ML18212A032
| ML18212A032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/2018 |
| From: | William Burton NRC/NRR/DMLR/MRPB |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 |
| Burton W, NRR-DMLR 415-6332 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18211A584 | List: |
| References | |
| CAC MD5407, CAC MD5408 | |
| Download: ML18212A032 (13) | |
Text
RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-247 AND 50-286 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 BACKGROUND:
By letter dated April 23, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071210512), as supplemented by letters dated May 3, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071280700), and June 21, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071800318), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or applicant) filed, pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Part 54 Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, a license renewal application (LRA) requesting renewed operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). The renewed operating licenses would authorize the applicant to operate IP2 and IP3 through April 30, 2024, and April 30, 2025, respectively.
IP2 and IP3 are located in the village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, NY. Both IP2 and IP3 use a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor design with a dry ambient containment.
IP2 and IP3 currently use once-through cooling-water systems that withdraw water from and discharge water to the Hudson River. The licensed power output of each unit is 3216 megawatts thermal with a gross electrical output of approximately 1080 megawatts electric (MWe). IP2 received its operating license, DPR-26, in September 1973 and began commercial operation in August 1974. IP3 received its operating license, DPR-64, in December 1975 and began commercial operation in August 1976. The current IP2 and IP3 operating licenses expired on September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, respectively, but Entergy continues to operate both units under the NRCs timely renewal provision, which is explained in the Timely Renewal section on the next page.
On August 10, 2007, as required by 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC published a notice of intent in the Federal Register (72 FR 45075) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and conduct the scoping process for IP2 and IP3. Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement in advance of making a decision on major Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As required by 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC prepares an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for all renewed reactor operating licenses, regardless of the actions environmental impact significance (10 CFR 51.20(b)(2)). In this instance, the NRCs major Federal action is to decide whether to issue renewed operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, authorizing operation through April 30, 2024, and April 30, 2025, respectively.
The NRC staff notified and asked Federal, State, and local agencies as well as Tribal governments to participate in the environmental review and provide comments. In addition, on
September 9, 2007, the NRC held two public meetings in the town of Cortlandt Manor, NY, approximately 5 miles from Indian Point, to obtain public input on the proper scope of the environmental review related to the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application. The NRC issued a scoping summary report on December 12, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083360115).
To document its environmental review of a license renewal application, the NRC staff prepares a site-specific supplemental EIS (SEIS) to publish as a supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (commonly referred to as the GEIS), in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), Operating License Renewal Stage. The GEIS documents the NRCs systematic approach to evaluating the environmental consequences of issuing renewed operating licenses to nuclear power reactors for operation for an additional 20 years.
Timely Renewal Although the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 were set to expire on September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, respectively, the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 2.109, Effect of Timely Renewal Application, allows Entergy to continue to operate IP2 and IP3 under their existing licenses. The regulations at 10 CFR 2.109 implement Section 558 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.), which states that [w]hen the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal of a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency. Under 10 CFR 2.109(b), an application for renewal is considered timely if the applicant files a sufficient request for a renewed operating license at least 5 years before the expiration of its current license. Entergy submitted its application for renewed licenseswhich the NRC found sufficient for docketingmore than 5 years before the expiration of the IP2 and IP3 licenses, thereby allowing it to continue operating IP2 and IP3 under their existing licenses until the NRC reaches a decision on the license renewal request.
Indian Point Closure Agreement On January 8, 2017, as a result of negotiations resulting from legal proceedings between the parties representing Entergy and the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. (a clean water advocacy group for the Hudson River), the parties reached an agreement to, among other things, terminate all pending litigation and to close IP2 and IP3 no later than 2024 and 2025, respectively. In accordance with the terms of the closure agreement, on February 8, 2017, the parties filed a motion with the NRCs Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to dismiss the remaining contentions. The ASLB subsequently issued an Order on March 13, 2017, granting the motion to dismiss the remaining contentions and to terminate the proceedings. Although the closure agreement calls for early shutdown of the units, the shortened periods of extended operation do not affect any of the conclusions in the NRC staffs safety and environmental reviews with one exception: because of a 2016 release of radionuclides into the groundwater, a shorter license renewal period (i.e., shorter than the 20 years of extended operation requested in the original license renewal application) leaves less time for the processes of natural attenuation to remove onsite radionuclide contamination from the groundwater while the plant is operating. The licensee will address any remaining groundwater restoration after plant operations have ceased.
