PSEG indicated Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-12 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
that an additional 78 ha (193 ac) of land area may be needed for waste disposal over the 20-2 year license renewal term, or 156 ha (386 ac) over the 40-year operational life of a coal-fired 3
alternative, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated onsite (PSEG, 2009a), (PSEG, 4
2009b).
5 Offsite land use impacts would occur from coal mining, in addition to land use impacts from the 6
construction and operation of the new power plant. In the GELS, the Staff estimated that 7
supplying coal to a 1,000-MW(e) plant would disturb approximately 8,900 ha (22,000 ac) of land 8
for mining the coal and disposing of the wastes during the 40-year operational life. Scaling from 9
GElS estimates, approximately 80,500 ac (32,580 ha) of land would be required for a coal-fired 10 alternative to replace Salem and HCGS. However, most of the land in existing coal-mining 11 areas has already experienced some level of disturbance. The elimination of the need for 12 uranium mining to supply fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities would partially offset this offsite 13 land use impact. In the GELS, the Staff estimated that approximately 1,480 ha (3,660 ac) of 14 land would be affected by the mining and processing of uranium over the operating life of a 15 plant with the capacity of Salem and HCGS.
16 Based on this information, land use impacts would be MODERATE.
17 Socioeconomics 18 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 19 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 20 the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power plant could affect regional 21 employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation result from this alternative:
22 (1) construction-related jobs, and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 23 which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. The Staff 24 estimated workforce requirements during power plant construction and operation for the coal-25 fired alternative in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions.
26 The GElS projects a peak construction workforce of 1,200'to 2,500 for a 1,000 MW(e) plant 27 (when extrapolated, a lower-end workforce of approximately 4,400 for a 3,660-MW(e) plant).
28 PSEG projected a peak workforce of about 5,660 required to construct the coal-fired alternative 29 at the Salem and HCGS site (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During the construction period, the 30 communities surrounding the plant site would experience increased demand for rental housing 31 and public services. The relative economic contributions of these relocated workers to local 32 business and tax revenues would vary over time.
33 After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 34 jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. In addition, the rental housing 35 market could experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GELS, the 36 socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 37 because the workforce would need to relocate closer to the construction site. Although the ER 38 indicates that Salem and HCGS is a rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it is located near 39 the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects may be 40 somewhat lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas instead September 2010 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
of relocating closer to the construction site. Based on the site's proximity to these metropolitan 2
areas, construction impacts would be SMALL.
3 PSEG estimated an operational workforce of approximately 500 workers for the 3,660 MWe 4
alternative (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG 2009b). The area would experience a loss of approximately 5
1,100 permanent, relatively high-paying jobs (based on a current Salem and HCGS workforce of 6
1,614), with a corresponding reduction in purchasing activity and tax contributions to the 7
regional economy. The impact of the job loss is, however, expected to be SMALL given the 8
relatively large area from which Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn and the 9
extensive timeframe over which construction of a new plant and decommissioning of the 10 existing facility would occur. The coal-fired alternative would provide a new tax base in Lower 11 Alloways Creek Township and Salem County to offset the loss of taxes that would occur 12 assuming Salem and HCGS are decommissioned. While it is difficult to estimate the impact of 13 this scenario on Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County resources, it would not be 14 unreasonable to assume that, on balance, the township's and county's tax base would not be 15 significantly altered and that resulting impacts could be best characterized as SMALL to 16 MODERATE.
17 Transportation 18 During construction, up to 5,660 workers would be commuting to the site, as well as the current 19 1,614 workers already at Salem and HCGS. In addition to commuting workers, trucks would 20 transport construction materials and equipment to the worksite, increasing the amount of traffic 21 on local roads. The increase in vehicular traffic on roads would peak during shift changes, 22 resulting in temporary level of service impacts and delays at intersections. Barges would likely 23 be used to deliver large components to the Salem and HCGS site. Transportation impacts are 24 likely to be MODERATE during construction.
25 Transportation impacts would be greatly reduced after construction, but would not disappear 26 during plant operations. The maximum number of plant operating personnel commuting to the 27 Salem and HCGS site would be approximately 500 workers. Deliveries of coal and limestone 28 would be by barge. The coal-fired alternative would likely create SMALL transportation impacts 29 during plant operations.
30 Aesthetics 31 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the coal-fired 32 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the coal plant.
33 The coal-fired alternative would have boiler houses up to 200 feet (61 meters [m]) tall with 34 exhaust stacks up to 500 feet (152 m) and would be visible offsite in daylight hours. The coal-35 fired plant would be similar in height to the current Salem and HCGS reactor containment 36 buildings (190 to 200 feet, or 58 to 61 m, tall) and the HCGS cooling tower, which stands at 514 37 feet (157 m). The coal-fired alternative would require the use of multiple cooling towers instead 38 of the current one tower, thus increasing the size of the condensate plume. Lighting on plant 39 structures would be visible offsite at night. Overall, aesthetic impacts associated with the coal-40 fired alternative would likely be SMALL to MODERATE.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-14 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible offsite, 2
although given the low population near the plant's periphery, nuisance impacts are not 3
expected. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation would be classified 4
as continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment 5
associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to 6
coal handling, solid-waste disposal, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant 7
employees. The nuisance impacts of. plant noise emissions are expected to be SMALL due to 8
the large area encompassed by the Salem and HCGS site and the fact that sensitive land uses 9
do not occur in the immediate plant vicinity.
10 Historic and Archaeological Resources 11 Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site studies would likely be needed to identify, 12 evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 13 resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 14 site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 15 corridors, rail lines, or other Right-of-Ways [ROWs]). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should 16 be avoided.
17 As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 18 present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a coal-fired alternative at 19 the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL.
20 Environmental Justice 21 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 22 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 23 could result from the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power plant. Adverse health 24 effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human 25 health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 26 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and 27 exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 28 comparison group. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice 29 issues, the reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice.
30 No environmental or human health impacts were identified that would result in 31 disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income 32 populations if a replacement coal-fired plant were built at the Salem and HCGS site. Some 33 impacts on rental and other temporary housing availability and lease prices during construction 34 might occur, and this could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Although the site 35 is located in a rural area, it is near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas.
36 Therefore, the demand for rental housing would be mitigated because workers would be likely to 37 commute to the site from these areas instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Thus, 38 the impact on minority and low-income populations would be SMALL.
September 2010 8-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
8.1.1.7 Waste Management 2
Coal combustion generates several waste streams including ash (a dry solid) and sludge (a 3
semi-solid byproduct of emission control system operation). The Staff estimates that an 4
approximately 3,656 MWe power plant comprised of six units of approximately 630 MWe each 5
would generate annually a total of approximately 684,440 MT (753,960 tons) of ash (EIA, 6
2010b), and 222,700 MT (245,300 tons) of scrubber sludge (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 7 About 309,OOOMT (340,000 tons) or 45 percent of the ash waste and 176,000 MT(1 93,800 tons) 8 or 79 percent of scrubber sludge would be recycled, based on industry-average recycling rates 9
(ACAA, 2007). Therefore, approximately 375,000 MT (414,000 tons) of ash and 467,000 MT 10 (51,500 tons) of scrubber sludge would remain annually for disposal. Disposal of the remaining 11 waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but would require proper citing 12 in accordance with the describe local ordinance and the implementation of the required 13 monitoring and management practices in order to minimize these impacts (state reference).
14 After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for other uses.
15 In May 2000, the EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 16 Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (EPA, 2000b) stating that it would issue regulations for disposal of 17 coal combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 18 EPA has not yet issued these regulations.
19 The impacts from waste generated during operation of this coal-fired alternative would be 20 clearly visible, but would not destabilize any important resource.
21 The amount of the construction waste would be small compared to the amount of waste 22 generated during operational stage and much of it could be recycled. Overall, the impacts from 23 waste generated during construction stage would be minor.
24 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation of this 25 alternative would be MODERATE.
26 27 8.1.2 Natural Gas-fired Combined-Cycle Generation 28 In this section, the Staff evaluates the environmental impacts of a natural gas-fired combined-29 cycle generation plant at the Salem and HCGS site.
30 Natural gas fueled 21.4 percent of electric generation in the US in 2008 (the most recent year 31 for which data are available); this accounted for the second greatest share of electrical power 32 after coal (EIA, 2010a). Like coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fired plants may be affected by 33 perceived or actual actions to limit GHG emissions; they produce markedly lower GHG 34 emissions per unit of electrical output than coal-fired plants. Natural gas-fired power plants are 35 feasible and provide commercially available options for providing electrical generating capacity 36 beyond Salem and HCGS's current license expiration dates.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-16 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Combined-cycle power plants differ significantly from coal-fired and existing nuclear power 2
plants. They derive the majority of their electrical output from a gas-turbine cycle, and then 3
generate additional power-without burning any additional fuel-through a second, steam-4 turbine cycle. The first, gas turbine stage (similar to a large jet engine) burns natural gas that 5
turns a driveshaft that powers an electric generator. The exhaust gas from the gas turbine is still 6
hot enough, however, to boil water into steam. Ducts carry the hot exhaust to a heat recovery 7
steam generator, which produces steam to drive a steam turbine and produce additional 8
electrical power. The combined-cycle approach is significantly more efficient than any one cycle 9
on its own; thermal efficiency can exceed 60 percent. Since the natural gas-fired alternative 10 derives much of its power from a gas turbine cycle, and because it wastes less heat than either 11 the coal-fired alternative or the existing Salem and HCGS, it requires significantly less cooling.
