ML12335A609
| ML12335A609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21642, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, Indian Point | |
| Download: ML12335A609 (7) | |
Text
RIV000064 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Submitted: December 22, 2011 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
In the Matter of:
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) EXCERPT ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: RIV000064-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:
Rejected: Stricken:
Other:
NUREG-1437, Volume 1 Revision 1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
1 Cover Sheet 2
3 Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
5 Title: Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 6 (NUREG-1437) Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1 7
For additional information or copies of this draft GEIS, contact: To submit comments:
Jennifer Davis Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-11F1 Mail Stop TWB-05-B01 11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20555-0001 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC Fax: (301) 415-2002 by e-mail at LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov Email: LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov Fax: (301) 415-2002 8
9 Abstract 10 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial nuclear 12 power plant operating licenses, depending on the outcome of an assessment to determine whether the 13 nuclear plant can continue to operate safely and protect the environment during the 20-year period of 14 extended operation. Renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an 15 environmental impact statement (EIS). To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC published the 16 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) in 1996. The 17 proposed action considered in the GEIS is the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
18 19 The NRC committed to review and revise the GEIS on a 10-year cycle, if necessary. Since publication of 20 the GEIS, approximately 30 plant sites (50 reactor units) have applied for license renewal and undergone 21 environmental reviews, the results of which were published as supplements to the 1996 GEIS. This GEIS 22 revision reviews and reevaluates the issues and findings of the 1996 GEIS. Lessons learned and 23 knowledge gained during previous license renewal reviews provides a significant source of new 24 information for this assessment. In addition, new research, findings, and other information were 25 considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.
26 27 The intent of the GEIS is to determine which issues would result in the same impact at all nuclear power 28 plants, and which issues could result in different levels of impact at different plants and thus require a 29 plant-specific analysis for impact determinations. The GEIS is intended to improve the efficiency of the 30 license renewal process by (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may 31 occur as a result of renewing the license of a nuclear power plant, (2) identifying and assessing the 32 impacts that are expected to be generic (the same or similar), and (3) defining the number and scope of 33 impacts that need to be addressed in plant-specific EISs. The GEIS revision identifies 78 environmental 34 impact issues for consideration in plant-specific supplements to the GEIS.
35 36 In addition to the impacts of continued operations and refurbishment, the GEIS evaluates other 37 consequences of license renewal, including the environmental effects of postulated accidents and the 38 effects of an additional 20 years of operation on the impacts of shutdown and decommissioning and on 39 the uranium fuel cycle. The GEIS evaluates a full range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a 40 no-action alternative (denial of license renewal), fossil energy alternatives, nuclear energy alternatives, 41 renewable energy alternatives, conservation (demand-side management), and the purchase of power.
42 For most impact areas, the proposed action would have impacts that would be similar to or less than 43 impacts of the alternatives, in large part because most alternatives would require new power plant 44 construction, whereas the proposed action would not.
iii
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1
2 x Groundwater use conflicts for plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per 3 minute (gpm) (378 L/min) (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS);
4 5 x Groundwater use conflicts for plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm (378 L/min) 6 including those using Ranney wells (combination of two issues from the 1996 7 GEIS: (1) groundwater use conflicts for potable and service water and dewatering for 8 plants that use more than 100 gpm (378 L/min) and (2) groundwater use conflicts for 9 plants that use Ranney wells);
10 11 x Groundwater use conflicts for plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw 12 makeup water from a river (issue modified from the 1996 GEIS to include all rivers);
13 14 x Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals (combination of two 15 issues from the 1996 GEIS: (1) groundwater quality degradation for plants that use 16 Ranney wells and (2) groundwater quality degradation from saltwater intrusion);
17 18 x Groundwater quality degradation for plants using cooling ponds in salt marshes 19 (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS);
20 21 x Groundwater quality degradation for plants using cooling ponds at inland sites 22 (evaluated in the 1996 GEIS);
23 24 x Groundwater and soil contamination (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS); and 25 26 x Radionuclides released to groundwater (new issue not considered in the 1996 GEIS);
27 28 Impacts of Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities on Groundwater Use 29 and Quality 30 31 As mentioned in Section 3.5.2, the original construction of some plants required dewatering of a 32 shallow aquifer, and operational dewatering takes place at some plants. This is accomplished 33 by systems of pumping wells or drain tiles. Continued operations and refurbishment activities 34 during the license renewal term are not expected to require any significant dewatering that 35 would have an incremental effect over that which has already taken place. During continued 36 operations and refurbishment, any wastes or spills (e.g., fuels and paints) affecting groundwater 37 quality would be addressed in a manner consistent with best management practices, such as 38 using secondary containment for fuels and implementing spill prevention and control plans.