Revised License Renewal Term and Associated Revisions to the Proposed Action In the LRA, Entergy requested a 20-year extension of the current operating licenses to midnight September 28, 2033, for IP2, and to midnight December 12, 2035, for IP3. However, as a result of the January 8, 2017 closure agreement between Entergy and the State of New York and Riverkeeper, as discussed above, Entergy agreed to the early closure of IP2 by April 30, 2024, and IP3 by April 30, 2025.
On February 8, 2017, Entergy submitted to the NRC an amendment to the LRA reflecting the shortened license renewal terms for IP2 and IP3 in accordance with the closure agreement.
The amendment revised several sections of the application, including LRA Section 1, Administrative Information, and Section 1.2, Plant Description. The applicant revised these sections to state that it was currently operating the units under the timely renewal provision as discussed above. Entergy also revised LRA Section 1 to change the shutdown dates to April 30, 2024 for IP2, and to April 30, 2025, for IP3. If the NRC issues them, the renewed licenses would authorize Entergy to operate IP2 to April 30, 2024, and IP3 to April 30, 2025.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement As discussed earlier, the GEIS facilitates the NRCs environmental review process by identifying and evaluating environmental impacts that are considered generic (Category 1) issues, which are common to all nuclear power plants. For Category 1 issues, no additional site-specific analysis is required in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified that would change the conclusions in the GEIS. Plant-specific issues (Category 2) are addressed in the SEISs. Generic impacts are reconsidered in the SEISs only if there is new and significant information that would change the conclusions in the GEIS for that specific nuclear plant.
The NRC established a standard of significance for each NEPA issue evaluated in the GEIS based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations on how to evaluate significance (as described in Title 40, Protection of the Environment, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Section 1508.27, Significantly). The term significantly, as used in NEPA, requires consideration of both of the following:
- 1) Contextas in the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur.
- 2) Intensitywhich refers to the severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs.
Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the staff considers both context and intensity as defined at 40 CFR 1508.27. Based on this, the NRC established a three-level standard of significance for potential impacts - SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, as defined below.
SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
Entergy submitted its LRA and environmental report under the NRCs 1996 rule governing license renewal environmental reviews,1 as codified in the NRCs environmental protection regulation, 10 CFR Part 51. The 1996 GEIS2 and Addendum 1 to the GEIS3 provided the technical bases for the list of NEPA issues and associated environmental impact findings for license renewal that were contained in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
Therefore, for IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff initiated its environmental review in accordance with the 1996 rule and GEIS. Neither Entergy nor the NRC staff identified information that is both new and significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the 1996 GEIS. This conclusion was supported by the NRC staffs review of Entergys environmental report and other documentation relevant to Entergys activities; consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and the draft SEIS comment period; consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies as well as Tribal representatives; and the findings from the NRC staffs environmental site audit.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement On December 31, 2008, the NRC staff issued for public comment a draft site-specific SEIS (ADAMS Accession No. ML083540594 for Volume 1 and ML083540614 for Volume 2). A comment period began on the date of the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Federal Register Notice of Availability of the filing of the draft SEIS (73 FR 80440) and ended on March 18, 2009. The SEIS comment period allowed members of the public, governmental agencies, and other organizations and stakeholders to comment on the results of the environmental review described in the draft SEIS. On February 12, 2009, the NRC staff held a public meeting in Cortlandt Manor, NY, to describe the results of the staffs environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments.
The NRC staff documented the results of its environmental review in a final SEIS (FSEIS) published as NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report, in five volumes. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volumes 1 through 3 were published on December 3, 2010 (ADAMS Accession Package No. ML103270072); Volume 4 was published on June 30, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13162A616); and Volume 5 was published on April 30, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18107A759). In the 2010 FSEIS (Volumes 1-3), the NRC staff recommended that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
1 61 FR 28467. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. Federal Register 61 (109): 28467-28497. June 5, 1996.
2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Washington, DC. NUREG-1437. May 1996. ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML040690705 and ML040690738.