12 In order to replace the 3,656 MWe that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the Staff selected a 13 gas-fired alternative that uses nine GE STAG 107H combined-cycle generating units. While any 14 number of commercially available combined-cycle units could be installed in a variety of 15 combinations to replace the power currently produced by Salem and HCGS, the STAG 107H is 16 a highly efficient model that would help minimize environmental impacts (GE, 2001). Other 17 manufacturers, like Siemens, offer similarly high efficiency models. This gas-fired alternative 18 produces a net 400 MWe per unit. Nine units would produce a total of 3600 MWe, or nearly the 19 same output as the existing Salem and HCGS plants.
20 The combined-cycle alternative operates at a heat rate of 5,687 btu/kWh, or about 60 percent 21 thermal efficiency (GE, 2001). Allowing for onsite power usage, including cooling towers and 22 site lighting, the gross output of these units would be roughly 3,744 MWe. As noted above, this 23 gas-fired alternative would require much less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because it 24 operates at a higher thermal efficiency and because it requires much less water for steam cycle 25 condenser cooling. This alternative would likely make use of the site's existing natural draft 26 cooling tower, but may require the construction of an additional tower.
27 In addition to the already existing natural draft cooling tower, other visible structures onsite 28 would include the turbine buildings, two exhaust stacks, an electrical switchyard, and, possibly, 29 equipment associated with a natural gas pipeline, like a compressor station. The GElS 30 estimates indicate that this 3,600 MWe plant would require 166 ha (409 ac), which would be 31 feasible on the 599 ha (1,480 ac) PSEG site.
32 This 3600 MWe power plant would consume 161.65 billion cubic feet (ft3) (4,578 million cubic 33 meters [M3]) of natural gas annually assuming an average heat content of 1,029 btu/ft3 (EIA, 34 2009b). Natural gas would be extracted from the ground through wells, then treated to remove 35 impurities (like hydrogen sulfide), and blended to meet pipeline gas standards, before being 36 piped through the interstate pipeline system to the power plant site. This gas-fired alternative 37 would produce relatively little waste, primarily in the form of spent catalysts used for emissions 38 controls.
39 Environmental impacts from the gas-fired alternative would be greatest during construction. The 40 closest natural gas pipeline that could serve as a source of natural gas for the plant is located in 41 Logan Township, approximately 25 miles (40 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 42 2010). Site crews would clear vegetation from the site, prepare the site surface, and begin September 2010 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
excavation before other crews begin actual construction on the plant and any associated 2
infrastructure, including the 25-mile (40 Km) pipeline spur to serve the plant and electricity 3
transmission infrastructure connecting the plant to existing transmission lines. Constructing the 4
gas-fired alternative on the Salem and HCGS site would allow the gas-fired alternative to make 5
use of the existing.electric transmission system.
6 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 7
Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Continued Salem and HCGS Generation Operation Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Waste Management SMALL Not Applicable 8
8.1.2.1 Air Quality 9
Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, New Jersey. Salem County is designated as 10 an attainment/unclassified with respect to the NAAQSs for PM25, S02, NOx, CO, and lead. The 11 county, along with all area southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 1-12 hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 13 Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 14 area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 15 City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) non attainment area.
16 A new gas-fired generating plant would qualify as a new majQr-emitting industrial facility and 17 would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review under 18 requirements of CAA, adopted by the NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. The natural gas-19 fired plant would need to comply with the standards of performance for stationary gas turbines 20 set forth in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart GG. Regulations issued by NJDEP adopt the EPA's CAA 21 rules (with modifications) to limit power plant emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and 22 hazardous air pollutants. The new gas-fired generating plant would qualify as a major facility as 23 defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, and would be required to 24 obtain a major source permit from NJDEP.
25 Section 169A of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) establishes a national goal of preventing future and 26 remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment 27 results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (64 FR 28 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, 29 the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural 30 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide an improvement in visibility for Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-18 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
the most-impaired days over the period of implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 2
visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). Five RPO 3
collaborate on the visibility impairment issue, developing the technical basis for these plans.
4 The State of New Jersey is among eleven member states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, 5
Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New 6
Hampshire, and Maine) of the MANE-VU, along with tribes, Federal agencies, and other 7
interested parties that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to 8
address them (NJDEP, 2009a). The visibility protection regulatory requirements, contained in 40 9
CFR Part 51, Subpart P, include the review of the new sources that would be constructed in the 10 attainment or unclassified areas and may affect visibility in any Federal Class I area (40 CFR 11 Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307). If a gas-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I 12 area, additional air pollution control requirements would be imposed. There is one mandatory 13 Class I Federal areas in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife 14 Refuge (40 CFR 81.420), located approximately 58 mi (93 km) southeast of the Salem and 15 HCGS facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in Delaware, and no other area located 16 within 100 mi (161 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). New Jersey is also subject to the 17 CAIR, which has outlined emissions reduction goals for both S0 2 and NOx for the year 2015.
18 CAIR will aid New Jersey sources in reducing S02 emissions by 23,000 MT (25,000 tons or 49 19 percent), and NOx emissions by 10,000 MT (11,000 tons or 48 percent) (EPA 2010).
20 The Staff projects the following emissions for a gas-fired alternative based on data published by 21 the EIA, the EPA, and on performance characteristics for this alternative and its emissions 22 controls:
23 0
Sulfur oxides (SOx) - 48 MT (53 tons) per year 24 0
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - 846 MT (932 tons) per year 25 0
Carbon monoxide (CO) - 175 MT (193 tons) per year 26 0
Total suspended particles (TSP) - 147 MT (162 tons) per year 27 0
Particulate matter (PM) PM10 - 147 MT (162 tons) per year 28 0
Carbon dioxide (C0 2) - 8,500,000 MT (9,400,000 tons) per year 29 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides 30 As stated above, the new natural gas-fired alternative would produce 48 MT (53 tons) per year 31 of SOx (assumed to be all SO 2) (EPA, 2000c; INGAA, 2000) and 846 MT (932 tons) per year of 32 NOx based on the use of the dry low NOx combustion technology and use of the selective 33 catalytic reduction (SCR) in order to significantly reduce NOx emissions (INGAA, 2000). The 34 new plant would be subjected to the continuous monitoring requirements of SO 2, NOx and CO 2 35 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. A new natural gas-fired plant would have to comply with Title IV of 36 the CAA reduction requirements for SO2 and NOx, which are the main precursors of acid rain 37 and the major cause of reduced visibility. Title IV establishes maximum SO 2 and NOx emission September 2010 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives I
rate from the existing plants and a system of the SO 2 emission allowances that can be used, 2
sold or saved for future use by new plants.
3 Particulates 4
Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000c), the new natural gas-fired alternative would 5
produce 147 MT (162 tons) per year of TSP, all of which would be emitted as PM10 6
Carbon Monoxide 7
Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000c), the Staff estimates that the total CO emissions 8
would be approximately 175 MT (193 tons) per year.
9 Hazardous Air Pollutants 10 The EPA issued in December 2000 regulatory findings (EPA, 2000a) on emissions of hazardous 11 air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units, which identified that natural gas-fired 12 plants emit hazardous air pollutants such as arsenic, formaldehyde and nickel and stated that 13
... the impacts due to HAP emissions from natural gas-fired electric utility steam 14 generating units were negligible based on the results of the study. The 15 Administrator finds that regulation of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 16 electric utility steam generating units is not appropriate or necessary.
17 Carbon Dioxide 18 The new plant would be subjected to the continuous monitoring requirements of SO 2, NO, and 19 C02 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. The Staff computed that the natural gas-fired plant would emit 20 approximately 8.5 million MT (9.4 million tons) per year of unregulated C02 emissions. In 21 response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the EPA has proposed a rule that 22 requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources that would allow collection 23 of accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions (EPA, 2009b).
24 The EPA proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles 25 and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions submit 26 annual reports to the EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are C02, methane (CH 4),
27 nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride 28 (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated 29 ethers (HFE).
30 Construction Impacts 31 Activities associated with the construction of the new natural gas-fired plant at the Salem and 32 HCGS site would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and 33 fugitive dust from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Workers' 34 vehicles and motorized construction equipment would generate temporary exhaust emissions.
35 The construction crews would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce 36 fugitive dust, which would be temporary in nature. The Staff concludes that the impact of vehicle Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-20 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material handling 2
equipment would be SMALL.
3 The overall air-quality impacts of a new natural gas-fired plant located at the Salem and HCGS 4
site would be SMALL to MODERATE.
5 8.1.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 6
The use of groundwater for a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would likely be limited to 7
supply wells for drinking water and possibly filtered service water for system cleaning purposes.
8 Total usage would likely be much less than Salem and HCGS because many fewer workers 9
would be onsite, and because the gas-fired alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems 10 requiring service water.
11 No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 12 to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 13 construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 14 the natural gas-fired alternative would be SMALL.
15 8.1.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 16 The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 17 purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the NRC concludes the 18 impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new natural gas-fired plant would be required 19 to obtain an NPDES permit from the NJDEP for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, 20 and other discharges. Assuming the plant operates within the limits of this permit, the impact 21 from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, and other effluent discharges on surface water 22 quality would be SMALL.