39 Soils contaminated by spills may need to be excavated for remediation before the chemicals 40 leach to the shallow groundwater.
41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-40 Juy 2009
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 use (NRC 2007b), and hydrocarbon spills and sulphuric acid leaks (NRC 2008b). These 2 situations have required regulatory involvement by State agencies during both monitoring and 3 remediation phases. Remediation has taken place in the form of excavation and recovery 4 wells. The number of occurrences of such problems can be minimized by means of proper 5 chemical storage, secondary containment, and leak detection equipment.
6 7 An additional source of groundwater contamination can be the use of wastewater lagoons. At 8 the Cook plant in Michigan, permitted wastewater ponds are used for receiving treated sanitary 9 wastewater and for process wastes from the turbine room sump. Groundwater monitoring has 10 shown that concentrations of water quality parameters have increased to levels above 11 background but below drinking water standards (NRC 2005a). As a result, in an arrangement 12 with the county, the use of groundwater by other users in a designated area has been 13 restricted.
14 15 Remediation of groundwater contamination can involve long-duration cleanup processes that 16 depend on the types, properties, and concentrations of the contaminants; aquifer properties; 17 groundwater flow field characteristics; and remedial objectives. Contaminants may be able to 18 migrate to onsite potable wells or to the wells of offsite groundwater users. Groundwater 19 monitoring programs would be expected to identify problems before contaminated groundwater 20 reached receptors; however, monitoring wells need to be present and in proper locations in 21 order to detect contaminants. On the basis of these considerations, the impact of groundwater 22 and soil contamination during operations and refurbishment activities could be small or 23 moderate, depending on the factors described above and is considered a Category 2 issue.
24 25 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater 26 27 There is growing concern about radionuclides detected in groundwater at nuclear power plants.
28 These releases have occurred as leaks in at least 14 plants (NRC 2006a). Tritium, being the 29 most mobile radionuclide in soil and groundwater, is of particular concern. Concentrations of 30 tritium in sampled onsite groundwater at many of these plants ranged well above the EPA 31 drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L. Examples include onsite monitoring well samples of up 32 to 250,000 pCi/L at the Braidwood plant in Illinois, up to 211,000 pCi/L at the Indian Point plant 33 in New York (NRC 2008c), up to 486,000 pCi/L at the Dresden plant in Illinois, more than 34 30,000 pCi/L at the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, and 71,400 pCi/L at the Palo Verde plant in 35 Arizona. Examples of samples taken either directly from the source of the leak or from nearby 36 onsite monitoring wells include samples with up to 200,000 pCi/L of tritium at the Callaway plant 37 in Missouri, up to 15,000,000 pCi/L at the Salem plant in New Jersey, and up to 750,000 pCi/L 38 at the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. At the Byron plant in Illinois, tritium in monitoring 39 wells was above the background level but below drinking water standards (up to 3800 pCi/L).
40 The location and construction of the monitoring wells relative to potential leak locations have NUREG-1437, Revision 1 4-46 Juy 2009
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 not been evaluated. For each example, it is possible that a different well placement could 2 detect higher or lower activity concentrations.
