ML19219B323
| ML19219B323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 08/07/2019 |
| From: | NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 52-047-ESP, ASLBP 17-954-01-ESP-BD02, RAS 55148 | |
| Download: ML19219B323 (23) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)
Docket No. 52-047-ESP Hearing Exhibit Exhibit Number:
Exhibit
Title:
NRC-018 Staff Presentation Slides - Environmental Panel (Aug. 2019).
Early Site Permit Application Review Clinch River Nuclear Site Environmental Panel August 14, 2019
Panelists
- Tamsen Dozier - Environmental Project Manager
- Kenneth Erwin - Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch 2
Proposed Federal Action
- Issuance of an ESP
- Site suitability determination
- Provides for early resolution of issues
Project Description
- No specific design referenced - PPE
- Cooling water source is the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir
- Project objective considered in the environmental review 4
Proposed Clinch River Nuclear Site
- Not currently used for power generation
- Previously disturbed for Clinch River Breeder Reactor 5
Environmental Review
- US Army Corps of Engineers was a Cooperating Agency
- Environmental Review Team 6
Environmental Review Process NRCs NEPA Process Solicited and Reconciled Scoping Comments Conducted Technical Review Issued Draft EIS for public / stakeholder comment Prepared Final EIS Issued Final EIS Scoping period (60 days) from April to June 2017; Scoping meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN Draft EIS published April 2018 Comment period on Draft EIS from April to July 2018 (75 days);
meetings held in Kingston, TN Considered and dispositioned comments in preparing final EIS Final EIS published April 2019 7
Alternatives
- Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternatives Purpose and Need Applicants Proposed Project Reasonable Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative Sites Alternative Energy Sources*
Alternative System Designs
- The applicant chose to defer the analysis of Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed in ESP) as allowed by regulation.
8
No-Action Alternative
- The purpose and need for an ESP is early resolution of issues, further informed by the applicants purpose and need for the project
- There would be no environmental impacts associated with not issuing the ESP; however, this no-action alternative would not accomplish any of the intended benefits of the ESP process 9
Alternative Sites
- Process of identifying possible alternative sites Alternative Sites Region of Interest (e.g., service area)
Candidate Areas Potential Sites Candidate Sites ORR Site 2 ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)
ORR Site 8 Redstone Arsenal Site 12 10
Location of Candidate Areas and Alternative Sites ORR Sites 2, 3, and 8 Redstone Arsenal Site 12
Comparison of Alternative Sites
- Impacts at alternatives sites (i.e., Sites ORR 2, ORR 8, and Redstone Arsenal 12) were compared to CRN Site
- No alternative sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed CRN Site 12
Environmental Review Areas Radiation Protection Terrestrial Ecology Atmospheric Science Socioeconomics/
Environmental Justice Land Use Archaeology/Cultural Resources Hydrology Aquatic Ecology 13 Alternative Sites /
Alternative Systems Human Health Postulated Accidents Fuel Cycle /
Waste
Impacts on Resources - Small 14 Resource Area Building Operation Water-related Surface-water use and quality SMALL SMALL Groundwater use and quality SMALL SMALL Ecology (Aquatic)
SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic Demography SMALL SMALL Economic impacts SMALL (beneficial)
SMALL (beneficial)
Environmental justice NONE NONE Air quality SMALL SMALL Radiological health SMALL SMALL Nonradiological waste SMALL SMALL Postulated accidents NA SMALL Fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning NA SMALL
Impacts on Resources -
Moderate And Large Indiana Bats CRN Site 15 Resource Area Building Operation Land use MODERATE SMALL Terrestrial Ecology MODERATE SMALL Socioeconomic Physical impacts SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE (aesthetics)
Infrastructure and community services SMALL (for all categories except traffic) and MODERATE to LARGE (for traffic)
SMALL to MODERATE (recreation)
Historic and cultural resources MODERATE to LARGE SMALL Nonradiological health SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Forest on CRN Site
Historic and Cultural Resources
- Consulted with 20 American Indian Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 16
Historic and Cultural Resources (Cont.)
- Combined impact from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE to LARGE Impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL TVA has executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address its ongoing NHPA Section 106 responsibilities 17
Traffic
- TVA completed a traffic study
- During Construction:
LARGE adverse impacts on traffic for routes near the CRN Site without mitigation Reduced by planning and mitigation Mitigated impacts would still be MODERATE to LARGE 18
Cumulative Impacts
- Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions
- No change to most impact areas from cumulative analysis
- Some resource impacts increased due to past activities 19
Future NEPA Analyses
- If a future application references the ESP, the supplemental EIS for that future application would address:
Issues deferred from or not resolved in the ESP New and significant information 20
Conclusions
- Environmental impacts for most resource areas would be small
- None of the reasonable alternatives were environmentally preferable 21
Recommendation The staffs assessments documented in the final EIS support a recommendation to the Commission to issue the early site permit.
22