3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1999. Section 6.3-Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants. In: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Washington, DC. NRC. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. August 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720.
Volume 4 to the FESIS updated the staffs final analysis of aquatic impacts to include corrections to impingement and entrainment data presented in the FSEIS, and to revise conclusions on thermal impacts based on newly available thermal plume studies. The Supplement also provided an update on the status of the NRCs consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, regarding the shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon.
Also in June 2013, the NRC issued an update to the 1996 GEIS4 and the license renewal provisions in 10 CFR Part 51.5 The NRC staff then reevaluated its previous environmental findings related to IP2 and IP3 license renewal, in accordance with the 2013 revision of the GEIS, NUREG-1437, Rev. 1, and the revised regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and Appendix B thereto, and evaluated new information of which it became aware since publication of its previous FSEIS supplement.6 Volume 5 of the FSEIS discusses the results of its reevaluation of its previous environmental findings in light of the 2013 GEIS and revised regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, and addressed the new information of which it had become aware. The NRC staff then reaffirmed the recommendation it had made in the 2010 SEIS (Volumes 1-3), recommending that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental effects of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
On June 8, 2018, the EPA issued the notice of availability for Volume 5 of the FSEIS regarding the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application (83 FR 26665-26666). During the 30 days following publication of the notice, the NRC received no comments on the FSEIS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102, Requirement to Provide a Record of Decision; Preparation, and 10 CFR 51.103(a)(1)-(5), the NRC staff has prepared this concise public Record of Decision (ROD) to document its action on the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c), this ROD incorporates by reference the materials contained in the FSEIS.
DECISION:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, Standards for Issuance of a Renewed License, a renewed license may be issued by the Commission if the Commission finds that the license renewal application satisfies the requirements in 10 CFR Part 54, and the applicable requirements of Subpart A, 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Rev. 1, Vols. 1-3 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13106A241, ML13106A242, and ML13106A244). June 2013.
5 78 FR 37281. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Rule, Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. Federal Register 78 Fed. Reg. 37,281.
June 20, 2013.
6 The 1996 GEIS identified 92 license renewal environmental issues, of which 69 were determined to be generic (i.e., Category 1), 21 were determined to be plant-specific (i.e., Category 2), and two did not fit into either category (i.e., uncategorized). The 2013 revision to the GEIS modified this list, identifying 78 environmental impact issues for license renewal, of which 59 were determined to be generic for all sites, 2 are uncategorized, and 17 are site-specific Category 2 issues. NUREG-1437, Rev. 1, Vol. 1, at 1-36.
The findings of the environmental impact analyses conducted for the GEIS (as revised in 2013) are listed in Table B-1 of Appendix B, which lists each issue and its category level.
National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied.
This ROD and the FSEIS (Volumes 1-5), which is incorporated by reference herein, document the NRCs final decision for the environmental review of the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).
In making its final decision on the proposed Federal action to authorize the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 through April 2024 and April 2025, respectively, the NRC must make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the NRCs safety review of an LRA is to determine if the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect any safety structures or components as specified in 10 CFR 54.4, Scope, and 10 CFR 54.21.
Contents of ApplicationTechnical Information. The applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions of systems, structures and components within the scope of license renewal will be maintained in accordance with the plants current licensing basis throughout the license renewal period.
The staff documented the results of its safety review in Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, issued August 11, 2009 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML092240268). On November 30, 2009, the report Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 was published as NUREG-1930 Volume 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093170451) and Volume 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093170671). On August 31, 2011, the staff published Supplement 1 to NUREG-1930 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11242A215). Supplement 1 documents the NRC staffs review of supplemental information provided by the applicant since the issuance of NUREG-1930, including annual updates required by 10 CFR 54.21(b), and updated information and commitments in response to NRC staff requests for additional information. On July 31, 2015, the NRC staff published Supplement 2 to NUREG-1930 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15188A383). Supplement 2 documents the NRC staff's review of supplemental information provided by the applicant since the issuance of Supplement 1, including information committed to by Entergy as documented in Commitment No. 30 (pertaining to reactor vessel internals), annual updates required by 10 CFR 54.21(b), updated information and commitments, as well as information provided in response to NRC staff requests for additional information. On August 1, 2018, the NRC staff issued Supplement 3 to the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML18200A333). Supplement 3 documents the NRC staff's review of supplemental information provided by the applicant since the issuance of Supplement 2, including annual updates required by 10 CFR 54.21(b), updated information to address new or updated interim staff guidance, and recent operating experience.