23 8.1.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 24 Aquatic Ecology 25 Compared to the existing Salem and HCGS facilities, impacts on aquatic ecology from the 26 onsite, gas-fired alternative would be substantially smaller because the combined-cycle plant 27 would inject significantly less heat to the environment and require less water. The numbers of 28 fish and other aquatic organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts 29 would be smaller than those associated with license renewal because water consumption and 30 blowdown discharged to the Delaware Estuary would be substantially lower. Some temporary 31 impacts on aquatic organisms may occur due to construction. Longer-term effects could result 32 from effluents discharged to the river. However, NRC assumes that the appropriate agencies 33 would monitor and regulate such activities. The number of organisms affected by impingement, 34 entrainment, and thermal effects of this alternative would be substantially less than for license 35 renewal, so NRC expects that the levels of impact for the natural gas alternative would be 36 SMALL.
37 September 2010 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Terrestrial Ecology 2
Constructing the natural gas alternative would require approximately 52 ha (128 ac) of land 3
according to PSEG estimates (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from the GElS estimate, 4
approximately 161 ha (396 ac) would be required to replace the 3,600 MW(e) provided by 5
Salem and HCGS. These land disturbances are the principal means by which this alternative 6
would affect terrestrial ecology.
7 Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology would be minor because the site is on an artificial island 8
and most of the site has been previously disturbed. If additional roads would need to be 9
constructed through less disturbed areas, impacts would be greater as these construction 10 activities may fragment or destroy local ecological communities. Land disturbances could affect 11 habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. Gas 12 extraction and collection would also affect terrestrial ecology in offsite gas fields, although much 13 of this land is likely already disturbed by gas extraction, and the incremental effects of this 14 alternative on gas field terrestrial ecology are difficult to gauge.
15 Construction of the nine natural-gas-fired units could entail some loss of native wildlife habitats; 16 however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. If new roads were required to be 17 constructed through less disturbed areas, this activity could fragment or destroy local ecological 18 communities, thereby increasing impacts. Operation of the cooling tower would cause some 19 deposition of dissolved solids on surrounding vegetation (including wetlands) and soils from 20 cooling tower drift. Overall, impacts to terrestrial resources at the site would be minimal and 21 limited mostly to the construction period. Construction of the 25-mi (40 Km) gas pipeline (to the 22 nearest assumed tie-in) could lead to further disturbance to undeveloped areas. However, 23 PSEG indicated that the pipeline would be routed along existing, previously disturbed rights-of-24 way and would not be expected to impact terrestrial species. Because of the relatively small 25 potential for undisturbed land to be affected, impacts from construction of the pipeline are 26 expected to be minimal.
27 Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources from the onsite, gas-fired alternative 28 would be SMALL.
29 8.1.2.5 Human Health 30 Like the coal-fired alternative discussed above, a gas-fired plant would emit criteria air 31 pollutants, but in smaller quantities (except NOx, which requires additional controls to reduce 32 emissions). Human health effects of gas-fired generation are generally low, although in Table 8-33 2 of the GElS (NRC, 1996), the Staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks 34 from gas-fired plants. NOx emissions contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contributes to 35 human health risks. Emission controls on this gas-fired alternative maintain NOx emissions well 36 below air quality standards established for the purposes of protecting human health, and 37 emissions trading or offset requirements mean that overall NOx in the region would not 38 increase. Health risks to workers may also result from handling spent catalysts from NOx 39 emission control equipment that may contain heavy metals.
40 During construction activities there would be a risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 41 and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry, and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-22 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
accidents resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated 2
by the use of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training.
3 Occupational and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by 4
continued application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety 5
practices. Fewer workers would be on site for a shorter period of time to construct a gas-fired 6
plant that other new power generation alternatives, and so exposure to occupational risks tends 7
to be lower than other alternatives.
8 Overall, human health risks to occupational workers and to members of the public from gas-fired 9
power plant emissions sited at the Salem and HCGS site would be less than the risks described 10 for coal-fired alternative and therefore, would likely be SMALL.
11 8.1.2.6 Socioeconomics 12 Land Use 13 As discussed in Section 8.1.1.6, the GElS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power 14 plant operations on land use both on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use 15 impacts focuses on the amount of land area that would be affected by the construction and 16 operation of a nine-unit natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the Salem and HCGS 17 site.
18 Based on GElS estimates, PSEG indicated that approximately 52 ha (128 ac) of land would be 19 needed to support a natural gas-fired alternative to replace Salem and HCGS (PSEG 2009a; 20 PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from the GElS estimate, approximately 161 ha (396 ac) would be 21 required to replace the 3,600 MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. This amount of onsite land 22 use would include other plant structures and associated infrastructure. Onsite land use impacts 23 from construction would be SMALL.
24 In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required offsite for natural gas wells and 25 collection stations. Scaling from GElS estimates, approximately 5,200 ha (12,960 ac) would be 26 required for wells, collection stations, and a 25-mi (40 Km) pipeline spur to bring the gas to the 27 plant. Most of this land requirement would occur on land where gas extraction already occurs.
28 In addition, some natural gas could come from outside of the United States and be delivered as 29 liquefied gas.
30 The elimination of uranium fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities could partially offset offsite 31 land requirements. Scaling from GElS estimates, the Staff estimated that approximately 1,480 32 ha (3,660 ac) would not be needed for mining and processing uranium during the 40-year 33 operating life of the plant. Overall land use impacts from a gas-fired power plant would be 34 SMALL to MODERATE.
35 Socioeconomics 36 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 37 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 38 the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant could affect regional September 2010 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation would result: (1) 2 construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a long-3 term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 4
which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. Staff 5
evaluated workforce requirements for construction and operation of the natural gas-fired power 6
plant alternative in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions.
7 While the GElS estimates a peak construction workforce of 4,320, PSEG projected a maximum 8
construction workforce of 2,920 (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During construction, the 9
communities surrounding the power plant site would experience increased demand for rental 10 housing and public services. The relative economic effect of construction workers on local 11 economy and tax base would vary over time.
12 After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 13 jobs and associated loss in demand for business services, and the rental housing market could 14 experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GELS, the 15 socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 16 because the workforce would have to move to be closer to the construction site. Although the 17 ER identifies the Salem and HCGS site as a primarily rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it 18 is located near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects 19 would likely be lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas 20 instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Because of the site's proximity to these 21 highly populated areas, the impact of construction on socioeconomic conditions would be 22 SMALL.
23 PSEG estimated a power plant operations workforce of approximately 132 (PSEG, 2009a),
24 (PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from GElS estimates of an operational workforce of 150 employees for 25 a 1,000-MW(e) gas-fired plant, 540 workers would be required to replace the 3600 MW(e) 26 provided by Salem and HCGS. The PSEG estimate appears reasonable and is consistent with 27 trends toward lowering labor costs by reducing the size of power plant operations workforces.
28 The area would experience a loss of approximately 1,074 to 1,482 permanent, relatively high-29 paying jobs (based on a current Salem and HCGS workforce of 1,614), with a corresponding 30 reduction in purchasing activity and tax contributions to the regional economy. The impact of 31 the job loss is, however, expected to be SMALL given the relatively large area from which 32 Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn and the extensive timeframe over which 33 construction of a new plant and decommissioning of the existing facility would occur. The gas-34 fired alternative would provide a new tax base in Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem 35 County to offset the loss of taxes that would occur assuming Salem and HCGS are 36 decommissioned. While it is difficult to estimate the impact of this scenario on Lower Alloways 37 Creek Township and Salem County resources, it would not be unreasonable to assume that, on 38 balance, the township's and county's tax base would not be significantly altered and that 39 resulting impacts could be best characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.
40 Transportation 41 Transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of a nine-unit gas-fired 42 power plant would consist of commuting workers and truck deliveries of construction materials Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-24 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
to the Salem and HCGS site. During construction, a peak workforce of between 2,920 and 2
4,320 workers would be commuting to the site, as well as the current 1,614 workers already at 3
Salem and HCGS. In addition to commuting workers, trucks would transport construction 4
materials and equipment to the worksite, increasing the amount of traffic on local roads. The 5
increase in vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes, resulting in temporary level of 6
service impacts and delays at intersections. Some large plant components would likely be 7
delivered by barge. Pipeline construction and modification to existing natural gas pipeline 8
systems could also have an impact on local traffic. Transportation impacts are likely to be 9
MODERATE during construction.
10 During plant operations, transportation impacts would be greatly reduced. According to PSEG, 11 approximately 132 workers would commute to the Salem and HCGS site to operate the gas-12 fired power plant. Fuel for the plant would be transported by pipeline. The transportation 13 infrastructure would experience little to no increased use from plant operations. The gas-fired 14 alternative would have a SMALL impact on transportation conditions in the region around the 15 Salem and HCGS site during plant operations.
16 Aesthetics 17 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the natural gas-fired 18 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the gas-fired plant.
19 The nine gas-fired units would be approximately 100 feet (30 m) tall, with an exhaust stack up to 20 200 feet (61 m) and may be visible offsite in daylight hours. However, the gas-fired plant would 21 be shorter than the existing HCGS cooling tower, which stands at 514 feet (157 m). This 22 alternative would likely make use of the site's existing natural draft cooling tower. The 23 mechanical draft tower would generate a condensate plume, which would be no more 24 noticeable than the existing HCGS plume. Noise and light from plant operations, as well as 25 lighting on plant structures, would be detectable offsite. Pipelines delivering natural gas fuel 26 could be audible offsite near gas compressors.
27 In general, aesthetic impacts associated with the gas-fired alternative would likely be SMALL to 28 MODERATE and noise impacts would likely be SMALL.
29 Historic and Archaeological Resources 30 Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site, studies would likely be needed to identify, 31 evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 32 resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 33 site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 34 corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should be avoided.