3 4 Other reported instances (NRC 2006a) of tritium above background levels have been a result of 5 operator error, licensed discharge, or leaks or discharges to drain systems. At the Oyster 6 Creek plant in New Jersey, a mistake involving a valve allowed tritium-contaminated water to 7 flow to the discharge canal. Sampling of this water showed levels of 16,000 pCi/L. At the Wolf 8 Creek plant in Kansas, an onsite lake receiving liquid effluent was found to have a tritium 9 activity concentration of 13,000 pCi/L (NRC 2008a). The Perry plant in Ohio had water samples 10 in its drainage system with an activity concentration of 60,000 pCi/L. In each of these cases, 11 the tritium present at the surface could infiltrate or seep into the groundwater system.
12 13 The NRC does not consider these tritium releases to be a health risk to the public or onsite 14 workers in any of these cases (NRC 2006a) because the tritiated groundwater is expected to 15 remain onsite. However, an exception is the event at Braidwood, which resulted in detectable 16 concentrations of tritium at an offsite location. Sampling of an offsite residential well at 17 Braidwood showed 1600 pCi/L of tritium which is above the background level but well below 18 EPAs drinking water standard. Risk to workers would arise if onsite wells were used for the 19 potable water system and if the leak was in the capture zone of the well. However, the NRC 20 requires that the onsite potable well water be monitored for radioactivity to protect the workers.
21 22 As discussed in Section 3.5.2, groundwater monitoring efforts are increasing in accordance with 23 industry guidelines (Nuclear Energy Institute 2007). With these monitoring networks, the 24 presence and extent of any tritium plumes (both onsite and offsite) will become clearer. These 25 new monitoring well networks are expected to provide information about any existing tritium 26 groundwater plumes and future system leaks by siting additional wells at key locations. Well 27 design and depth would be determined through a site-specific assessment of the hydrogeology 28 and the subsurface infrastructure. Because the leaks are typically underground, detection does 29 not occur promptly. In addition to monitoring wells, leak detection equipment or surveillance of 30 accessible piping and components containing radioactive materials would improve the chance 31 of discovery of a tritium leak before significant activity reached an aquifer.
32 33 On the basis of occurrences at several nuclear plants, the impact of radionuclide releases to 34 groundwater quality could be small or moderate, depending on the occurrence and frequency of 35 leaks and the ability to respond to leaks in a timely fashion. The issue is considered a 36 Category 2 issue.
37 38 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 39 40 Construction - Construction-related impacts on hydrology (land clearing during and impervious 41 pavements) would alter surface drainage patterns and groundwater recharge zones. Surface July 2009 4-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1
NUREG-1437, Volume 2 Revision 1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Appendices Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Table B-1. (cont.)
Related Issue(s) in Findings in Table B-1 Appendix B GEIS Revision Issue Findings in the GEIS Revision Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 of 10 CFR Part 51 Groundwater (cont.)
Groundwater and soil and subsoil. Contamination is contamination (cont.) subject to State- and U.S.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Environmental Protection Agency-regulated cleanup and monitoring programs.
Radionuclides released to Small or moderate impact Not addressed Not applicable groundwater (Category 2). Underground system leaks of process water have been discovered in recent years at several plants. Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power plants.
B-12 Terrestrial Resources Impacts of continued plant Small, moderate, or large impact Refurbishment impacts Small, moderate, or large operations on terrestrial (Category 2). Continued operations, (Category 2). Refurbishment ecosystems refurbishment, and maintenance impacts are insignificant if no activities are expected to keep loss of important plant and terrestrial communities in their current animal habitat occurs.
condition. Application of best However, it cannot be known management practices would reduce whether important plant and the potential for impacts. The animal communities may be magnitude of impacts would depend affected until the specific on the nature of the activity, the proposal is presented with the status of the resources that could be license renewal application.
affected, and the effectiveness of mitigation.
Exposure of terrestrial organisms Small impact (Category 1). Doses to Not addressed Not applicable to radionuclides terrestrial organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
July 2009