Further, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) conducts a review and issues a report in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, with respect to the application for renewal of the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses.
The ACRS completed its review of the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application during its 565th meeting, held September 10-12, 2009, and documented its findings recommending renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 licenses in a letter to the Commission dated September 23, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092590684). The NRC staff provided copies of its SER supplements to the ACRS following issuance, and received no comments from the ACRS on those supplements. The NRC staff has determined that it is not aware of any information which would warrant changes to the ACRS conclusion as a result of the staffs subsequent reviews and issuance of the three SER supplements (see staff letter to the ACRS in ADAMS Accession No. ML18211A484).
PURPOSE AND NEED:
As identified in Section 1.2, Purpose and Need for Proposed Federal Action, of the FSEIS, the purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of renewed licenses) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current IP2 and IP3 operating licenses to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by energy-planning decisionmakers, such as States, utilities, and, where authorized, Federal agencies (other than the NRC). This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the AEA or findings in the NEPA environmental evaluation that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in deciding whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
Ultimately, the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers and the applicant will decide whether the plant will continue to operate, based on the need for power as well as on other factors within the States jurisdiction or under the purview of the owners.
NRC EVALUATON OF ALTERNATIVES:
In its license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e., renewing the operating licenses), the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating licenses), and the environmental consequences of various alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the NRCs regulations require the NRC to consider alternatives to the proposed action in the EIS. In this case, the proposed action is the issuance of renewed operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, which will authorize the applicant to operate the units for an additional period beyond the expiration date of the current licenses.
Chapter 8, Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal, of Volume 1 of the FSEIS (ADAMS Accession No. 103350405), presents the NRC staffs evaluation and analysis of alternatives to license renewal.
- i. No-Action Alternative The No-Action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC denies the renewed operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, and continued operation of IP2 and IP3 under the timely renewal doctrine would stop. The environmental consequences of this alternative are the direct impacts from nuclear power plant shutdown. After shutdown, the nuclear plant operators will initiate decommissioning in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82 Termination of License. As described in Chapter 7 of the 2010 FSEIS, the separate environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities are addressed in several other NRC documents.
Assuming that a need currently exists for the power generated by IP2 and IP3, the no-action alternative would require the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers (not the NRC) to rely on alternatives to replace the power-generating capacity of IP2 and IP3, to rely on energy conservation or power purchases to offset the plants generating capacity, or to rely on some combination of measures to offset and replace the generation provided by IP2 and IP3.
Therefore, the no-action alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for the FSEIS, as it neither provides power-generation capacity nor meets the needs that IP2 and IP3 currently fulfill or that the alternatives evaluated in detail would satisfy.
ii. Alternative Cooling-Water Systems and Energy Sources In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the NRC considered (a) alternatives to the existing IP2 and IP3 cooling-water systems and (b) alternative energy sources. For alternative energy sources, the NRC considered energy technologies or options currently in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current IP2 and IP3 operating licenses were due to expire. The current operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 expired on September 9, 2013, and December 12, 2015, respectively. Therefore, to be considered in this evaluation, reasonable alternatives had to be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by such times.
To determine whether alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be commercially suitable to replace IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff reviewed energy-relevant statutes, regulations, and policies; the state of technologies; and information on energy outlook from sources such as the Energy Information Administration, other organizations within the U.S. Department of Energy, industry sources and publications, and information submitted by Entergy in its environmental report.
The NRC staff also considered combination alternatives (i.e., energy combination of (a) conservation and (b) power generation technologies such as nuclear, natural gas combined cycle, wind, biomass, hydro power, and landfill gas).