35 As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 36 present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a natural gas-fired 37 alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL.
38 September 2010 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 3
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 4
could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant.
5 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 6
impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 7
when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 8
population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 9
another appropriate comparison group. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of 10 environmental justice issues, the reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice.
11 No environmental or human health impacts were identified that would result in 12 disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income 13 populations if a replacement gas-fired plant were built at the Salem and HCGS site. Some 14 impacts on rental and other temporary housing availability and lease prices during construction 15 might occur, and this could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Although the site 16 is located in a rural area, it is near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas.
17 Therefore, the demand for rental housing would be mitigated because workers would be likely to 18 commute to the site from these areas instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Thus, 19 the impact on minority and low-income populations would be SMALL.
20 8.1.2.7 Waste Management 21 During the construction phase of this alternative, land clearing and other construction activities 22 would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed onsite or shipped to an offsite waste 23 disposal facility. Because the alternative would be constructed on the previously disturbed 24 Salem and HCGS site, the amounts of wastes produced during land clearing would be reduced.
25 During the operational stage, spent SCR catalysts used to control NOx emissions from the 26 natural gas-fired plants would make up the majority of the waste generated by this alternative.
27 This waste would be disposed of according to applicable Federal and state regulations.
28 The Staff concluded in the GElS (NRC, 1996), that a natural gas-fired plant would generate 29 minimal waste and the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired alternative 30 located at the Salem and HCGS site.
31 8.1.3 Combination Alternative 32 Even though individual alternatives to license renewal might not be sufficient on their own to 33 replace the 3,656 MW(e) total capacity of Salem and HCGS because of the lack of resource 34 availability, technical maturity, or regulatory barriers, it is conceivable that a combination of 35 alternatives might be sufficient.
36 There are many possible combinations of alternatives that could be considered to replace the 37 power generated by Salem and HCGS. In the GELS, NRC staff indicated that consideration of 38 alternatives would be limited to single, discrete generating options, given the virtually unlimited Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-26 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
number of combinations available. In this section, the NRC staff examines a possible 2
combination of alternatives. Under this alternative, both Salem and HCGS would be retired and 3
a combination of other alternatives would be considered, as follows:
4
& Denying the re-license application for Salem and HCGS 5
0 Constructing five 400 MW(e) natural gas-fired combined-cycle plants at Salem 6
Obtaining 878 MW(e) from renewable energy sources (primarily offshore wind) 7 0
Implementing 731 MW(e) of efficiency and conservation programs, from among the 8
3,300 MW of energy efficiency and conservation goals identified by the New Jersey 9
Energy Master Plan (State of New Jersey, 2008) and the Northeast Energy Efficiency 10 Partnerships (NEEP, 2009).
11 The potential contributions of efficiency and conservation programs and renewable energy are 12 based on achievement of the goals of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (State of New 13 Jersey, 2008). Goal #1 of this Plan is to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent through 14 efficiency and conservation programs. Based on the current generating capacity of 3656 MW(e) 15 of Salem and HCGS, achievement of the 20 percent objective would contribute 731 MW(e) 16 equivalent to this combination alternative. Goal #3 of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan is to 17 increase the current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 30 percent. Based on the original 18 generating capacity of 3656 MW(e), with demand reduced by 20 percent to 2925 MW(e) 19 through achievement of Goal #1; a 30 percent renewable energy contribution to this portfolio 20 would comprise 878 MW(e). The remainder of the capacity, or approximately 2000 MW(e),
21 would be generated by the implementation of natural gas generating units.
22 The following sections analyze the impacts of the alternative outlined above. In some cases, 23 detailed impact analyses for similar actions are described in previous sections of this Chapter.
24 When this occurs, the impacts of the combined alternatives are discussed in a general manner 25 with reference to other sections of this draft SEIS.
26 8.1.3.1 Impacts of Combination Alternative 27 Each component of the combination alternative produces different environmental impacts, 28 though several of the options would have impacts similar to-but smaller than-alternatives 29 already addressed in this SEIS. Constructing a total of 2,000 MW(e) of gas-fired capacity on 30 the Salem and HCGS sites would create roughly the same impacts as the on-site combined-31 cycle natural gas alternative described in Section 8.1.2. This alternative would make use of the 32 existing transmission lines at the sites, but would require construction of a 25-mile (40 Km) long 33 natural gas pipeline, the same as would be required under the combined-cycle natural gas 34 alternative evaluated in Section 8.1.2. The amount of air emissions, land use, and water 35 consumption would be reduced due to the smaller number of natural-gas fired units.
36 The Staff has not yet addressed the impacts of wind power or conservation in this SEIS. A 37 wind installation capable of yielding 878 MW(e) of capacity would likely entail placing wind 38 turbines off of the New Jersey coast. A wind installation capable of delivering 878 MW(e) on September 2010 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
average would require approximately 245 turbines with a capacity of 3.6 MW each (Mineral 2
Management Service [MMS] 2010). Because wind power installations do not provide full power 3
all the time, the total installed capacity exceeds the capacity stated here.
4 Impacts from conservation measures are likely to be negligible, as the Staff indicated in the 5
GElS (NRC, 1996). The primary concerns the Staff identified in the GElS related to indoor air 6
quality and waste disposal. In the GELS, NRC Staff indicated that air quality appeared to 7
become an issue when weatherization initiatives exacerbated existing problems, and were 8
expected not to present significant effects. The Staff also indicated that waste disposal 9
concerns related to energy-saving measures like fluorescent lighting could be addressed by 10 recycling programs. The Staff considers the overall impact from conservation to be SMALL in 11 all resource areas, though measures that provide weatherization assistance to low-income 12 populations may have positive effects on environmental justice.
13 8.1.3.1 Air Quality 14 The combination alternative will have some impact on air quality as a result of emissions from 15 the onsite gas turbines. Because of the size of the units, an individual unit's impacts would be 16 SMALL. Section 8.1.2.1 of this draft SEIS describes the impacts on air quality from the 17 construction and operation of natural gas units as SMALL. The construction and operation of 18 the wind farm would have only minor impacts on air quality.
19 Overall, the Staff considers that the air quality impacts from the combination alternative would 20 be SMALL.
21 8.1.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 22 8.1.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality Impact 23 The primary water use and quality issues from this alternative would be from the gas-fired units 24 at Salem and HCGS. While construction of a wind farm, particularly if located offshore, would 25 result in some impacts to surface water, these impacts are likely to be short lived. An offshore 26 wind farm is unlikely to be located immediately adjacent to any water users. Construction 27 activities may increase turbidity; however, construction of onshore wind farm could create 28 additional erosion, as would construction of a gas-fired unit on the Salem and HCGS sites. In 29 general, site management practices keep these effects to a small level.
30 During operations, only the gas-fired plants would require water for cooling. The natural gas 31 would likely use closed-cycle cooling, which would limit the effects on water resources. As the 32 Staff indicated for the coal-fired and gas-fired alternatives, the gas-fired portion of this 33 alternative is likely to rely on surface water for cooling (or, as is the case in some locations, 34 treated sewage effluent).
35 The Staff considers impacts on water use and quality to be SMALL for the combination 36 alternative. The onsite impacts at the Salem and HCGS facility would be expected to be similar 37 to the impacts described in Sections 8.1.2.2 and 8.1.2.3 of this draft SEIS.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-28 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
September 2010 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
- 8. 1.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 2
Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecology from the gas-fired power plant component of the 3
combination alternative, which includes seven gas-fired units, would be similar to those 4
described for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.4. Therefore, ecological impacts would 5
similarly be SMALL.
6 Aquatic Ecology 7
The wind farm component of this alternative, if located offshore, could have temporary impacts 8
on aquatic organisms due to construction activities, which would likely increase turbidity in the 9
area of construction. The Staff assumes that the appropriate agencies would monitor and 10 regulate such activities. Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources would be SMALL.
11 Based on data in the GELS, an onshore wind farm component of the combination alternative 12 producing 878 MWe of electricity would require approximately 53,400 ha (132,000 ac) spread 13 over several offsite locations, with less than 10 percent of that land area in actual use for 14 turbines and associated infrastructure. The remainder of the land, if located onshore, could 15 remain in use for activities such as agriculture. Additional land would likely be needed for 16 construction of support infrastructure to connect to existing transmission lines. During 17 construction, there would be an increased potential for erosion and adverse effects on adjacent 18 water bodies, though stormwater management practices are expected to minimize such 19 impacts.
20 Terrestrial Ecology 21 Impacts to terrestrial ecology from construction of the wind farm portion of the combination 22 alternative and any needed transmission lines could include loss of terrestrial habitat, an 23 increase in habitat fragmentation and corresponding increase in edge habitat, and may impact 24 threatened and endangered species. The GElS notes that habitat fragmentation may lead to 25 declines of migrant bird populations. Once operational, birds would be likely to collide with the 26 turbines, and migration routes would need to be considered during site selection. Based on this 27 information, impacts to terrestrial resources would be MODERATE.
28 8.1.3.5 Human Health 29 The primary health concerns under this option would be occupational health and safety risks 30 during the construction of the new gas turbine and the wind farm. As described previously, if 31 the risks are appropriately managed, the human health impacts from construction and operation 32 of a gas-fired power plant are SMALL. Human health impacts from a wind farm would also be 33 associated primarily with the construction of the facility and would also be minimal. Continued 34 operation of HCGS with the existing closed-cycle cooling system would not change the human 35 health impacts designation of SMALL as discussed in Chapter 4.
