ML19227A246

Official Exhibit - NRC-018-MA-CM01 - Staff Presentation Slides - Environmental Panel (Aug. 2019)

ML19227A246
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: ML19227A246 (23)

Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)

Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05200047 Exhibit #: NRC-018-MA-CM01 Identified: 8/14/2019 Admitted: 8/14/2019 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket No. 52-047-ESP (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)

Hearing Exhibit Exhibit Number: NRC-018 Exhibit

Title:

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

• The staff prepares an EIS to meet requirements under NEPA and other laws 3

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 Solicited and

• Scoping period (60 days) from Reconciled Scoping April to June 2017; Scoping NRCs NEPA Process Comments meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN Conducted Technical

• Draft EIS published April 2018 Review Issued Draft EIS for

• Comment period on Draft EIS public / stakeholder from April to July 2018 (75 days);

comment meetings held in Kingston, TN Prepared Final EIS

• Considered and dispositioned comments in preparing final EIS Issued Final EIS

• Final EIS published April 2019 7

Alternatives

• Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternatives No Action Alternative Applicants Proposed Project Alternative Sites Purpose and Need Reasonable Alternative Energy Alternatives Sources*

• The applicant chose to defer the analysis of Alternative System Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed Designs 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) ORR Site 2 Candidate Areas ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)

Potential Sites ORR Site 8 Redstone Arsenal Candidate Sites 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 Atmospheric Science Radiation Protection Socioeconomics/

Environmental Justice Terrestrial Ecology Human Health Land Use Aquatic Ecology Postulated Accidents Archaeology/Cultural Resources Hydrology Alternative Sites / Fuel Cycle /

Alternative Systems Waste 13

Impacts on Resources - Small 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 NA SMALL decommissioning 14

Impacts on Resources -

Moderate And Large Resource Area Building Operation Indiana Bats Land use MODERATE SMALL Terrestrial Ecology MODERATE SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL to Physical impacts SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE (aesthetics) CRN Site SMALL (for all categories SMALL to Infrastructure and except traffic) and MODERATE community services MODERATE to LARGE (recreation)

(for traffic)

Historic and cultural MODERATE to LARGE SMALL resources Nonradiological health SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Forest on CRN Site 15

Historic and Cultural Resources

• Coordinated NHPA Section 106 consultation through the NEPA process

• 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