In the FSEIS, as supplemented, the NRC staff considered 18 energy source alternatives to the license renewal of IP2 and IP3. The staff eliminated 13 of the energy source alternatives from detailed study because of technical, resource availability, or commercial limitations that existed when the IP2 and IP3 original operating licenses were set to expire (in 2013 and 2015, respectively) and which rendered these alternatives not feasible or commercially viable at that time. The NRC staff also considered the no-action alternative and its effects. The NRC staff considered, but then ultimately dismissed from detailed study, the following energy source alternatives:
wind power, wood and wood waste, hydropower, oil-fired generation, solar power, new nuclear generation, geothermal energy, municipal solid waste, other biomass derived fuels, fuel cells, delayed retirement, combined heat and power, supercritical coal-fired generation.
Each alternative that the staff eliminated from detailed study and the basis for its removal is provided in Section 8.3.4, Alternatives Dismissed from Individual Consideration, of the FSEIS.
The NRC staff determined that five alternatives would be feasible and commercially viable replacement power alternatives, including:
- natural-gas-fired combined-cycle alternative (NGCC),
- purchased electric power,
- conservation,
- combination alternative 1: license renewal of either IP2 or IP3, wind power, hydropower, biomass fuels, landfill-gas fuels, and conservation, and
- combination alternative 2: fossil powered (combined-cycle), wind power, biomass fuels, hydropower, landfill-gas fuels, and conservation.
For these five alternatives considered in depth, the NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts across the following impact categories: land use, ecology, water use and quality, air quality, waste, human health, socioeconomic, socioeconomic (transportation), aesthetics, historic and archeological resources, and environmental justice. This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives considered in depth, and compares those impacts to the environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal action.
Separately, in Section 8.1 of Volume 1 of the FSEIS, the NRC staff also considered two cooling-water system alternatives in the form of (a) a closed-cycle cooling option for continued operation of IP2 and IP3 and (b) an alternative of a modified existing once-through cooling system of IP2 and IP3, with restoration measures within the Hudson River estuary. The alternative of closed-cycle cooling was evaluated in detail in Section 8.1.1 of the FSEIS. The option of modified existing once-through cooling system with restoration measures was eliminated from detailed study based on comments received on the draft SEIS. Entergy commented that Entergy or its predecessors have in the past proposed the cooling options of restoration measures in this alternative and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has rejected these options.
For a closed-cycle cooling option, Land Use has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Aquatic Ecology has an impact of SMALL; Terrestrial Ecology has impacts of SMALL to MODERATE; Water Use and Quality have an impact of SMALL; Air Quality has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Waste has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Human Health has an impact of SMALL; Socioeconomics has an impact of SMALL; Transportation has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Aesthetics has impacts of MODERATE to LARGE; Historical and Archeological Resources have impacts of SMALL to MODERATE; and Environmental Justice has an impact of SMALL.
Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle (NGCC) Alternative The NRC staff evaluated the construction and operation of an NGCC alternative with five units having a capacity of 400 MWe per unit. The NRC staff assumed the NGCC combined-cycle units would use a closed-cycle cooling system (i.e., cooling tower). Compared to simple-cycle combustion turbines, combined-cycle plants are significantly more efficient, and thus provide electricity at lower costs. They also use less water for condenser cooling.
Approximately 220 acres (90 hectares) of land would be needed to support a new NGCC plant to replace the IP2 and IP3 reactors or an NGCC facility at an alternate location. Additional direct land use impacts would include onsite and offsite construction or upgrade of a gas pipeline and transmission lines. The staff determined that the impacts to most resource areas would be SMALL, except in the resource areas of land use, air quality, socioeconomics, transportation, historical and archaeological resources, and environmental justice. Land use impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE due to needed plant constructions, or pipeline and transmission lines constructions, or both. Air quality impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE due to noticeable air pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions associated with the operation of an NGCC facility. Transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE based on traffic-related transportation impacts from workers commuting to the site as well as the delivery of construction materials and equipment. Historical and archaeological resources impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE during construction due to a high potential for additional archaeological sites and resource materials to be discovered at the site. Environmental justice impacts would be SMALL to LARGE depending on population distribution and location of a new NGCC plant site.
Purchased Electric Power Regarding the purchased electric power alternative to replace the output of IP2 and IP3, the FSEIS assumed State power regulators would require load-serving entities (LSEs), or power buyers, to purchase enough generating capacity to meet projected needs plus a reserve margin.