36 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall human health impact from the combination 37 alternative would be SMALL.
38 8.1.3.6 Socioeconomics Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-30 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Land Use 2
Impacts from this alternative would include the types of impacts discussed for land use in 3
Section 8.1.2.6 of this draft SEIS. Section 8.1.2.6 states that the land use impacts from the 4
construction of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The 5
combined alternative includes five gas-fired units, which would fit on the existing site without 6
purchasing offsite land. In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required offsite 7
for natural gas wells and collection stations. The elimination of uranium fuel for the Salem and 8
HCGS facilities could partially offset offsite land requirements. The land use impacts of the gas-9 fired component of the combination alternative would be expected to be similar to the impacts 10 described in Sections 8.1.2.6; that is, SMALL to MODERATE.
11 Impacts from the wind power component of this alternative would depend largely on whether the 12 wind facility is located onshore or offshore. Onshore wind facilities would incur greater land use 13 impacts than offshore facilities, simply because all towers and supporting infrastructure would 14 be located on land. NRC observations provided in the GElS indicate that onshore installations 15 could require approximately 53,400 ha (132,000 ac), though turbines and infrastructure would 16 actually occupy only a small percentage (less than 10 percent) of that land area. Land around 17 wind installations could remain in use for activities like agriculture (a practice consistent with 18 wind farm siting throughout the U.S.).
19 Although the offsite wind component of this alternative would require a large amount of land, 20 only a small component of that land would be in actual use. Overall, the Staff considers that the 21 land use impacts from the combination alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
22 Socioeconomics 23 Impacts from this alternative would include the types of impacts discussed for socioeconomics 24 in Section 8.1.2.6 of this draft SEIS. Section 8.1.2.6 states that the socioeconomics impacts 25 from the construction and operation of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to 26 MODERATE. The combined alternative includes five gas-fired units. The associated 27 construction workforce and number of operational workers, and the property taxes paid to the 28 local jurisdiction, would be similar to the gas-fired alternative. Accordingly, the socioeconomic 29 impacts from the gas-fired component of the combination alternative would be SMALL to 30 MODERATE.
31 Socioeconomic impacts from the wind component of this alternative were evaluated based on 32 construction and operations workforce requirements. Additional estimated construction 33 workforce requirements for this combination alternative would include 600 workers for the wind 34 farm. The number of additional workers would cause a short-term increase in demand for public 35 services and rental housing in the region around the construction site(s). Following 36 construction, some local communities may be temporarily affected by the loss of the 37 construction jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. The rental housing 38 market could also experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. Considering the 39 relatively low levels of employment associated with construction of this component of the 40 combination alternative, the impact on socioeconomic conditions would be SMALL. Also, 41 employment effects would likely be spread over a larger area, as the wind farms may be September 2010 8-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
constructed in more than one location.
2 Additional estimated operations workforce requirements for the wind farm component of the 3
combination alternative would include 100 workers. Given the small number of operations 4
workers, socioeconomic impacts associated with operation of the wind farm would be SMALL.
5 Transportation 6
Construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant and a wind farm would increase 7
the number of vehicles on roads in the vicinity of these facilities. During construction, cars and 8
trucks would deliver workers, materials, and equipment to the work sites. The increase in 9
vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary level of service impacts 10 and delays at intersections. Transporting components of wind turbines could have a noticeable 11 impact, but is likely to be spread over a large area. Pipeline construction and modification to 12 existing natural gas pipeline systems could also have an impact on land traffic. Transportation 13 impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.
14 During plant operations, transportation impacts would lessen. Given the small numbers of 15 operations workers at these facilities, overall operational impacts on levels of service on local 16 roads from operation of the gas-fired power plant at the Salem and HCGS site as well as the 17 wind farm would be SMALL. Transportation impacts at the wind farm site or sites would also 18 depend on current road capacities and average daily traffic volumes, but are likely to be SMALL 19 given the low number of workers employed by that component of the alternative.
20 Aesthetics 21 Aesthetic impacts from the gas-fired power plant component of the combination alternative 22 would be essentially the same as those described for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.6.
23 Aesthetic impacts associated with visibility of the gas-fired units and exhaust stacks and the 24 existing HCGS cooling tower would be SMALL to MODERATE. The impact associated with 25 noise from plant operations, which may be detectable offsite, would be SMALL.
26 The wind farm component would have the greatest aesthetic effect of this combination 27 alternative. Several hundred wind turbines at over 91 m (300 feet) in height and spread over 28 53,400 ha (132,000 ac) may dominate the view and, in the absence of larger topographic 29 features, would be the major focus of viewer attention. The overall impact would depend on the 30 sensitivity of the site. Therefore, overall aesthetic impacts from the construction and operation 31 of a wind farm would be MODERATE, or LARGE if the wind farm is built at a site where 32 aesthetics is an important element of the natural environment.
33 Historic and Archeological Resources 34 Onsite impacts to historical and cultural resources from the construction of a gas-fired power 35 plant are expected to be SMALL. The offsite impacts from the construction of a wind farm are 36 also expected to be small given the opportunity to evaluate and select the sites in accordance 37 with applicable regulations and the ability to minimize impacts before construction. Therefore, 38 the Staff concludes that the overall impacts on historic and archeological resources from the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-32 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
combination alternative would be SMALL.
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 4
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 5
could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant and a 6
new wind farm, and from energy efficiency and conservation programs.
No environmental or 7
human health impacts were identified that would result in disproportionately high and adverse 8
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if a replacement gas-fired plant 9
were built at the Salem and HCGS site and a wind farm was built in the area. Some impacts on 10 rental and other temporary housing availability and lease prices during construction may occur, 11 and this could disproportionately affect low-income populations. The demand for rental housing 12 would be mitigated because workers would be likely to commute to the construction sites from 13 metropolitan areas in the region instead of relocating closer to the construction sites. Thus, the 14 impact of the gas-fired and wind farm components of the combination alternative on minority 15 and low-income populations would be SMALL.
16 Weatherization programs associated with the conservation component of this alternative could 17 target low-income residents as a cost-effective energy efficiency option since low-income 18 populations tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes paying utility bills. According to 19 the Office of Management and Budget, low income populations experience energy burdens 20 more than four times as large as those (OMB, 2007) of average households. Impacts to minority 21 and low-income populations from the energy efficiency and conservation programs component 22 of this alternative, although dependent on program design and enrollment, would be SMALL.
23 8.1.3.7 Waste Management 24 The primary source of waste would be associated with the construction of the new gas turbine 25 facility and the wind farm. Waste impacts could be substantial but likely not noticeably alter or 26 destabilize the resource during construction of the alternatives, depending on how the various 27 sites handle wastes.
28 The waste contribution from the remaining HCGS unit would be roughly one-third of the waste 29 generated by the current facility (Salem and HCGS) described in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. If 30 the remaining HCGS unit were to continue operation with the existing closed-cycle cooling 31 system, waste impacts would be minor.
32 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall impact from waste from the combination 33 alternative would be SMALL.
34 September 2010 8-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Combination Alternative Impact Combination Alternative Category Impact Comments Air Quality SMALL Ground water Surface water SMALL Air emissions of the gas-fired unit would be minor considering their size. A wind farm would have only minor impact on air quality.
Minor impacts would result from construction of wind farm and gas-fired plant. Gas-fired plant would likely use surface water for cooling water.
Impacts would be greatest to terrestrial resources from a wind farm.
Occupational health and safety risks would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations.
Although the offsite wind farm component requires a large amount of land, only a small portion would be in actual use.
Aquatic Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE Human Health SMALL Land Use SMALL to MODERATE Socioeconomics Socioeconomics Transportation Aesthetics Historic and Archeological Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE SMALL Most of the socioeconomic impacts would be associated with the gas-fired plant.
Traffic impacts would be greater during construction, with minor impacts during operations.
The greatest aesthetic effects would be associated with the wind farm component.
Minor impacts would occur to the combination alternative.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-34 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Impact Combination Alternative Category Impact Comments Environmental SMALL Impacts would be similar to those experienced by the Justice general population in the region.
Waste SMALL Waste volumes could be substantial during construction.'
Management Operational waste volumes would be SMALL 1
8.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 2
In this section, the Staff presents the alternatives it initially considered for analysis as 3
alternatives to license renewal of Salem and HCGS, but later dismissed due to technical, 4
resource availability, or commercial limitations that currently exist and that the Staff believes are 5
likely to continue to exist when the existing Salem and HCGS licenses expire. Under each of the 6
following technology headings, the Staff indicates why it dismissed each alternative from further 7
consideration.
8 8.2.1 Offsite Coal-and Natural Gas-Fired 9
While it is possible that coal-and natural gas-fired alternatives like those considered in 8.1.1 10 and 8.1.2, respectively, could be constructed at sites other than Salem and HCGS, the Staff 11 determined that they would likely result 'in greater impacts than alternatives constructed at the 12 Salem and HCGS site. Greater impacts would occur from construction of support infrastructure, 13 like transmission lines, and roads that are already present on the Salem and HCGS site.
14 Further, the community around Salem and HCGS is already familiar with the appearance of a 15 power facility and it is an established part of the region's aesthetic character. Workers skilled in 16 power plant operations would also be available in this area. The availability of these factors are 17 only likely to be available on other recently-industrial sites. In cases where recently-industrial 18 sites exist, other remediation may also be necessary in order to ready the site for 19 redevelopment. In short, an existing power plant site would present the best location for a new 20 power facility.