The New York Independent System Operator predicted that up to 1,600 MWe from new projects not yet under construction would be needed by 2010 and a total of up to 3,300 MWe would be needed by 2015 (National Research Council 2006). Purchased power is a reasonable alternative, as listed in the FSEIS, for the following reasons:
- A New York State electricity market currently exists within the New York Control Area (NYCA) that could supply purchased power.
- State power regulators would implement rules to anticipate and meet electricity demands.
- LSEs, would purchase additional power from other sources, which could include new fossil-fueled sources or renewable energy sources, or purchase additional power from existing sources outside the New York Control Area.
The impacts associated with purchased power are bounded by the impacts of the purchased energy mix. Construction impacts would be similar to those described in the analyses for the NGCC and combination alternatives, respectively. For example, impacts to (a) aquatic and terrestrial resources and (b) historical and cultural resources are likely to be greater due to land clearing of previously undisturbed areas associated with construction. For operation, impacts of existing natural gas-fired plants would likely be greater than the operations of new plants because older plants are likely to be less efficient and lack modern emission controls.
Conservation Regarding the conservation alternative to replace at least part of the output of IP2 and IP3, given New York States aggressive efforts in energy efficiency, as amplified by comments received on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff, as listed in the FSEIS, considered energy conservation/energy efficiency as a reasonable alternative. The staff also included energy conservation in the combination alternatives.
Regarding impacts associated with the conservation alternative, the NRC staff adopts the analyses from NUREG-1437, Supplements 33 (regarding Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 license renewal) and Supplement 37 (regarding Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 license renewal). The analyses in these two SEISs indicate that all impacts from conservation are SMALL. The NRC staff adopted the analyses from those SEISs for consideration, insofar as they identified the impacts from conservation as an alternative. The NRC staff also notes that loss of tax and Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) revenue paid to municipalities near IP2 and IP3, as well as lost jobs, may result in SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, which will not be offset by conservation.
Combination Alternative 1 with Continued Operation of Either IP2 or IP3 For the combination alternative 1, the NRC staff evaluated a combination of replacement power technologies, including the continued operation of either IP2 or IP3 and a mix (600 MWe) of wind power, hydropower, biomass fuels, landfill-gas fuels; and conservation, also known as demand-side management (600 MWe).
Land use has impacts of SMALL to MODERATE; Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology have impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Water Use and Quality have impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Air Quality has impacts of SMALL to MODERATE; Waste has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Socioeconomics has an impact of SMALL; Socioeconomics (transportation) has an impact of MODERATE; Aesthetics has impacts of SMALL to LARGE; Historical and Archeological Resources have impacts of SMALL to MODERATE; and Environmental Justice has impacts of SMALL to LARGE. Section 8.3.5.1 of the 2010 FSEIS contains a full discussion of Combination Alternative 1.
Combination Alternative 2 Without Continued Operation of IP2 or IP3 For the combination alternative 2, the NRC staff evaluated a combination of replacement power technologies including NGCC (400 MWe to 600 MWe) and a mix (600 MWe) of wind power, hydropower, biomass fuels, landfill-gas fuels, and conservation also known as demand-side management (1,000 MWe to 2,000 MWe). The impacts are the same as combination alternative 1 except for socioeconomics. Socioeconomics has impacts of SMALL to MODERATE primarily due to significant loss in revenues from the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) payments and the loss of IP2 and IP3 jobs. Section 8.3.5.2 of the 2010 FSEIS contains a full discussion of Combination Alternative 2.
iii. Summary In the FSEIS, as supplemented, the NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with license renewal and the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal, including other methods of power generation, the environmental impacts of not renewing the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses (the no-action alternative), and the environmental impacts of continued operation with cooling towers instead of the current once-through cooling system. The FSEIS concludes that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 during the license renewal term would have SMALL environmental impacts, except in the areas of aquatic resources (impingement and entrainment) and water resources (water quality), which have MODERATE impacts. The FSEIS concludes that the overall environmental impacts of renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 would either be smaller than or similar to those of the feasible and commercially viable replacement power alternatives that were considered. The FSEIS also concludes that under the no-action alternative, the act of shutting down IP2 and IP3 would have mostly SMALL impacts, although socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. However, the no action alternative shutdown would necessitate the implementation of one or a combination of alternatives in order to make up for the loss of power generation. Each of these alternatives or combination of alternatives have potentially greater impacts than the proposed action. In the FSEIS, there is no clear, environmentally preferred alternative, as all alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by IP2 and IP3 entail impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action, including the impacts associated with the use of cooling towers.