21 8.2.2 New Nuclear 22 In its ER, PSEG indicated that it is unlikely that a nuclear alternative could be sited, constructed 23 and operational by the time the HCGS operating license expires in 2026 (PSEG, 2009b), nor 24 this could this be accomplished in a timeframe necessary to replace the generating output of 25 Salem Unit 1, which has a license expiration date of 2016 (PSEG, 2009a). Given the relatively 26 short time remaining on the current Salem and HCGS licenses, the Staff has not evaluated new 27 nuclear generation as an alternative to license renewal.
September 2010 8-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
8.2.3 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency 2
Though often used interchangeably, energy conservation and energy efficiency are different 3
concepts. Energy efficiency typically means deriving a similar level of services by using less 4
energy, while energy conservation simply indicates a reduction in energy consumption. Both fall 5
into a larger category known as demand-side management (DSM). DSM measures-unlike the 6
energy supply alternatives discussed in previous sections-address energy end uses. DSM can 7
include measures that shift energy consumption to different times of the day to reduce peak 8
loads, measures that can interrupt certain large customers during periods of high demand, 9
measures that interrupt certain appliances during high demand periods, and measures like 10 replacing older, less efficient appliances, lighting, or control systems. DSM also includes 11 measures that utilities use to boost sales, such as encouraging customers to switch from gas to 12 electricity for water heating.
13 Unlike other alternatives to license renewal, the GElS notes that conservation is not a discrete 14 power generating source; it represents an option that states and utilities may use to reduce their 15 need for power generation capability (NRC, 1996).
16 In October 2008, the State of New Jersey published their Energy Master Plan (New jersey, 17 2008), which established goals and evaluated potential options for meeting the protected 18 increase in electricity demand in the state through 2020. As part of this Master Plan, actions 19 were identified to maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency, including: transitioning 20 the state's current energy efficiency programs to be implemented by the electric and gas 21 utilities, modifying the statewide building code for new buildings to make new buildings as least 22 30 percent more energy efficient, increasing energy efficiency standards for new appliances and 23 other equipment, and developing education and outreach programs for the public. An additional 24 goal is to reduce peak electricity demand, primarily by expanding incentives developing 25 technologies to increase participation in regional demand response programs. A separate goal 26 established in the report (not related to energy conservation) included successful 27 accomplishment of the state's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard by 2020.
28 The report concluded that the combination of all of these efforts (energy conservation, 29 efficiency, and renewable energy sources) would still not result in meeting the increased 30 demand for electricity in the state, and that additional development of traditional electricity 31 sources would still be required. Therefore, these measures would not be able to replace the 32 output of the Salem and HCGS facilities. Because of this, the Staff has not evaluated energy 33 conservation/efficiency as a discrete alternative to license renewal. It has, however, been 34 considered as a component of the combination alternative.
35 8.2.4 Purchased Power 36 In the Salem and HCGS ERs, PSEG indicated that purchased electrical power is a potentially 37 viable option for replacing the generating capacity of the Salem and HCGS facilities. PSEG 38 anticipated that this power could be purchased from other generation sources within the PJM 39 region, but that the source would likely be from new capacity generated using technologies that 40 are evaluated in the GELS. The technologies that would most likely be used to generate the 41 purchased power would be coal and natural gas, and therefore the impacts associated with the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-36 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
power purchase would be similar to those evaluated in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. In addition, 2
purchased power would likely require the addition of transmission capacity, which would result 3
in additional land use impacts. Because purchased electrical power would likely be provided by 4
new generation sources evaluated elsewhere in this section, and would also require new 5
transmission capacity, the Staff has not evaluated purchased power as a separate alternative to 6
7 8.2.5 Solar Power 8
Solar technologies use the sun's energy to produce electricity. Currently, the Salem and HCGS 9
area receives approximately 4.5 to 5.5 kWh per square meter per day, for solar collectors 10 oriented at an angle equal to the installation's latitude (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 11
[NREL], 2010). Since flat-plate photovoltaics tend to be roughly 25 percent efficient, a solar-12 powered alternative would require more than 56,000 ha (140,000 ac) of collectors to provide an 13 amount of electricity equivalent to that generated by Salem and HCGS. Space between parcels 14 and associated infrastructure increase this land requirement. This amount of land, while large, is 15 consistent with the land required for coal and natural gas fuel cycles. In the GELS, the Staff 16 noted that, by its nature, solar power is intermittent (i.e., it does not work at night and cannot 17 serve baseload when the sun is not shining), and the efficiency of collectors varies greatly with 18 weather conditions. A solar-powered alternative would require energy storage or backup power 19 supply to provide electric power at night. Given the challenges in meeting baseload 20 requirements, the Staff did not evaluate solar power as an alternative to license renewal of 21 Salem and HCGS.
22 8.2.6 Wood-Fired 23 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the amount of biomass fuel resources, 24 including forest, mill, agricultural, and urban residues, available within New Jersey, Delaware, 25 and Pennsylvania to be approximately 5.6 million dry tons per year (NREL, 2005). Based on an 26 estimate of 9.961 million Btu per dry ton and a thermal conversion efficiency of 25%, conversion 27 of this entire resource would generate the equivalent of less than 500 MWe. Of the available 28 biomass in the three states, the vast majority (80 percent) is in Pennsylvania, and assumed to 29 be located primarily in the western portion of the state. Therefore, the volume that would be 30 available for fueling a plant in the local area would be much less, and is not likely to be sufficient 31 to substitute for the capacity provided by Salem and HCGS. As a result, the Staff has not.
32 considered a wood-fired alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
33 8.2.7 Wind (Onshore/Offshore) 34 The American Wind Energy Association indicates that New Jersey currently ranks 33rd among 35 the states in installed wind power capacity (7.5 MW), and 2 9 th among the state in potential 36 capacity. No projects are currently under construction (American Wind Energy Association 37
[AWEA], 2010). No wind capacity is installed in Delaware. Although Pennsylvania ranks 1 5 th 38 among the states in installed capacity, with a total of 748 MW, most of this installed capacity is 39 located in the western portion of the state (AWEA, 2010). The Report of the New Jersey 40 Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal Waters 41 (State of New Jersey, 2006) concluded that onshore wind speeds in New Jersey are not viable September 2010 8-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
for commercial wind power development, and that the vast majority of the state's wind 2
generation capacity was offshore. The report also concluded that development of the offshore 3
resources is not commercially viable without significant state and/or federal subsidies. Also, 4
preliminary information evaluated in the report indicated that the timing of peak offshore wind 5
speeds did not coincide with the times of peak energy demand, and that offshore wind alone 6
could not significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel and domestic nuclear capacity (State of New 7
Jersey, 2006). Finally, the results of a study of potential impacts of large-scale wind turbine 8
siting by NJDEP identified large areas along the New Jersey Coast that would likely be 9
considered to be off limits to large scale wind development due to documented bird 10 concentrations, nesting for resident threatened and endangered bird species, and stopover 11 locations for migratory birds (NJDEP, 2009b).
12 Given wind power's intermittency, the lack of easily implementable onshore resources in New 13 Jersey, and restrictions on placement of turbines in areas that would otherwise have high 14 resource potential, the Staff will not consider wind power as a stand-alone alternative to license 15 renewal. However, given the potential for development of offshore resources, the Staff will 16 consider wind power as a portion of a combination alternative.
17 8.2.8 Hydroelectric Power 18 According to researchers at Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory [NEEL], New 19 Jersey has an estimated 11 MW of technically available, undeveloped hydroelectric resources 20 at 12 sites throughout the State (INEEL, 1996). Given that the available hydroelectric potential 21 in the State of New Jersey constitutes only a small fraction of generating capacity of Salem and 22 HCGS, the Staff did not evaluate hydropower as an alternative to license renewal.
23 8.2.9 Wave and Ocean Energy 24 Wave and ocean energy has generated considerable interest in recent years. Ocean waves, 25 currents, and tides are often predictable and reliable. Ocean currents flow consistently, while 26 tides can be predicted months and years in advance with well-known behavior in most coastal 27 areas. Most of these technologies are in relatively early stages of development, and while some 28 results have been promising, they are not likely to be able to replace the capacity of Salem and 29 HCGS by the time their licenses expire. Therefore, the NRC did not consider wave and ocean 30 energy as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
31 8.2.10 Geothermal Power 32 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 33 power where available. However, geothermal electric generation is limited by the geographical 34 availability of geothermal resources (NRC, 1996). Although New Jersey has some geothermal 35 potential in a heating capacity, it does not have geothermal electricity potential for electricity 36 generation (Geo-Heat Center [GHC], 2008). The Staff concluded that geothermal energy is not 37 a reasonable alternative to license renewal at Salem and HCGS.
38 8.2.11 Municipal Solid Waste Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-38 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Municipal solid waste combustors use three types of technologies-mass burn, modular, and 2
refuse-derived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United 3
States and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or 4
hazardous components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are 5
exhausted to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. Currently, approximately 87 6
waste-to-energy plants operate in the United States. These plants generate approximately 7
2,531 MWe, or an average of 29 MWe per plant (Energy Recovery Council, 2010). This 8
includes five plants in New Jersey generating a total of 173 MWe.
More than 124 average-9 sized plants would be necessary to provide the same level of output as the other alternatives to 10 Salem and HCGS license renewal.
11 Estimates in the GElS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired 12 plant would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, waste-13 fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts than coal-fired technologies (including 14 impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). The initial capital costs for 15 municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at coal-16 fired facilities or at wood-waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste separation 17 and handling equipment (NRC, 1996).
18 The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an 19 alternative to landfills rather than energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste disposal 20 option is likely to increase in the near term as energy prices increase; however, it is possible 21 that municipal waste combustion facilities may become attractive again.
22 Given the small average installed size of municipal solid waste plants and the unfavorable 23 regulatory environment, the Staff does not consider municipal solid waste combustion to be a 24 feasible alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
25 8.2.12 Biofuels 26 In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are other concepts for biomass-fired 27 electric generators, including direct burning of energy crops, conversion to liquid biofuels, and 28 biomass gasification. In the GELS, the Staff indicated that none of these technologies had 29 progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to 30 replace a baseload plant such as Salem and HCGS. After reevaluating current technologies, 31 the Staff finds other biomass-fired alternatives are still unable to reliably replace the Salem and 32 HCGS capacity. For this reason, the Staff does not consider other biomass-derived fuels to be 33 feasible alternatives to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
34 8.2.13 Oil-Fired Power 35 EIA projects that oil-fired plants would account for very little of the new generation capacity 36 constructed in the United States during the 2008 to 2030 time period. Further, EIA does not 37 project that oil-fired power would account for any significant additions to capacity (EIA, 2009a).
38 The variable costs of oil-fired generation tend to be greater than those of the nuclear or coal-39 fired operations, and oil-fired generation tends to have greater environmental impacts than September 2010 8-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
natural gas-fired generation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-2 fired generation increasingly more expensive (EIA, 2009a). The high cost of oil has prompted a 3
steady decline in its use for electricity generation. Thus, the Staff did not consider oil-fired 4
generation as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
5 8.2.14 Fuel Cells 6
Fuel cells oxidize fuels without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is 7
produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air (or oxygen) 8 over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts (depending on 9
fuel characteristics) are heat, water, and C02. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of 10 hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically 11 used as the source of hydrogen.
12 At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other 13 alternatives for electricity generation. In addition, fuel cell units are likely to be small in size.
14 While it may be possible to use a distributed array of fuel cells to provide an alternative to Salem 15 and HCGS, it would be extremely costly to do so and would require many units. Accordingly, the 16 Staff does not consider fuel cells to be an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
17 8.2.15 Delayed Retirement 18 The power generating merchants within the PJM region have retired a large number of 19 generation sources since 2003, totaling 5,945 MW retired and 2,629 MW pending retirement.
20 Most of these retirements involve older fossil fuel-powered plants which are retired due to 21 challenges in meeting increasingly stringent air quality standards (PJM, 2009). Although these 22 retirements have caused reliability criteria violations, PJM does not have any authority to 23 compel owners to delay retirement (PJM, 2009), and therefore retirements are likely to continue.
24 Therefore, delayed retirement of non-nuclear plants is not considered as a feasible alternative to 25 Salem and HCGS license renewal.
26 8.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 27 This section examines environmental effects that would occur if NRC takes no action. No Action 28 in this case means that NRC does not issue a renewed operating license for Salem and HCGS 29 and the licenses expire at the end of their current license terms. If NRC takes no action, the 30 plants would shutdown at or before the end of the current license. After shutdown, plant 31 operators would initiate decommissioning according to 10 CFR 50.82. Table 8-4 provides a 32 summary of environmental impacts of No Action compared to continued operation of the Salem 33 and HCGS.
34 The Staff notes that the option of No Action is the only alternative considered in-depth that does 35 not satisfy the purpose and need for this SEIS, as it does not provide power generation capacity 36 nor would it meet the needs currently met by Salem and HCGS or that the alternatives 37 evaluated in Section 8.1 would satisfy. Assuming that a need currently exists for the power 38 generated by Salem and HCGS, the no-action alternative would require that the appropriate Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-40 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
energy planning decision-makers rely on an alternative to replace the capacity of Salem and 2
HCGS or reduce the need for power.
3 This section addresses only those impacts that arise directly as a result of plant shutdown. The 4
environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities have already been 5
addressed in several other documents, including the Final Generic Environmental Impact 6
Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 7
2002); the license renewal GElS (chapter 7; NRC, 1996); and Chapter 7 of this SEIS. These 8
analyses either directly address or bound the environmental impacts of decommissioning 9
whenever PSEG ceases operating Salem and HCGS.
10 The Staff notes that, even with renewed operating licenses, Salem and HCGS would eventually 11 shut down, and the environmental effects addressed in this section would occur at that time.
12 Since these effects have not otherwise been addressed in this SEIS, the impacts will be 13 addressed in this section. As with decommissioning effects, shutdown effects are expected to 14 be similar whether they occur at the end of the current license or at the end of a renewed 15 license.
16 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of No Action Compared to Continued 17 Operation of Salem and HCGS Continued Salem and HCGS No Action Operation Air Quality SMALL SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE SMALL Waste Management SMALL Not Applicable 18 8.3.1 Air Quality 19 When the plant stops operating, there would be a reduction in emissions from activities related 20 to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and employees vehicles. In Chapter 4, the 21 Staff determined that these emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality during the 22 renewal term. Therefore, if the emissions decrease, the impact to air quality would also 23 decrease and would be SMALL.
24 8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality September 2010 8-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
The use of groundwater would diminish as plant personnel are removed from the site and 2
operations cease. Some consumption of groundwater may continue as a small staff remains 3
onsite to maintain facilities prior to decommissioning. Overall impacts would be smaller than 4
during operations, but would remain SMALL.
5 8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 6
The rate of consumptive use of surface water would decrease as the plant is shut down and the 7
reactor cooling system continues to remove the heat of decay. Wastewater discharges would 8
also be reduced considerably. Shutdown would reduce the already SMALL impact on surface 9
water resources and quality.
10 8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 11 Aquatic Ecology 12 If the plant were to cease operating, impacts to aquatic ecology would decrease, as the plant 13 would withdraw and discharge less water than it does during operations. Shutdown would 14 reduce the already SMALL impacts to aquatic ecology.
15 Terrestrial Ecology 16 Shutdown would result in no additional land disturbances onsite or offsite, and terrestrial 17 ecology impacts would be SMALL.
18 8.3.5 Human Health 19 Human health risks would be smaller following plant shutdown. The plant, which is currently 20 operating within regulatory limits, would emit less gaseous and liquid radioactive material to the 21 environment. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant 22 (radiological or industrial) would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events 23 and fuel handling and storage. In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the Staff concluded that the 24 impacts of continued plant operation on human health would be SMALL. In Chapter 5, the Staff 25 concluded that the impacts of accidents during operation were SMALL. Therefore, as 26 radioactive emissions to the environment decrease, and as the likelihood and variety of 27 accidents decrease following shutdown, the Staff concludes that the risks to human health 28 following plant shutdown would be SMALL.
29 8.3.6 Socioeconomics 30 Land Use 31 Plant shutdown would not affect onsite land use. Plant structures and other facilities would likely 32 remain in place until decommissioning. Most transmission lines connected to Salem and HCGS 33 would remain in service after the facilities stop operating. Maintenance of most existing 34 transmission lines would continue as before. The transmission lines could be used to deliver the 35 output of any new capacity additions made on the Salem and HCGS site. Impacts on land use 36 from plant shutdown would be SMALL.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-42 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
Socioeconomics 2
Plant shutdown would have an impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region around Salem 3
and HCGS. Plant shutdown would eliminate approximately 1,614 jobs and would reduce tax 4
revenue in the region. The loss of these contributions, which may not entirely cease until after 5
decommissioning, could have a MODERATE impact within Salem County and a LARGE impact 6
within Lower Alloways Creek Township, which receives approximately 57 percent of its total 7
property tax revenue from Salem and HCGS. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 8
(NRC, 2002), for additional discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts of plant 9
decommissioning.
10 Transportation 11 Traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would be reduced after plant 12 shutdown. Most of the reduction in traffic volume would be associated with the loss of jobs at 13 the facilities. Deliveries of materials and equipment to the plant would be reduced until 14 decommissioning. Transportation impacts would be SMALL as a result of plant shutdown.
15 Aesthetics 16 Plant structures and other facilities would likely remain in place until decommissioning. The 17 plume from the cooling tower would cease or greatly decrease after shutdown. Noise caused by 18 plant operation would cease. Aesthetic impacts of plant closure would be SMALL.
19 Historic and Archaeological Resources 20 Impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL, since Salem and HCGS would be 21 decommissioned. A separate environmental review would be conducted for decommissioning.
22 That assessment would address the protection of historic and archaeological resources.
23 Environmental Justice 24 Impacts to minority and low-income populations when Salem and HCGS cease operation would 25 depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost by the communities 26 surrounding the facilities. Closure of Salem and HCGS would reduce the overall number of jobs 27 (there are currently 1,614 permanent positions at the facilities) and the tax revenue attributed to 28 plant operations (approximately 57 percent of Lower Alloways Creek Township's tax revenues 29 and 2.9 percent of Salem County's tax revenues are from Salem and HCGS). Since the Salem 30 and HCGS tax payments represent such a significant percentage of Lower Alloways Creek 31 Township's total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that economic impacts within the 32 townsip would range from MODERATE to LARGE should Salem and HCGS be shut down and 33 closed. Minority and low-income populations in the township could experience a 34 disproportionately high and adverse socioeconomic impact from plant shutdown.
September 2010 8-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
8.3.7 Waste Management 2
If the no-action alternative were implemented the generation of high-level waste would stop and 3
generation of low-level and mixed waste would decrease. Impacts from implementation of no-4 action alternative are expected to be SMALL.
5 Wastes associated with plant decommissioning are unavoidable and will be significant whether 6
the plant is decommissioned at the end of the initial license period or at the end of the 7
relicensing period. Therefore, the selection of the no-action alternative has no impact on issues 8
relating to decommissioning waste.
9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-44 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
8.4 ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY
2 In this chapter, the Staff considered the following alternatives to Salem and HCGS license 3
renewal: supercritical coal-fired generation; natural gas combined-cycle generation; and a 4
combination of alternatives. No Action by the NRC and the effects it would have were also 5
considered. The impacts for all alternatives are summarized in Table 8-5.
6 The environmental impacts of the proposed action (issuing renewed Salem and HCGS 7
operating licenses) would be SMALL for all impact categories except for the Category 1 issue of 8
collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle, high level waste (HLW), and spent fuel 9
disposal.
10 In the Staff's professional opinion, the coal-fired alternative would have the greatest overall 11 adverse environmental impact. This alternative would result in MODERATE waste 12 management, landuse, and air quality impacts. Its impacts upon socioeconomic and biological 13 resources could range from SMALL to MODERATE. This alternative is not an environmentally 14 preferable alternative due to air quality impacts from NOx, SO., PM, PAHs, CO, CO 2, and 15 mercury (and the corresponding human health impacts), as well as construction impacts to 16 aquatic, terrestrial, and potential historic and archaeological resources.
17 With the exception of landuse, socioeconomic, and air quality impacts, the gas-fired alternative 18 would result in SMALL impacts. Socioeconomic, landuse, and air quality impacts could range 19 from SMALL to MODERATE. This alternative would result in substantially lower air emissions 20 and waste management than the coal-fired alternative.
21 The combination alternative would have lower air emissions and waste management impacts 22 than both the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives; however, it would have relatively higher 23 construction impacts in terms of land use, aquatic and terrestrial resources, and potential 24 disruption to historic and archaeological resources, mainly as a result of the wind turbine 25 component.
26 Under the No Action alternative, plant shutdown would eliminate approximately 1,614 jobs and 27 would reduce tax revenue in the region. The loss of these contributions, which may not entirely 28 cease until after decommissioning, would have a MODERATE to LARGE impact. However, the 29 No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need stated in this draft SEIS.
30 Therefore, in the Staffs best professional opinion, the environmentally preferred alternative in 31 this case is the license renewal of Salem and HCGS. All other alternatives capable of meeting 32 the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the 33 proposed action of license renewal of Salem and HCGS.
September 2010 8-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives Impact Area U)
Altemative.-.
0
- oo Alternative E
0 M
E 0
a 0*0 License Renewal SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL(a)
Supercritical Coal-fired MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Alternative MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to SMALL to Ga-irdAlenaie MODERATE SALMLLMLLMLL MODERATE SML Combination Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL MODERATE LARGE No Action Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL LARGE 2
3 4
(a)
For the Salem and HCGS license renewal alternative, waste management was evaluated in Chapter 6. Consistent with the findings in the GELS, these impacts were determined to be SMALL with the exception of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal.
September 2010 8-46 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
8.5 REFERENCES
2 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 3
Production and Utilization Facilities."
4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 5
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
6 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 7
"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."
8 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 9
"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."
10 40 CFR Part 75.
11 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 81, 12 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."
13 63 FR 49453, Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New 14 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units. September 16, 1998.
15 64 FR 35714, Regional Haze Regulations. July 1, 1999.
16 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2010. U.S. Wind Energy Projects, New Jersey, 17 Delaware, and Pennsylvania. Available URL:
18 http://www.awea.or-q/proiects/Proiects.aspx?s=New+Jersey (Accessed April 16, 2010).
19 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 With Projections 20 to 2030. DOE/EIA 0383(2009). Washington, D.C. Available URL:
21 http://www.eia.doe. qov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009). pdf (accessed April 15, 2010).
22 EIA. 2009b. Table A4. Approximate Heat Content of Natural Gas, 1949-2008 (Btu per Cubic 23 Foot). Available URL: http://www.eia.doe..ov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1304.html (accessed April 15, 24 2010).
25 EIA. 2010a. Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. Available URL:
26 http:l/www.eia. doe..qov/cneaflelectricity/epa/epates. html (accessed April 12, 2010).
27 EIA. 2010b. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants 2007 and 2008. DOE/EIA-01 91 (2008).
28 Available URL: http://www.eia.doe..ov/cneaf/electricitylcqlcqa2008.pdf (Accessed April 12, 29 2010).
30 Energy Recovery Council. 2010. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.
31 Available URL: http://www.enerqyrecoverycouncil.orq/userfiles/file/IWSA 2007 Directory.pdf 32 (Accessed April 15, 2010).
33 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 34 Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. "Section 1.1: Bituminous 35 and Subbituminous Coal Combustion: Final Section Supplement E." Washington, D.C.
36 EPA. 1998a. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric 37 Utility Steam Generating Units." Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831.
38 Washington, D.C. December 20, 2000.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42 8-47 February 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
EPA. 2000b. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil 2
Fuels." Federal Register, Vol. 65, pp.32214-32237. Washington, D.C.
3 EPA. 2000c. Emissions Factors & AP 42. Available URL:
4 http://www.epa.qov/ttn/chief/ap42/chO3/final/cO3sOl.pdf. (Accessed April 15, 2010).
5 EPA. 2006. Final report: Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated 6
Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies. EPA-430/R-06/006. July, 7
2006. Available URL: http://www.epa.,qov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007 01 epaiqcc.pdf (Accessed 8
April 15, 2010).
9 EPA. 2009a. Clean Air Mercury Rule. Available URL: http://www.epa.-qov/mercuryrule/
10 (Accessed April 17, 2010).
11 EPA. 2009b. Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Available URL:
12 http://www.epa.,ov/climatechanqe/emissions/qhqrulemakin.html (Accessed April 15, 2010).
13 EPA. 2010. Clean Air Interstate Rule: New Jersey. Available URL:
14 http://www.epa..ov/CAI R/ni. html (accessed April 5, 2010).
15 GE Power Systems (GE). 2001. "Advanced Technology Combined Cycles." May 2001.
16 Geo-Heat Center (GHC). 2008. U.S. Geothermal Projects and Resource Areas. Available 17 URL: http://qeoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm (Accessed April 16, 2010.
18 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1996. "U.S. Hydropower 19 Resource Assessment for New Jersey." DOE/ID-10430(NJ). Available URL:
20 http://hydro2.inel..qov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/ni. pdf (Accessed April 15, 2010).
21 INGAA Foundation. 2008. Implications of Reduced Gas Use on Emissions from Power 22 Generation. Available URL: http://www.inqaa.orcq/File.aspx?id=282 (Accessed April 15, 2010).
23 Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2010. Renewable Energy Program, Cape Wind project, 24 Project Overview. Available URL:
25 http://www.mms.,qov/offshore/RenewableEnerqy/CapeWind.htm (Accessed April 16, 2010).
26 National Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP). 2009. An Energy Efficiency Strategy for New 27 Jersey: Achieving the 2020 Master Plan Goals. Available URL:
28 http://neep.orpq/uploads/About%2/0NEEP/News%20Media/an-eneroqy-efficieny-plan-for-nm.pdf 29 (Accessed April 16, 2010).
30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the 31 Current Biomass Resources Availability in the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-560-32 39181. December 2005. Available URL: http://www.nrel.,ovldocs/fv06osti/39181.pdf 33 (Accessed April 16, 2010).
34 NREL. 2010. "United States Atlas of Renewable Resources." Interactive Map. Available URL:
35 http://mapserve2.nrel.,ov/website/Resource Atlas/viewer.htm (accessed April 15, 2010).
36 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2009a. State Implementation 37 Plan for Regional Haze. Available URL:
38 http://www.state.ni.us/dep/baqp/2008%20Regionalý%2Haze/Complete%2OReqionalý%2Haze%
39 20SIP.pdf (Accessed April 15, 2010).
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-48 September 2010
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
NJDEP. 2009b. Large Scale Wind Turbine Siting Map Report. Available URL:
2 http://www.state.ni.us/dep/landuse/forms/wind report090908f.pdf (Accessed April 16, 2010).
3 4
PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, License Renewal 5
Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 6
Stage, Salem Nuclear Generating Station. July 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092400532.
7 PSEG 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Appendix E -
8 Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, Hope Creek Generating 9
Station. July 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092430389.
10 PSEG 2010. PSEG Response to NRC Audit Question #ENV-1 06.
11 PJM Interconnection Association (PJM).
2009. Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.
12 Available at: http:l/www.pim.com/documents/reportslrtep-report.aspx on April 16, 2010.
13 State of New Jersey. 2006. Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in 14 Coastal Waters, Final Report. April 2006. Available at:
15 http:l/www.state.ni.uslniwindpanelldocslfinalwindpanelreport.pdf on April 16, 2010.
16 State of New Jersey. 2008. New Jersey Energy Master Plan. Available at:
17 http://www.ni.,ov/emp/docs/pdf/081022 emp.pdf on April 16, 2010.
18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
20 NRC. 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 21 Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues 22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Add. 1.
23 Washington, D.C.
24 NRC. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 25 Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-26 0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
27 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2007. "Detailed Information on the Low 28 Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment." Accessed at:
29 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/110001059.2003. html on July 10, 2007.
30 ADAMS No. ML082880730.
31 February 2010 8-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42