Updated Status of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation In conjunction with its review of the license renewal application, the NRC staff conducted consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, with the NMFS. In addition to the consultations described in the FSEIS, as supplemented, the NRC reinitiated consultation with the NMFS by letter dated November 27, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17306A100). The NRCs reinitiation letter requested that the NMFS revise the Incidental Take Statement for IP2 and IP3 contained in the January 30, 2013, biological opinion (ADAMS Accession No. ML13032A256) to reflect current information concerning the early retirements of IP2 and IP3; the current condition of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 trash racks; and monitoring plans for the various components of the IP2 and IP3 cooling water intake structures. The NRCs letter also requested the NMFSs concurrence with the NRC staffs not likely to adversely affect determination for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) critical habitat.
Consultation between the NRC and the NMFS continued until the NMFS issued a revised Incidental Take Statement on February 9, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18051A316). The revised Incidental Take Statement reflects the best available information to identify the incidental take of shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon that is reasonably certain to occur during the proposed IP2 and IP3 license renewal term. The revised Incidental Take Statement also includes Reasonable and Prudent Measures that the NMFS has determined to be necessary or appropriate to minimize the amount or extent of incidental take and associated Terms and Conditions, which are non-discretionary and implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
Regarding Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, the NMFSs February 9, 2018, letter transmitting the revised Incidental Take Statement concludes that for the purposes of ESA Section 7(a)(2),
effects of the action would be insignificant and discountable and are, therefore, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat designated for the New York Bight Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic sturgeon.
In the period since the NRC concluded its consultation with the NMFS, the staff has not identified any new information that would necessitate further consultation. Thus, the NRC has fulfilled its obligations under Section 7 of the ESA for the IP2 and IP3 license renewal.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON THE FSEIS AND EMERGING INFORMATION:
On June 8, 2018, the EPA issued a notice of availability (83 FR 26665-26666) of Volume 5 of the FSEIS for IP2 and IP3. During the 30 days following publication of the notice, the NRC received no comments on the FSEIS.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the proposed license renewal action. The FSEIS, as supplemented, concludes that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resources areas, with three exceptions: entrainment, impingement, and water quality. Overall effects from entrainment and impingement are likely to be MODERATE. The authority to require mitigation of such impacts is exercised by other regulatory agencies and is not within the NRCs jurisdiction. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), Entergy has separately considered mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts with a combination of options, as described in Chapter 8 of the 2010 FSEIS. For water quality, a shorter license renewal period (i.e., shorter than the 20 years of extended operation requested in the LRA) leaves less time for the processes of natural attenuation to remove onsite radionuclide contamination from the groundwater while the plants are operating. Therefore, this will likely have a MODERATE impact throughout the period of extended operation. Any remaining groundwater restoration will be addressed after plant operations have ceased. This is a separate activity from the license renewal of IP2 and IP3.
The NRC is not imposing any license conditions beyond the standard conditions for renewed licenses (i.e., that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Supplement will be updated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e) to reflect the revisions and commitments associated with renewal of the licenses, and that the UFSAR Supplement describes the programs and activities to be implemented prior to the period of extended operation). However, IP2 and IP3 are subject to requirements imposed by other Federal, State, and local agencies.
In addition, Appendix B to the IP2 and IP3 licenses require that Entergy adhere to the requirements within the Incidental Take Statement of the currently applicable Biological Opinion, and changes to the Biological Opinion, including the Incidental Take Statement, Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions contained therein, must be preceded by consultation between the NRC and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
DETERMINATION:
Based on the NRC staffs independent review, analysis, and evaluation as documented in the license renewal FSEIS; careful consideration of all of the identified social, economic, and environmental factors, and input received from other agencies, organizations, and the public; and consideration of mitigation measures outlined above, the NRC has determined that the standards for issuance of a renewed operating license with respect to environmental matters, as described in 10 CFR 54.29(b), have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA have been satisfied, consistent with 10 CFR 51.103, Record of Decision.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 17th day of September 2018, For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
George A. Wilson Jr., Director Division of Materials and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation